By Jason O'Brien jaobrien@charter.net
|
Over the years on the Oliver Stone web site, we have had numerous different ways of trying to communicate as a group of fans who admire Stone's work. We've had online chat areas, we had an e-mail group where we could communicate back and forth, and way back from the beginning, simple e-mail back and forth. In 1997 and 1998, we even put together elaborate surveys to poll members of the Oliver Stone E-mail Group to see what kinds of people shared our common interests in Oliver Stone and film. This was all before the creation of an online message board to this site, which is now our preferred method of communicating as a group. But I always like to look back on the many conversations, debates, and discussions we had during the earlier years of the site. So revisit some of the past of the communications we've had on this site, and some of our livelier debates. Below are the original texts of some our early discussions and even one late night chat session between fans.
People are still invited to submit essays discussing Stone or one of his films ... a really well done essay on a particular film may end up as additional discussion on one of the film pages, so feel free to e-mail them to me at jaobrien@telocity.com for consideration.
In July of 1998, we took a survey of the members of the Oliver Stone E-mail Group. The last question to that survey was asking people to decide one scene or sequence from one of Stone's films which we felt represented what Stone as a filmmaker stood for. Since we are studying the work of Oliver Stone, I figured who better to come up with one scene
or sequence from one of Stone's films which they feel embodies his entire body of work, his style, or his message. There were
some outstanding responses, and one sequence got the most votes from anybody, and that was the ending courtroom speech by
Jim Garrison in JFK, and in particular, Garrison facing the camera saying "It's up to you." Some people provided some really good
descriptions as to why they think a particular sequence should be selected, and I've included the best in-depth responses. Here
are all the contenders, and I think you'll have to agree, almost all of these could easily be selected. The first one on the list is
from me -- I pick a sequence from BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY.
* FROM BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY -- When Kovic is shot and wounded in Vietnam
* FROM PLATOON -- (3 people submitted this one) -- Charlie Sheen in the helicopter at the end of the film
* FROM JFK -- The "Back and to the Left" scene in JFK. I will always, no matter what ANYONE tells me, think of Stone as a conspiracy seeker. This isn't my favorite scene but it definately, to me, defines Stone's outlook. I really like Platoon the best out of all his movies.
(SUBMITTED BY MATTHEW FERGUSON)
* FROM NIXON -- Uh...I'd have to say the Farewell Address at the very end of Nixon where he's
remembering all the things that had happened in his life while talking.
Scenes from the movie overlap and you really get to take a trip through
Nixon's mind. It's really a great scene, and I think that although it depicts
Nixon's philosophy, it might also be some of Stone's personal outlook also.
"Only if you've been in the deepest valley...can you ever know...how
magnificent it is...to be on the highest mountain."
(SUBMITTED BY IAMNIXON)
* FROM JFK -- (4 people submitted this one) -- X speaking to Garrison in Washington (WES PROVIDED A VERY GOOD
DESCRIPTION) -- The scene when Mr. X tells Jim Garrison all he knows about the
assassination and how he was purposely diverted to New Zealand. The is a
quintesential Stone scene because it demonstrates his ability to completely
grasp your attention. There are lots of cuts; as X is speaking to Garrison
we see quick shots of everything he describes( a man standing in a New Zealand
airport reading a paper about the assassination, shots of Oswald quickly
firing and reloading, Mr. X being given orders by General Lansdale). This is
all photographed with oblique angles, extreme close-up shots, and Stone's
popular motif of mixing all sorts of film stocks; this of course is the film
that he really developed that style. To me this scene is the best example of
Oliver Stone's cinema.
* FROM NATURAL BORN KILLERS -- Mickey and Mallory kissing on the bridge after exchanging vows
* FROM NIXON -- Nixon's acceptance speech for his second term
* FROM THE DOORS -- (2 people submitted this one) -- Morrison and Manzerik on the beach deciding to start a band -- (THOMAS
DOLISTER PROVIDED A GOOD DESCRIPTION) -- I'm going to go with a scene
from The Doors, when Morrison and Manzerik meet on the beach and decide to
start a band, Ray says, "we gotta make the myths, man." And that's
exactly what Stone is doing. A hundred years from now Stone will be for
American mythology what Homer and Hesiod are for Greek mythology.
