« Jeff Gedmin: Screwball Politicians and Vacation Tips for America | Main | David Harnasch: German-Language Blog of the Week »

Comments

@ Amihasser and anyone who wants to complain how OT this post is:

Don't even bother.

I haven't watched JFK but I loved Platoon and Wall Street. Natural Born Killers was good as well.

That being said I recently had the honour to sit next to Robin Lane Fox at a dinner at my Uni. He is probably the world's best know expert on Alexander the Great. He was consultant to the Oliver Stone movie about Alexander (under the condition that he could take part in the cavalary charges) and he told me that he was very disappointed by the cinema version of the movie because. I haven't watched it but apparently the people in power in Hollywood ignored a very large amount of empirical research in order to make the movie more exciting.
I guess the same will happen for any 911 movies. There will be lots of invented dialogue etc. I wonder why one has to make a movie about it at all. We all saw what happened.

(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0143035134/qid=1121097934/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/102-7837749-7524155?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Ray D DOESN'T like movies which show Americans in a bad light (for example, Platoon) or which show the very real occurances of Vietnamese women being raped by US troops?

You don't say. I guess a movie which shows America coming to save the day, the evil being defeated and flowers being thrown on US troops doesn't count as flat out propoganda, JUST the ones which say something bad about the US military. (That lovely charitable organisation comprised of America's brightest minds)

I knew that it was only a matter of time before Hollywood would sieze upon the memory of 9/11, just too much opportunity for profit in it. I guess, in retrospect that we should have known that Oliver Stone would be the one... Does Michael Moore make a special appearance?

@Phil

I've read that book by Rob Fox Lane as well. Just the paperback cover (I had a different issue than your link http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140088784/qid=1121099377/sr=12-1/104-1581822-4630341?v=glance&s=books) ) inspired me to travel to Naples. The mosaic of Alexander defeating Darius was take from Pompeii and moved to the National Archeolgical Museam of Naples. My girlfriend eventually got annoyed with me after I stared at it for 1/2 hour!

Also, if you like Alexander the great, try watching Michael Wood's, in the footsteps of Alexander the Great. A BBC production : http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0002V7OGA/qid=1121099223/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/104-1581822-4630341?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846

I knew that it was only a matter of time before Hollywood would sieze upon the memory of 9/11, just too much opportunity for profit in it. I guess, in retrospect that we should have known that Oliver Stone would be the one... Does Michael Moore make a special appearance?

@Phil

I've read that book by Rob Fox Lane as well. Just the paperback cover (I had a different issue than your link http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140088784/qid=1121099377/sr=12-1/104-1581822-4630341?v=glance&s=books) ) inspired me to travel to Naples. The mosaic of Alexander defeating Darius was take from Pompeii and moved to the National Archeolgical Museam of Naples. My girlfriend eventually got annoyed with me after I stared at it for 1/2 hour!

Also, if you like Alexander the great, try watching Michael Wood's, in the footsteps of Alexander the Great. A BBC production : http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0002V7OGA/qid=1121099223/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/104-1581822-4630341?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846

@Gavin

Historic fact: German soldiers RAN to American troops over all others. Who did Göring seek out to surrender to? Also, fact about Vietnam, Stone never reported the murder of many Vietnamese by the VC, something around .5 million.

"Stone never reported the murder of many Vietnamese by the VC, something around .5 million."

So, unless he does that, he is not allowed to show some of the brutal acts commited by the US troops. This is the single most common defense I hear on this, or any, conservative blog (Erik Svane included). Whenever something negative is mentioned about the US, you retaliate by mentioning something bad about some other country, or the other side. Could Saddam have done this, and come off shining in comparison to Hitler? ("You Americans talk about my mass graves, but what about this Hitler guy. He was pretty bad too.") Does that make American actions ANY better? Does that, in your sick, twisted, mind (which I guess will NEVER see ANY American action, even the rape of innocent Vietnamese women as evil in its own right) justify what the Americans did?

I hope Oliver Stone produces something so wacko it will finally discredit him completely. As far as the 9/11 Memorial at ground zero - I signed the petition awhile back and am not terribly worried about it now - all the politicians are watching.

