Journeys With George (2002)

Tobias Peterson

Bush is many things to many people: a tyrant, a savior, a great guy, a shyster, a man of the people, and a moneyed elitist.

Journeys With George

Director: Aaron Lubarsky
Display Artist: Alexandra Pelosi, Aaron Lubarsky
MPAA rating: Unrated
Studio: HBO Pictures
Cast: George Bush, Alexandra Pelosi
First date: 2002
US Release Date: 2003-03-14 (Limited release)

Depending on whom you ask these days, he's either a war mongering tyrant or a freedom-loving hero. As protests for and against the U.S.-led war in Iraq rage around the globe, there's little middle ground when it comes to discussions about George Bush. For Bush's part, it's clear how he'd like to be seen (evildoers beware), but his public statements give little insight into how personally invested he is in his self-described altruistic attempts to rid the world of a "ruthless dictator."

In fact, Bush's brief addresses during this crisis so far have consistently carried the same impersonal tone and delivery, making them utterly predictable and not at all revealing. Like the rhetoric of many politicians, his prepared statements -- even in a time of war -- give no insight into the "real" George Bush.

Whether or not the "real" Bush is something the public wants, or even needs, to see, is another question. Such is the premise, however, of Alexandra Pelosi's documentary Journeys With George. The film is a video travelogue that follows the pre-9/11, pre-war ex-governor of Texas on his circuitous, but eventually successful bid to become President. Pelosi, the daughter of ranking House Democrat Nancy Pelosi, worked as a member of the press corps during the filming. The result follows Bush's wrangling in the primaries with John McCain and continuing all the way through to his legal battles in the Supreme Court against Al Gore, organized as her experiences with Bush, overdubbing the action with her own meditations on the role of the press in politics.

Introducing the film's premiere at the 2002 South by Southwest Film Festival, Pelosi downplayed such weighty considerations, however, calling the film "a home movie." And, to be sure, the film hardly appears a hard-hitting political commentary. Its main draw is its behind-the-scenes "access," a glimpse of the man behind the podium, unscripted and unpolished. Many moments in the film shoot for this angle, as the precocious Pelosi approaches Bush less like a reporter interviewing a political candidate and more like she's only recording their joint road trip. One exchange has Pelosi asking Bush, "If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?" To which he replies, "I'm not, I'm a Bush."

These sorts of encounters show a relaxed, jovial, at times even goofy Bush, as he mugs for the camera and flirts with Pelosi. One scene shows him literally wooing her vote, as Bush sits next to her on the plane, holding her hand in his, as Pelosi attempts to fill out her official absentee ballot. (We later learn that her choice is Bill Bradley.)

The reality, however, is that even these impromptu scenes are highly crafted. To be a politician is to always be "on." Whether it's a coliseum full of steel workers or a reporter on the press plane, Bush's primary and ongoing job is to sell Bush. Much to his credit, he does so with a great deal of skill. Through Pelosi's lens, the candidate comes off as laid-back, charming, and funny. Watching the film, one could easily see why Bush has done so well in politics with such polished "people skills."

But then, we realize that this, too, is a put on. The film reminds us of this and raises key questions about journalistic objectivity and integrity in a press corps. When Bush snubs Pelosi after she asks him at a press conference about his execution record as Texas governor, she wonders out loud, "Who am I working for?", questioning the quid-pro-quo game that reporters are expected to play, in order to gain access to politicians.

By way of illustration, Pelosi's polite behavior (i.e., non-controversial questions) during press conferences is rewarded by personal visits from Bush on the press plane. But her execution question causes him to walk right past her in a huff. If Pelosi, or her audience, believed Bush was speaking with her simply because he's a nice guy, these kinds of exchanges disabuse both of such a notion. The film illustrates that the world of politics eventually boils down to a constant game of give and take, sell and buy.

Journeys With George importantly exposes the politics that govern the interaction between Bush and the press, the unspoken rules of engagement that prevent journalists from assuming a truly unbiased stance. If Pelosi can fall for Bush's charm, the film suggests, so can any reporter looking to present a "balanced" account of the man and his ideas.

In this time of war, the extension can easily be made from this relationship between Bush and the reporters to the relationship between Bush and "the American people." Unlike in the film, where candidate Bush relies on his political wiles to project an image, the President now has a vast propaganda machine at his disposal. Recently a bootleg tape has appeared on the Internet, showing a TV news program cutting to Bush too early before he made his televised announcement declaring war on Iraq. Here, viewers are treated to a picture of Bush, seated at his desk and having his hair tended to by a stylist in the minutes before he was scheduled to go live.

This too is the face of war. Bush's grave and determined image, projected during his speech, is precisely that, a face he must literally apply (or have applied) for a desired effect. Journeys With George points out that whether he's wooing Pelosi, her colleagues, or the nation at large, Bush must first and foremost tell them what they want to hear. If the film can't exactly answer the question, "Who is George Bush?", it does point out that there is no definitive version. Instead, Bush is many things to many people: a tyrant, a savior, a great guy, a shyster, a man of the people, and a moneyed elitist. In short, he's a politician.

The year in song reflected the state of the world around us. Here are the 70 songs that spoke to us this year.

70. The Horrors - "Machine"

On their fifth album V, the Horrors expand on the bright, psychedelic territory they explored with Luminous, anchoring the ten new tracks with retro synths and guitar fuzz freakouts. "Machine" is the delicious outlier and the most vitriolic cut on the record, with Faris Badwan belting out accusations to the song's subject, who may even be us. The concept of alienation is nothing new, but here the Brits incorporate a beautiful metaphor of an insect trapped in amber as an illustration of the human caught within modernity. Whether our trappings are technological, psychological, or something else entirely makes the statement all the more chilling. - Tristan Kneschke

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.