* FROM JFK -- (6 people submitted this one) -- Garrison's final speech in the courtroom trial -- (B.J. STEELE PROVIDED A
GOOD DESCRIPTION) -- I have a fave shot, but not
scene of his that i think defines him. That shot would be in the final court
room scene in JFK...as Garrison ends his speech, he looks up from the jury and
into the camera at us, and says "It's up to you". That's the defining moment
of that film to me of Stone. That's his last plea for truth. We all know it
doesn't absolutely end like that...but it's ultimately up to us to correct our
past, Stone knows it. It's a great philosophy to live by. I respect him for at
least trying.
* FROM PLATOON -- (4 people submitted this one) -- the killing of Seargeant Elias and his trying to reach the leaving helicopter --
(HANNAH PROVIDED A GOOD DESCRIPTION) -- I don't believe this is exactly "the ONE" scene that defines stone and his
work, (style) but I do think it touched a nerve in me...It's the scene in
Platoon, where Willem Dafoe is running for his life, and the Viet Cong are
chasing him, he's the only american soldier down there, and he's running under
the helicopter almost...the boys in the helicopter, along with charlie sheen,
continue on, despite what they see below. It's demonstrates human
selfishness, and again karma...what's goes around comes around. They fail to
help this man, and I believe they're too ignorant to recognize that it could
of been them in the exact same predicament. I think it's also about speaking
your mind, when you deem what's happening as wrong...
* FROM JFK -- the opening sequence
* FROM NATURAL BORN KILLERS -- the I LOVE MALLORY sequence
* FROM HEAVEN AND EARTH -- Tommy Lee Jones picking up Le Ly in Saigon, swinging her around
* FROM NIXON -- (SUBMITTED BY ROB PHILPOTT) -- Near the end of the film, where Tricky Dick is talking to a portrait of
a former President (Kennedy), talking about how he did his best. To me, it seems like Stone's outlook and style is that he is
just a man trying his best to raise his voice in a democratic society.
* FROM BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY -- (2 people submitted this one) -- Cruise and Dafoe stranded on desert highway
in Mexico, fighting (ANDREW HAGER PROVIDED THIS DETAILED DESCRIPTION) -- Its angry, raw, powerful and unrelenting, like
Stone himself. Kovic's border pushing may also resemble Stone's.
* FROM NIXON -- final shot of young Richard with distant train hovering over the soundtrack
* FROM BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY -- Kovic's speech in the last part of the film
* FROM SALVADOR -- James Woods on bus, girlfriend gets taken away, Woods can't explain it to them
* FROM NATURAL BORN KILLERS -- the entire movie
* FROM NATURAL BORN KILLERS -- the prison riot
* FROM U-TURN -- every damn minute of it
* FROM JFK -- Garrison's argument with his wife about fighting for the truth
* FROM NATURAL BORN KILLERS -- murder of Wayne Gale by Mickey and Mallory
 Oliver Stone Web Chat Transcript! In 1997, I experimented with Talk City in trying to set up online chats for fans of Oliver Stone. Unfortunately, the chat sessions never really took off, but I still have the complete text of the very first chat we attempted ...
10/30/97 -- OUR VERY FIRST CHAT!
Discussion on NATURAL BORN KILLERS
For those of you who did not understand Natural Born Killers. Please,
watch it again. There is a reason for every scene and every word. And don't
be scared to be touched by the beautiful love story of M&M. And can I just
say, as an Australian, I thought Robert Downey Jr's portrayal of the media
scumbag (and his accent) was flawless.
 Discussion on NIXON
Anthony Hopkins became Nixon in one of the greatest performances I've ever
seen. Not because of his voice or impersonation, but a brooding sometimes
frightened man. Hopkins shows us the emotions of Richard Nixon through the
hunch, the twitches, the winces, the raised arms, and sometimes smiles.
Stone has been often criticized for the "flashy" style in which he
directed. I felt it was excessive in Natrual Born Killers and began
question why it was used in 'Nixon'. Around the third viewing (after
already recognizing it as a great film), I closely monitored the use of it.
There are moments in Nixon where we wish we could just sit, watch, and
contemplate what it all means without the flashy backgrounds. A good
example of such a scene comes when Nixon confronts the protestors; its
powerful, its meaningful, its too quick! Before we know it there's some
clouds speeding up in front of us and we're on to the next scene. But
Stone wants to take us through the Presidency as if it were 25 years ago.