@Gavin

What the heck does Viet Nam have to do with 9/11? Oh Oliver Stone. BFD go troll with your crap some place else, they are calling for you at the daily KOS and MoveOn.org

Just another was of money that no one will watch. I will not waste my time or money on it.

Just another was of money that no one will watch. I will not waste my time or money on it.

Im going to watch it!

Ray D.-

Did you ever ask yourself why we New Yorkers - the ones who actually survived the terror attacks - really LOATHE your hero George W. Bush?

@ Gavin:

"So, unless he does that, he is not allowed to show some of the brutal acts commited by the US troops. This is the single most common defense I hear on this, or any, conservative blog (Erik Svane included). Whenever something negative is mentioned about the US, you retaliate by mentioning something bad about some other country, or the other side."

Of course Oliver Stone is allowed to show brutal acts committed by US troops and no one is denying they occured. But if he expects me to take him seriously as a historically fair and balanced film maker and not a left-wing propaganda-hack then he should also show examples of the many good things that US troops did (which far outweighed the bad) and also show examples of the bad things perpetrated on a massive scale by the North Vietnamese and their Communist allies such as massacres, bombings and terror acts. He should also show something about the Communist Holocaust and exodus that ensued in Southeast Asia and mention what sort of a nation Vietnam is today because of the US decision to pull back under pressure from the so-called "peace" movement. This decision allowed Communist forces to murder, imprison millions and force millions more into exile.

In other words, because Stone clearly is a one-sided propaganda hack, it is MY GOOD RIGHT TO CRITICIZE HIM AS SUCH. He has clearly and repeatedly lied about and twisted history to fit his left-wing ideology just as Michael Moore has. If Gavin and other left-wingers want to deny the Communist Holocaust in Southeast Asia and focus only on US "crimes" then they shouldn't expect me to take them seriously as objective debate partners.

And BTW: Americans also raped German women and murdered civilians and POWs in World War II in certain instances. Why doesn't Stone or any of his left-wing buddies make a movie about that and about how horrible and immoral Americans were back in 1944? And I'm sure you'd be first in line to applaud them for their historical honesty since these things did, in fact, happen. Right?

@ abe:

Since when are all New Yorkers survivors of 9/11 or all survivors of 9/11 New Yorkers? Am I supposed to take that question seriously?

Note to German readers:

I'm sure abe speaks for all New Yorkers, and I'm sure the reasons they loathe W are the same reasons the survivors of the 1993 WTC attacks loathe Clinton.

With all due respect - why not just wait until the film has actually been finished - and then judge it? Stone has made some outstanding films, and some really bad ones. So let´s just wait and see.

In reference to the discussion Gavin brought up: I´d rather live in a society with critical artists like Stone than in a society where everyone has the same opinion. In the end, thats what makes the difference to a middle-eastern dictatorship.
Stone will not be the only one to make a film about 9/11, I´m shure.

@ joaninho:

"I´d rather live in a society with critical artists like Stone than in a society where everyone has the same opinion."

And who exactly was suggesting we live in "a society where everyone has the same opinion" joaninho? Where do we suggest Mr. Stone has no right to make his films as he sees fit? Why do you and Gavin insist on repeatedly knocking over these strawmen of your own making? Do we have no right to criticize people like Oliver Stone who repeatedly lie about and distort history for a mass audience without being accussed of wanting to control society? I mean let's be serious here...

joaninho
>> I´d rather live in a society with critical artists like Stone than in a society where everyone has the same opinion.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. No one is entitled to their own facts. Alert! My opinion follows:

In order to be an effective 'critical artist', one must offer an argument or point of view that can be taken seriously by serious people. Criticism in and of itself has no value other than the foundation it is based on. The Oliver Stones and Michael Moores of the world cannot possibly be considered serious, critical artists because they lie. Consistently and without shame.

joaninho: "With all due respect - why not just wait until the film has actually been finished - and then judge it? Stone has made some outstanding films, and some really bad ones. So let´s just wait and see."

