Monday, January 11, 2010

When Fools Make Films...


Oliver Stone is at it again. He has already manufactured an historical fantasy regarding the assassination of JFK. He has cast two serial murderers as sympathetic figures. He has villainized George W. Bush. This time he is going to make a film that will correct other historical misconceptions we might have. Specifically he will help us to the see the warm fuzzy side of Hitler and Stalin. I'm assuming their current bad reputation is the result of a Republican conspiracy.

"Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and it's been used cheaply," he said. Then he mentioned the S word. "Stalin has a complete other story. Not to paint him as a hero, but to tell a more factual representation. He fought the German war machine more than any person."

Stone told the Television Critics Association that "we can't judge people as only 'bad' or 'good'. [Hitler] is the product of a series of actions. It's cause and effect. People in America don't know the connection between WWI and WWII."
From an article in the Guardian

4 comments:

Ryan H. said...

I don't like Stone as a filmmaker, nor do I respect his politics, but I'd suggest that Stone merits a fairer treatment than the one you're giving him.

"He has cast two serial murderers as sympathetic figures." Undeniably true, but we must ask to which ends Stone pursues this. While I don't really like NATURAL BORN KILLERS, it's a complicated film.

"He has villainized George W. Bush." Stone's film, W., is by no means a good one by any standard, but it's portrayal of Bush is hardly so negative. Given Stone's biases, one would expect a scathing condemnation of Bush, but the film doesn't go that route. It's portrayal of Bush isn't positive, but it doesn't villainize him, either.

When one reads the entirety of the Guardian article, Stone's intent doesn't sound at all that bad. While one must of course acknowledge Stone's persistent arrogance in presuming that his account of history is superior to any, the idea that one would seek a more nuanced presentation of these iconic figures isn't inappropriate.

As Stone's collaborator says, "He's not saying we're going to come out with a more positive view of Hitler. But we're going to describe him as a historical phenomenon." Such an approach is only fair. When one really takes the time to consider how Hitler rose to power, it's clear that it wasn't just his evil that twisted a nation, but that he was an outgrowth of prejudices and rage that had existed in German culture for quite some time (I recommend FROM DARWIN TO HITLER: EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS, EUGENICS, AND RACISM IN GERMANY by Richard Weikart for an analysis of the German intellectual landscape at the time of previous to and during Hitler's rise to power). The hubbub over this reminds me of the hubbub over the (excellent) DOWNFALL, which received a lot of undue controversy over "humanizing" Hitler.

Now, that's not to say that I'll like the end product, or that Stone will really do right in his contextualization of Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin. But as of right now, I cannot judge the finished product. But reading these statements, I find nothing with which to take serious issue.

Todd Pruitt said...

Ryan,

I do not give Stone as much credit as you do. I think what he has done in some of his films is absolutely disgraceful (JFK & NBK's in particular). I trust you will understand if I don't give him the benefit of the doubt as he prepares to educate us about the real Hitler and Stalin (I'm sure he'll be particularly fond of Stalin).

Can you imagine the outrage if Mel Gibson were making a film that would put Hitler "in context"?

There are some wonderful biographies, history books, and documentaries that do indeed put Hitler in context. There is no way Stone's movie will come close to matching the quality of other historical works.

Ryan H. said...

"I think what he has done in some of his films is absolutely disgraceful (JFK & NBK's in particular)."

I can easily understand your outrage over NATURAL BORN KILLERS, but I'm curious as to reason for the degree of your loathing for JFK.

"I trust you will understand if I don't give him the benefit of the doubt as he prepares to educate us about the real Hitler and Stalin (I'm sure he'll be particularly fond of Stalin)."

Your skepticism strikes me as very healthy. I don't expect much, either, and probably won't even bother to check it out (the last Stone film I remotely liked was NIXON, and that was how many films ago?). But I also want to give him a fair shake; regardless of past gripes with Stone, I don't have any reason to condemn this project. Yet.

"Can you imagine the outrage if Mel Gibson were making a film that would put Hitler 'in context'?"

I certainly can, though obviously that would have a whole different ring to it given past events in Gibson's life.

Todd Pruitt said...

JFK was a very well made movie. It is very entertaining. I like watching it for entertainment value. But it is very irresponsible. He plays fast and loose with history that goes WAY beyond dramatic liscence.

Several years ago the History Channel did an outstanding series of programs hosted by Frank Sesno that explored the various theories behind the Kennedy assasination. One of the episodes explored Stone's film. They did an excellent job of exposing the myths that Stone portrayed as facts. Among those myths were the trashing of Clay Shaw and the sainting of Jim Garrison.