He doesn't want us to contemplate because President Nixon wouldn't want you
to contemplate. He wouldn't to expose his weakness's and wounds to you.
The night at the Jefferson Monument was his most vulnerable -- in the
middle of the night after digging deep into his soul over Kennedy. Stone
uses this device as a crutch to distance ourselves from the man who
distanced himself from us.
The most powerful part of Nixon comes at end, where real live footage is
show at his funeral. Here there is no crutch, there is not seperation, and
there is no distance from this man. For those who quip that Nixon fails
because it is not historically accurate, I challenge you to tell me why.
It's hard to show a man's soul if that man is judged harshly. I'm assuming
that's why Nixon received some 'poor' reviews. The critics weren't juding
'Nixon', but their disliking the fact that the ex-president was a
redeemable man. Nixon doesn't excuse the Watergate scandal, but instead
shows us a powerful man who felt protected by the only institute he wasn't
afraid to love. The Presidency, the uncontrollable beast.
Discussion on PLATOON
I strongly agree that PLATOON does have a spiritual / religious subtext --
in reconciling Dafoe's Christ figure with the things he does, Jesus himself
participated in a war, attempting to tear down the old Jerusalem and build
a new one -- Dafoe's character was caught up in the war -- I doubt it was
his choice. PLATOON to me shows its religious subtext by showing the
battlefield and the war in the platoon as the battle for the soul fought by
everyone -- Dafoe's character is the good in the midst of the madness, a
good which may not be as clear cut a good as someone would like, but still
the side of a goodness (even though he hates and war and kills Vietnamese,
he still believes that Barnes trying to kill the villagers is wrong) --
he's the moral side of the battle for the soul. Barnes (Tom Berenger) is
the face of evil, the face of lost morals -- the devil, if you will -- a
man so scarred by war and evil that he has embodied it -- Charlie Sheen's
character is the innocent soul, the babe as we all are thrust unsuspecting
into the madness -- both good and evil tug at his soul, and all he thinks
about the world he slowly discovers to become untrue (the gradual growth to
maturity) -- in the end, the ravages of war bring him to Barnes's level, or
some would argue that he is carrying out justice. Some would argue
Sheen's character has embodied evil -- in the end, his character talks
about spending the rest of his life searching for a goodness and a meaning
to this life -- the ravages of war have torn his soul and changed forever
his outlook on the world and life, and his only solution is to search for
the goodness.
This is I feel one of Stone's strongest themes -- finding the goodness
amidst the evil -- both his and my argument is that we wonder whether it is
even there. I don't think it's fair to say that Stone or anyone else in
Vietnam should feel a need to assuage their guilt for being involved in it.
Most of them were sent there against their will, and simply followed
orders. I feel Stone's films have been an attempt to purge the guilt of
the country's institutions, and especially with Vietnam, to purge the dark
soul of America which was evident in the 60's and all during Vietnam.
Hope that is what you were getting at -- thanks for stimulating a very
intelligent discussion about one of Stone's classic films --
Further Comment on PLATOON, this time on the use of music in the film, by Tim Anderson
This changed later on, however. I am referring to the scene of
Elias' death. As he charges out of the jungle with virtually the
entire NVA behind him, once again, the Barber Adagio is heard,
swelling, till it is all we hear. No gunshots, screams, or helicopter
blades; just the mounting intensity of this extremely spiritual work.
The effect, to me, is completely unforgettable. Barber's opus is
already a completely emotional work, but to combine its sound with the
image of goodness, of sanity in "The Nam" being helplessly gunned
down, is..well, undescrible. All I can say is, one must have no
sensitivity at all not to find themselves emotionally weak during this
sequence.
To be honest, I was never a huge fan of the Barber Adagio before
seeing Platoon. That has changed; for me, the work is a virtual
soundtrack to the tragedy of war...Vietnam, or any other. It has such
a gripping, intense, spiritual feel to it...which is what makes it
work so well for the moment of Elias' death. To me, this scene is one
of the most powerful sequences in any film I've ever seen. Mr. Stone
deserves to be acknowledged for this brilliant teaming of sight and
sound, one of the greatest in cinema history.
The Man and His Films
In the last scenes of Stone's JFK, Kevin Costner, who plays District
Attorney Jim Garrison, finishes his courtroom monologue by staring straight
at the camera and saying, "It's up to you." This single sentence and how it
is presented is proof that Stone is deeply committed to his work.
