No one could describe Oliver Stone as Hollywood's most consistent filmmaker, but few would disagree that he's been one of its most fascinating: The Vietnam war, the Kennedy assassination, Richard Nixon and now, George W Bush.

Returning to the emirate this year with W., last night's opening gala at the fifth Dubai International Film Festival is testament that Stone has long been drawn to hot-potato subjects, and his coruscating approach has rarely failed to stir up controversy.

This was probably also one of the reasons why the director was honoured in 2006 with the DIFF Salutes award in recognition of his lifetime achievements. A Vietnam veteran, Stone's film career began with a brace of typically no-holds-barred scripts – for Alan Parker's Midnight Express in 1978, and for Brian de Palma's manic Scarface in 1983, which defined Al Pacino's place in Hollywood.

Stone's arrival was really signalled, though, with his directorial debut in 1986. Screened at DIFF in 2006, Salvador was an intense and passionate condemnation of then US foreign policy, which stirred up a predictable hornet's nest. That same year he released the similarly uncompromising Platoon, which mined his own experiences in Vietnam and won a Best Picture Oscar.

Since then, there have been multiple marriages, a well-documented fondness for drugs and, in the likes of Wall Street, JFK, Natural Born Killers, Nixon, Talk Radio and World Trade Center, a series of films that have chronicled some of America's key historical events and how they have marked the nation's psyche. Stone's at it again with W., his biopic of the departing US president, and he again intends to confound expectations.

Emirates Business caught up with controversy's favourite child for a chat:

Did President Bush offer any creative inputs during the making of W.?

Are you crazy! (laughs).

Is W. an attack on George W Bush?

No. What I wanted to do was show how Bush went from alcoholic nobody to the most powerful man in the world. Obviously, in making the film, we discovered dimensions of humanity and that was important. There was empathy, like with Nixon, but unlike Nixon, he's more of a circular character; even now he harks back to who he was in 2000. His speeches are the same. There doesn't seem to be a growth. There's a fundamental inability in the man, a King Lear kind of hubris, where he can't admit to any fault, whereas Nixon seems to have been haunted by doubt and uncertainty. As a result, this is a very different type of movie. While Nixon was a rich meal, this is more of a soufflé. And with a souffle, you never quite know until it bakes.

With the political powerplay visible in the US, how easy was it to approach Hollywood studios and distributors with such a film?

The film was extraordinarily turned down by every major Hollywood studio. We had a few American investors, but the film was predominantly made through investors from Hong Kong, Germany and France. You can call W. an independent film, with a modest budget. We shot it in 46 days in Louisiana.

So what is Bush's legacy now that he's leaving the White House?

The problem with Bush is those who liked him once are also now tired of him. He went from a 90 per cent favourable rating to 23 per cent post 9/11. People are embarrassed by him, but Bush will not simply go away. And the opposition against [US President-elect] Barack Obama is very strong.

Every time there's a Mumbai [terrorist attack], you will get the Bush reaction: "I told you so." That man is a wolf in sheep's clothing and he will live on in John McCain or Sarah Palin.

How difficult was it to understand Bush's psyche?

I'm not a politician, but a dramatist. My story puts us in his shoes, a man who once had god on his side. To the Americans, Bush's ignorance was likable. They like him because he can't speak English. The film not only depicts Bush, but it shows a cabal of 10 to 12 people who took over the government and made decisions that changed the world without consulting any experts. But the film also explores the father and son story; how the son wanted to be more powerful than his father [Former US President George Bush Sr].

With Obama now in the seat of power, where do you see America heading?

There is a lot of hope riding on Obama and maybe we are romanticising him, but even if he makes two per cent of a change, through Afghanistan or green environmental initiatives, it will make a difference. What I dread is if we send more troops to Afghanistan, we may face another Vietnam.

If you decide to make a biopic on an Arab leader, who would you choose?

I don't consider myself a journalist, hitting on world hotspots. W. was a personal story that saw him mark the key eight years of the American empire. As a dramatist, George Bush Jr's story is the most extraordinary political biopic since Kennedy and Nixon. It's important to note that he wanted to be a consequential president.

As a filmmaker, people expect you to be controversial.

Films can get hijacked, like World Trade Center, which was not a political film. I have never done only political movies. I've done a football movie, a financial movie, a love story, spiritual discovery, biographies. I don't know why they always say I'm political in America. I mean, I've been accused of being everything: A conspiracy theorist, blowhard, fraud, liar, everything... Except for murder – they haven't done me for that yet.

Have you found the criticism hurtful?

Well, Nixon was a huge disappointment to me – I would say that Heaven & Earth, Alexander and Nixon are the three largest disappointments I've had in the industry. That's one of the reasons why I went and made [noir thriller] U-Turn; I wanted to make something low-budget, make some money, but I never did.

People certainly misread your intentions with Nixon.

Yes. Nixon had a conscience; Nixon was intelligent compared to Bush, he had remorse. Nixon was a great movie. I love it, the supporting cast is amazing. I think we were empathetic to Nixon – the pills and the drinking.

Alexander was ridiculed. On reflection, do you think the critics had a point?

The ridicule in the press certainly hurt me, but the film still did $170 million (Dh625m) in total. I don't know why it disconnected in the UK, although I do know why it did in the States – there is a lack of interest in history.

What of Quentin Tarantino's attacks on your take on his Natural Born Killers script?

Well, Quentin did go everywhere in the world and bash it without actually seeing it, so that really hurt us. But inspite of that, we did good. I see Quentin now and I love his energy. He's manic, he loves movies, but I don't think we'd ever work together. He doesn't see Natural Born Killers the way I do; I read his script and I loved it, but it was an inspiration for an idea, for me.

It's been over 20 years since Platoon. Do you think the film changed the face of the war movie?

It was, then, the most realistic movie that had been made for a long time. There's a great history of war movies, such as All Quiet On The Western Front and Wings, lots of WW II stuff, but nobody had really looked at Vietnam from the grunt point of view. It was dirty, horrible, leech-ridden; there was no sleep, the irritation, the nastiness, and that really shook people up, because they all saw the army as buddy-buddy. Vietnam was demoralising.

You were set to shoot your fourth Vietnam film, Pinkville, until Bruce Willis pulled out...

Yeah, maybe that was a blessing in disguise. We did W. instead. It seemed there's no appetite for films about war. But if Hollywood doesn't like it, what are they going to do? Discredit me again?