Because Stone has a track record of adding too much leftist drivel to the dialogues and actions.

So... what would you think was wrong with making a film about 9/11 that is just about 9/11, just the facts with NO political commentary on either side of the spectrum. This could be done, and it could be done well, such as in the film "Tora, Tora, Tora", which showed both sides of the attack on Pearl Harbor without political commentary. That was what made "Tora, Tora, Tora" the touchstone film on Pearl Harbor. And that is precisely what we will NOT get from Stone for 9/11.

@ Ray:

Of course you have the right to critize Oliver Stone, that was not my point.
I just think films have to be watched before they can be judged. To say that a film is going to be "perversion" of 9/11 just because the producer/director is "a lier" is a bit "zu kurz gesprungen". Let me emphazise my last sentence: He is definitely not going to be the only one to make a film about 9/11.

@ mamapajamas:

Sounds like a good concept to me - "Tora, Tora, Tora" is an excellent film.

"I just think films have to be watched before they can be judged. To say that a film is going to be "perversion" of 9/11 just because the producer/director is "a lier" is a bit "zu kurz gesprungen". Let me emphazise my last sentence: He is definitely not going to be the only one to make a film about 9/11."

I guess you are a bit more optimistic about the film than I am. Given Mr. Stone's track-record, a lot of people (including me) are going to be extremely wary about the sort of film he makes. That said, sure, I could be jumping the gun or wrong about the film that is actually produced. Maybe Oliver Stone will suddenly change and make a fair and historically accurate movie. I just strongly doubt it.

And of course he won't be the only one to make a film, but he has the connections to make a highly influential film that a lot of people end up believing even if it is fraught with distortions, lies and mistruths (as was the case with "JFK" for example). I guess you could say I am trying to give people fair warning.

And again, I do strongly recommend you watch the film:
"Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination - Beyond Conspiracy". Jennings is hardly a hard-right conservative either...

joaninho
>> To say that a film is going to be "perversion" of 9/11 just because the producer/director is "a lier" is a bit "zu kurz gesprungen"

Leni Riefenstahl.

I stipulate in adavance that she was initially supported by the Nazi state and Hollywood is not the state. But the cultural subtext is apropo. The funding process in Hollywood is byzantine, to say the least and highly politicized. I can think of only two people who could finance a project like this on their own: Steven Spielberg and Ron Howard. It is my hope that one day each of them will tell the story of 9/11 because both of them excel at story-telling.

But Oliver Stone, like Leni R., are not story-tellers. They are propagandists. That is what Hollywood will provide funding for.

I don't care what Oliver Stone does, because I won't be forced to sit through his crappy movies. However, this "Freedom Center" is a blatant attempt to force people to interpret and experience the WTC site in a P.C., universalist way. They want to preempt any "intolerant" or "jingoistic" interpretations of what 9/11 meant; they're scared of that big hole and what it represents to a lot of people, so they want to jump in and package it to their own ideological specifications. There should be a non-political memorial in honor of all who died there, and that's it. The "Freedom Center" people can build their exhibit somewhere else where they won't be self-righteously trampling on survivors' and families' sentiments and memories.

Oh, and a note to Abe, the "real" New Yorker: I live in a town that lost 33 residents at the WTC. It's solid Republican. Not that it matters to any normal person, but you brought the issue up.

@ Pamela: So you are comparing a left-wing director to a Nazi and Hollywood to the Nazi State? Don't you think that's a bit over-the-top, to say the least?

It appears she's saying they're both propagandists, in fact that's exactly what she said...

Rahpeal
>>Pamela: So you are comparing a left-wing director to a Nazi and Hollywood to the Nazi State? Don't you think that's a bit over-the-top, to say the least?

My post:
>>I stipulate in adavance that she was initially supported by the Nazi state and Hollywood is not the state. But the cultural subtext is apropo. The funding process in Hollywood is byzantine, to say the least and highly politicized. I can think of only two people who could finance a project like this on their own: Steven Spielberg and Ron Howard. It is my hope that one day each of them will tell the story of 9/11 because both of them excel at story-telling.


raphael, reading comprehension is one of the first bulwarks against government by fiat. I suggest you try it. Reading comprehension, that is.