I didn't see Salvador, I can't remember Wall Street, but they are the only
two. I saw Platoon for the first time when I was in school. I remember my
friends were egging me on to watch it because it had lots of people being
shot & killed, and we always liked that sort of thing. I still remember
when the film ended, how silent my friends were, as if they had just
witnessed a death of a relative. Chris, Elias, Barnes, Rhah, King, Lt.
Wolfe, Bunny, Junior, Francis, Big Harold, and of course O'Neill, are still
burned in my memory as people who showed me something I knew nothing about,
and something I'm glad I wasn't involved in. The scene where Bunny (Kevin
Dillon) drives the butt of his M-16 intothe head of the one-legged
Vietnamese boy still sends shivers down my spine.
Barry Champlain was a man who had one trait running his life that many
people wish they had: he didn't care what people thought of him. I saw Talk
Radio only a few years ago, and it was one of those films that you can't
bring yourself to stop until the actual video tape runs out and rewinds
itself. Stone eases the viewer into the movie by giving some familarities
such as John C. Mcginley, (Wall Street, Platoon) but then doesn't hold
back. As far as I know this the first Stone film in which he uses two of
his now trademark film techniques. (1) The Light From Above: I've seen
this in many of Stone's movies. When a character is focused on harshly, a
bright glow shines overhead to enhance their facial features. Its really
quite good, how you can't miss a single movment in their face because of
this. (2) The Black Before The Shot: Three films I remember seeing this
in. Immediately before a gun is fired, the screen goes black and the sound
cuts out, and then a barrage of gunfire is released. In Talk Radio, it
startled me when Barry was shot dead in the station parking lot and the
blackout emphasised this.
There is a harrowing scene in Born on the Fourth of July involving Ron Kovic
(Tom Cruise) hanging upside down in his hospital bed staring a pile of his
own vomit. When I saw this, I was once again grateful I wasn't involved in
the Vietnam War. Stone's fifth major production had me moved, shocked and
fascinated as once again he returns to one of favourite subjects, The Nam.
Before I saw the movie, I was critical of Stone's pick of Cruise as the main
character. As I had just watched a pile of crap known as 'Cocktail', you
can understand why. But by the end of film, whether he wast screaming at
Nixon's second inauguration or breaking down in front of the family of the
soldier he killed, Cruise proved me wrong.
I couldn't get over how much Val Kilmer looked like Jim Morrison, but that
was the only thing that kept my attention during The Doors. Apart from the
music. I believe The Doors was a mistake made by Stone, and all great
people do make them. I was watching it thinking "C'mon, just get to the
end." The only reason to watch it, would be to see Meg Ryan playing someone
other than a ditzy romantic.
JFK wasn't a movie. It was a teaching tool. Stone's seventh film is,
without question, his best. This slice of film heaven, was the only film
that made me weep. (apart from when Charles Martin Smith got blown away in
The Untouchables) I cannot imagine how much research went into this
project, but it must've been loads. I've watched it over 30 or 40 times,
but the 'back and to the left' scene still literally gives me goosebumps.
Every person, no matter what country they live in, no matter how old they
are, should have this film burned into their mind. It should be like the
Bible. My favourite film of all time.
I have no idea why, but Tommy Lee Jones was ignored at the Oscars for his
role in Heaven and Earth. I thought it was his greatest performance ever.
And Stone gave him great stuff to work with. The moment Jones put the
shotgun to back of his wife's head, I held my breath. Stone finishes his
Vietnam trilogy in fine style and with use of The Light From Above many
times. While not as good as Platoon or Born on the Fourth, Heaven and Earth
is still a brilliant film.
When Mabel the waitress tells Mickey Knox that the kilan pie is an acquired
taste, she also referring to the movie. Natural Born Killers is the only
Stone film I've seen on the big screen, and man, did it need it. A lot of
people didn't like NBK, but I loved it. The thing that excited me the most
was how it was brought to the screen. In JFK, there were several black &
white, handheld, stock footage uses, but here Stone doesn't hold back. He
also uses the Light From Above and The Black Before The Shot. One hell of
an experience.
I really looked forward to Nixon, Stone's tenth major film, and I wasn't
disappointed. When Nixon (Anthony Hopkins) and Henry Kissinger (Paul
Sorvino) fall to their knees to pray in Nixon's office, I felt those same
goosebumps I felt in JFK. Stone changes his casting choices in this film,
not sticking to his usual alumni. A scene that absolutley chilled me was
when Nixon is sitting in his office, half-drunk, listening to the Watergate
tapes. Nobody knows where those missing 18 minutes are.........nobody in
the general public, anyway.
Well, that's it. All Stone's films that I've seen and what I thought of them.
Hey, its just my opinion.
A Right Wing Slant in Stone's Films? Another View
Note: Before you read this, I want you to know that I'm not complaining
about his right-wing attitudes. I actually agree with alot of them.
I think there's a real macho right-wing style to his movies, alot like
John Milius's films.
Here's some examples of his non-feminist attitude: In JFK, Garrison's
wife is a dumb housewife who apparently represents our nonconformist
society. In Salvador, James Woods is womanizer who talks about women
like they're sexual objects. In Wall Street, the female characters, from
the hooker in the limo to Charlie Sheen's girlfriend, are all
freeloaders who use their sex appeal to get ahead. In Talk Radio,
Champlain is a womanizer who in a key scene treats his wife pretty
badly. All the female characters in "Born", like Kovic's mother and
girlfriend, are weak and reject him. In The Doors, the women
in Morrison's life either cheat on him or are just plain sluts like the
French girl. These are all non-liberal representations of women.
An example of his conservative sense of justice is that in Platoon, the
killing of Barnes is not in accordance with the liberal stance against
executions and vigilantism.
Stone's distrust of the government and it getting too powerful is much
closer to the thinking of the Reagan-Bush Republicans and not the Great
Society-Democrats.
Also, his attacks on the media in JFK and NBK are pretty strange
because the media tends to very liberal and very pro-Kennedy.
The intense violence in his films, from Salvador to NBK, is usually not
to the liking of most liberal critics. It's also much more similar to
macho, manly directors like Peckinpah and Don Siegel, than to leftist
directors like Rob Reiner.
I'd really like to know if you agree with my interpretations of his
work or if you just think I'm full of it.
Now, to my point. After reading James Roirdan's "Stone" biograhpy, I
believe that the reason for Stone telling this kind of story really goes
deep into his own personal history and psyche. As you know, he had two
kinds of parents, his father who represents the disciplined, businessman
side of him and his mother who represents the reckless and liberated
side -- This could be the reason behind his 'two father' storyline but I
think it goes farther than that.
When he went to Vietnam he was opened to a new world of 60's culture:
The Doors music, drugs, free sex, etc. All he had known before was his
father's conservative and capitalistic views: his strong work ethic and
Republican politic beliefs.
But after his experience in 'Nam, I think he started to become much
more liberal, not just because of the sixties but also because of his
mom's flambouyant lifestyle, which apparently included wild parties,
kinky sex, drug use, and the liberal New York artsy people.
This all happened as he discovered film(in NYU) and started expressing
his new liberal views through it. As he became this new person he also
kept the strong work ethic that his father had given him.
I think all of this is actually what's behind his stories of a young
character confronted with two kinds of parents and ways of living. I
don't know if he's exactly saying that his dad and his dad's beliefs are
represented by the bad guy(Barnes in Platoon and Gekko in Wall Street)
and that the liberal sixities attitude and his mom's lifestyle is
represented by the good(Elias in Platoon and Carl Fox in Wall Street).
He has clearly said that he has a lot of respect for his father and I
doubt that he thinks of him as Barnes or Gekko.
But I do believe that he had a struggle in his early years between
leading two different kinds of lives, a Republican businessman and a
liberal film director. He had to pick between his dad's culture or the
new liberated sixities culture. When he chose to be a liberal and a film
diector, he was kind of killing that other life that he might have lead
had he'd stayed in Yale. In that way, this struggle and choice in
Stone's life is what the killing of Barnes and the destroying of Gekko
probably represents.
I also have noticed that Heaven and Earth seems to follow this story of
a character being introduced to a new world and having to pick between
them. The main character is raised in the Vietnamese culture but then
she's introduced to our American culture. She is startled and excited
but in the end she goes back home and decideds who she is. I think she
realizes that she'll always be Vietnamese but that her American identity
is also a part of who she is. This storyline also seems to follow
Stone's own experience and conflicting personality.
I think that having two different kinds of parents, being introduced to
a new world, and picking between two kinds of cultures all melted
together in Stone's mind and ended up in the plots of his films.
I'd like to know what you think of my interpretations. Maybe you have a
different view of what's behind the storylines in Stone's movies or if I
left out something that could have also contributed to them? Or maybe
you just think I'm over analyzing his life and films?
General Comment on Stone and His Films
Platoon: I think it's a beautiful film, though probably
undeserving of the "Second Coming" status it received
upon its release. Clearly, it touched a nerve, and it
gets points for opening up dialouge on the Vietnam
subject. But I don't consider it one of Stone's top-3
films. Looking at it now, it seems clear that he was
still learning as a director.
Talk Radio: One of my favorites, and after JFK, Stone's
best film, IMO. I think this film is so underrated,
it;s criminal. Excellent performances all around, and
Stone's radio-station direction has been copied so many
times since it's ridiculous.
Wall Street: Never saw of it :(
Born on the Fourth of July: I think Stone gets a little
carried away here. The film feels unfocused, a little
too ambitious, if that's possible. I was impressed with
Cruise's performance, but I didn't take much else away
from it. The first Stone movie where the arc of the
film was telegraphed from the first act.
The Doors: Absolutely stunning. I was completely
seduced by the imagery, the music, and most of all, Val
Kilmer's amazing performance. Stone has a tremendous
record getting strong performances from his leading men
(in fact, does any living director has a better
record??), but Kilmer tops them all here. He is a
chameleon, seemingly tuning in the spirit of Jim
Morrison. One of the best acting jobs I've ever seen on
film.
JFK: As I've said in my previous note, this is Stone's
masterpiece. If you put weight into Oscars, it is
inexcusable that this film didn't win them all. I like
to think of Stone's "Born of the 4th" Oscar as the one
he should have got for this film. The fact that he did
both "The Doors" and "JFK" within a calendar year of
each other is a feat of Homeric proportions.
Heaven and Earth: Never saw it :(
Natural Born Killers: I strongly disagree with any
statement about what Stone's "message" was with this
film, or how people who criticize it missed the point.
The film revels in the violence and mayhem it
supposedly satirizes. (I am not anti-violence, just
anti-meaningless, shock-value, over-the-top-violence).
Anyone with a brain gets the media-glamourizes-killers
message in the opening act. From there, however, Stone
continues to focus his camera in the direction of these
(IMO) unwatchable lowlifes. Where was the "media
message" during the excrutiating
Indian-on-the-reservation sequence? Or in the drug
store snakebite scene? It seems to me that Stone might
have inadvertently fallen in love with Mickey and
Mallory, and the Robert Downey Jr. side of the film
suffers. I think the performances are fine, but if you
really want to know what this film ultimately wants to
accomplish, watch the closing scene. It's about
murderers and murdering, not the media.
Nixon: Totally engrossing. I don't know if you *have*
to be history buff to enjoy, but since I am, I loved
it. All the performances are first-rate, and Stone
tones down a bit his mixing of film stocks to nice
effect. I was intrigued by his take on the missing 18
minutes of Watergate tape, as well as other
"interpretations" of history.
I give Stone credit for having the guts to use film to
make his own dissertations on historical events. It's
ridiculous to go into an Oliver Stone movie thinking
you are about to see a history-book rendition of an
actual event. Isn't it far more interesting to see what
Stone *thinks* about something? It's the cinematic
equivalent to a newspaper commentary, and I don't see
anyone jumping on NY Times columnists for expressing
their opinions. But because Stone does it on film (and
does it well), he gets nailed. Well, I am grateful that
we have such an original and daring artist willing to
put film to such good use.
Another Viewpoint on Natural Born Killers
I am a true and unshakable fan of the many and great works of Oliver
Stone. I find his films riveting and I also find the man behind them and
his history as a filmmaker incredible. Let me tell you how I discovered
him.
It was back in '94 when Natural Born Killers was released. My
friend and I were into Nine Inch Nails so we thought we'd take a look at
this new movie that Trent Reznor had so much to do with. After watching
it the first time I realized that I truly hated the film and I wondered
where those 2+ hours of my life had gone to. But for some strange
reason, I had to watch it again. And again and again and again......
You see, each time I watched the film I saw something new. I saw
new sub-plots and new symbolism that I had missed the many times before.
I started counting the amount of times I had seen the film about a year
ago and so far I'm up to 76 viewings!! Bear in mind that I've found
something new in the story EACH OF THOSE 76 TIMES!!! For instance, I
watched the director's cut (the only version that SHOULD be viewed by
ANYONE..) last night and I found two things that I had missed completely
in the previous viewings. The first instance was when M&M visit the
indian Shamen's hut. Throughout the scene, Mallory is making sympathetic
comments and gestures towards the indian. The sympathy she gives is for
the indian's dead wife and son. It's as if Mallory finally realizes that
murder is wrong. Mickey seems to realize the fact when he actually
murders the indian which ultimately saddens Mallory, another proof of her
sympathetic nature at that point of the movie. I just thought it was
weird that I had missed that in each of the previous viewings.
The second was that I finally understood why Supercop Scagnetti
was in the prison in the first place.....to kill Mickey and Mallory!!! I
had never really thought about why he was there until it dawned on me
that I didn't know why he was there. So I rewound the tape and found all
my answers. Incredible what the human mind can overlook no matter how
thourough the interest.
In conclusion, I'd just like to say that it was this film that
got me hooked on Stone's work and it's this film that truly is my
favorite of his, although Salvador and Platoon and plain brilliant. I
can't listen to people who critisize this movie without having seen it
(ie. John Grisham) and I can't understand people who claim to have hated
the movie or at least weren't compelled by it. It is a masterpiece in
all forms and I thank Oliver Stone for creating something so wonderfully
exilirating about the 1990's.
Commentary on JFK
Over this Christmas season, I had an opportunity to see "JFK" again.
Every time I view the film, my understanding, admiration, and respect for
the work grows. But in my most recent viewing, I realized something new. If
you take away all of the social commentary, positive and negative, that Stone
provides, you are left with a revolutionary piece of art.
Stone manages to use four different film techniques in a way that most
filmmakers could not begin to fathom. He uses color, black & white,
documentary and re-enactment footage with an amazing mastery. This film must
have been an editor's dream.
I was also reminded of the mass amounts of information provided. Most
filmmakers would turn this film into a cure for insomniacs. However, Stone,
by using quick editing, outstanding re-enactments, and mixing of film stocks
keeps the audience enthralled and interested for the entire three hours.
Let's not forget the wonderful performances Stone got from his actors.
It was refreshing to see Tommy Lee Jones not being a tough guy and Kevin
Costner not acting with his looks. And who could ever forget Gary Oldman's
hauntingly accurate portrayal of Lee Harvey Oswald. "JFK" is first and
fourmost a great film. Whether or not people agree or are even interested in
the subject matter is irrelevant to the fact that Stone has created a
masterpiece that will live throughout film history.
Commentary on Oliver Stone in General
I guess the only films that Oliver Stone made that I really liked were
platoon and wallstreet. If you listen to the media I guess that I am a
right winged conservative.
Somehow that sounds too simple though. I do have a strong work ethic as
I believe most people do, however I also don't agree with the greed
factor that is associated with most republicans(although I am one). To
keep this short I am grateful for people like Oliver Stone making some
of the great movies that he has. And I feel that it is important to
realize that without some of the very ideals that he seems to oppose it
would be impossible for people like him to produce the wonderful films
that he has. I feel that controversy is one of the things that keeps our
nation the best. And I am proud to admit that I have many friends that I
agree to disagree with yet maintain a friendship with. Only in america
can such ideals thrive in. I have traveled overseas in the military and
I appreciate many different cultures so I believe that with an open
viewpoint we can welcome the future whatever it maybe.
An Irresponsible Director?
Because of your interest in cinema, I find it highly disturbing that you
regard a man so highly. I'm not arguing that Oliver Stone is a bad director.
He is a very good director. But he also has a tendency to be irresponsible.
Seeing him in interviews, I wonder if he's more interested in issues that
have a tendency to create rebellion, or if he's more into creating issues for
rebellion. His mixing of film stock, video, music, sound, etc are not new to
the industry, they are only new to mainstream films.
Regarding Nixon, he had to add a couple of things, but why is it necessary to
add anything? If he were to write the biography of Nixon and he happened to
add one or two things in to keep the story moving or to make it a bit more
interesting, what types of criticism would he gain? He would lose all
credibility. How should this be different in film.
In JFK, why would he have to add Mr. X to keep the story flowing if there
really were characters to support his point of view. I wouldn't feel it was
necessary to add anything if the truth were to speak for itself.
Hopefully, if you choose to become a filmmaker, you would not choose the
irresponsible path your idol has taken. It is important to look into
history, but not with a fogged up lens. It would also be wise to understand
that the protectors of the establishment are also the protectors of Oliver
Stone. The Establishment allows him to make his films. I think it would
also be important to note that Stone, as well as Spielberg, and Scorsese are
mainstream filmmakers with a nack for generating income. Do Tim Robbins and
other directors not make enough money?
Do you really think that there was no other way of directing Natural Born
Killers?
> Because of your interest in cinema, I find it highly disturbing that you
I don't see why it's so hard to imagine why someone so interested in film
would respect a director like Oliver Stone -- the things he is doing with
the cinema will be remembered many years from now as landmark strides in
the development and evolution of the motion picture.
Oliver Stone is interested in political issues, and huge issues of
humanity. He doesn't go out to create a film just because it will create
rebellion. Stone has called himself this nation's greatest dissenter, and
someone has to be -- he has the power and creative ability to bring
important stories to light, like the questions behind the JFK assassination
(are you saying we shouldn't be analyzing such seminal political events?)
And yes, some of the techniques have been employed in independent films,
but not to the success and style Oliver Stone has achieved -- he goes
beyond where a lot of the independent directors left off, and I love
independent filmmakers (I'm one myself) so don't think I'm just lightly
brushing off independent filmmakers.
> Regarding Nixon, he had to add a couple of things, but why is it
necessary to
Remember, his first purpose is as a film director and storyteller. He's
making a movie -- dramatic license calls for events to be added or
condensed, which don't necessarily change what really happened. Film is
different than books because there is a limited time to tell the story, and
Stone made it clear right from the beginning that his interpretation was
based on an incomplete historical record, which was the same thing with
JFK. When there is an incomplete record, some things have to be added
when a dramatist is making an interpretitive film of historical events.
Would you not agree this is different than making a film about say Howard
Stern, where he is there to verify everything and has written a book
detailing his whole life? Nixon left no such thing when it came to the
darker issues of his tenure in the White House, both as Vice-President and
President.
Stone added this because the film is intended to be a broad canvas of all
of the evidence and conjecture released in the thirty plus years of
research since the assassination. The film is not intended to be a
biography of Jim Garrison, but a composite of evidence and supposition.
What is wrong with a filmmaker doing that?
> Hopefully, if you choose to become a filmmaker, you would not choose the
I couldn't disagree with you more here -- Oliver Stone is one of our most
gifted directors, and he will be long remembered for bringing important
issues to light, and I can't think of another director I would take after
more and learn from in my career.
Who's got the fogged up lens? Certainly not Stone -- Stone is presenting
an alternative view of history based on incomplete records -- I would say a
lot of the films painting government as great have the fogged up lens ("The
American President" certainly presents a government we could only dream
about, so isn't that film responsible for having a "fogged up" lens?)
> It would also be wise to understand
Oliver Stone's films have not always been big cash cows -- NIXON absolutely
failed at the box office -- and what is wrong with a filmmaker making
income? Do you have to broke to be a good filmmaker? The good thing
about Stone's films making money is that moviegoers are more intelligent
than Jim Carrey, and want to see films of substance and importance --
Stone's movies make us think twice about what is real, and what is wrong
with that?
> Do you really think that there was no other way of directing Natural Born
Well, sure there is -- but Stone's intent with that film was to make a
stylistic essay, a counter-culture film which absolutely shoved the
sickness of America's fascination with crime and criminals into their faces
-- that's the style that was needed. Now sure another director could have
made a fascinating film about two serial killers, but that was not Stone's
purpose. He wanted to make a film showing us the sickness of the media
and the criminals at the same time, and the way the public's sick
fascination with bad news and crime makes these brutal killers heroes. He
had to show the violence in extreme detail, so that people could really see
what it is they elevate to heroship. Just like the OJ case -- do you
think people would get so excited about the case and make it into a media
circus if they saw a close-up video showing OJ cutting up Nicole Brown and
Ron Goldman, slicing Nicole's throat open for everyone to see? No,
because they would see the true sickness of the violence. It's easy to
glorify something bad when you don't really see it. That's what Stone was
doing with that film.
# Of Hits This Page: |