Premature ejaculation is never desirable.

Apart from the fact that I don't think Stone is a propagandist, with that logic someone like Amihasser could also correctly claim that Bush=Hitler, because they both were/are heads of state...

The question is, what's the worst thing that could happen if Stone made this movie? Maybe a bad movie you don't have to watch... what happened in Germany 70 years ago?
What is Stone intending with that movie? I honestly think that he wants to make a good movie about something he thinks is important and true, and I don't think that he wants to brainwash or indoctrinate (does that word exist?) people. And I think he has every right to do so- a movie, nothing else, be it right or wrong, good or bad. I usually don't believe in conspiracy theories or hidden agendas. Now Riefenstahl surely wanted to brainwash people, as she was part of a totalitarian system, trying to make the people do what they finally did-or do you think she just wanted to make a good movie about some sport event? (This doesn't say that the people did it BECAUSE of her or Hitler, people still had their own will and still did the horrible things they did, but it was her intention) Don't you think there's a difference?

I think if you have to use such arguments, your point doesn't seem to be very strong. This reminds me of people being upset about some tv program they think is unmoral (Nipplegate!) or stupid or something. All you can say to them is: Just turn it off!

Finally: It may be true that most of Hollywood is liberal, but if it is so difficult to produce patriotic or conservative movies, how did such masterpieces like Top Gun, Rambo, The Siege, Pearl Harbour, Black hawk Down, the passion of Christ and War of the Worlds happen?

Well, premature ejaculation may be not desirable, but if you can come again, there's worse things in life...;-)

@ Niko:

Exactly. By those standards Germans must REALLY LOATHE the SPD!

@raphael
>>The question is, what's the worst thing that could happen if Stone made this movie? Maybe a bad movie you don't have to watch..

ah. exactly right.

>>I honestly think that he wants to make a good movie about something he thinks is important and true, and I don't think that he wants to brainwash or indoctrinate (does that word exist?)

yes, the word exists. I also think Stone wants to make a good movie. But I DO think he wants to brainwash/indroctrinae.

>> And I think he has every right to do so- a movie, nothing else, be it right or wrong, good or bad

No one is questioning his right to make a movie.

>>Now Riefenstahl surely wanted to brainwash people, as she was part of a totalitarian system, trying to make the people do what they finally did-or do you think she just wanted to make a good movie about some sport event? (This doesn't say that the people did it BECAUSE of her or Hitler, people still had their own will and still did the horrible things they did, but it was her intention) Don't you think there's a difference?

Ok raphael, here is where you get my respect. I do think there is a huge difference. A propagandist supported by the state versus a propagandist supported by big money. I tried to make that clear in my initial post. And this post is the one that is going to give credence to every left wing nut case that American politics is driven by money.

I gather you are not American, so allow me please to explain the revulsion I experienced on this news.

Assumption one:
Oliver Stone is a propagandist. In his world, facts are fungible.

Assumption two:
Art trumps culture: "Piss Christ" (this is a crucifix planted in a glass of urine) is art because it 'transcends cultural hegemoney'. Funded by the NEA.

Germans - hell, Europeans in general - have a great advantage over Americans. They can always point to the state when the state gets out of line - simply because the state is the authority.
Americans don't have that luxury. The state is not the authority in instances like this. Culture is. And that consists only of our voices. That is why I made the distiction in my initial post that Leni R was state-supported and Oliver Stone is not.

So how does one defend one's culture if the state is not the agent one must defend against?
In this case it is the culture of Hollywood. I will wait to see the movie. I know this must be difficult for German readers to understand. Any American, conservative or progressive, has huge problems with the utter crap Hollywood turns out. Across the political board, the violence and crass sexuality is something no parent, regardless of his/her political persuasion, wants thier children to be exposed to. The role movies played in our day-to-day lives has changed and across the political spectrum, we don't like the change.

So raphael, you just stepped in it. It's not just about Oliver Stone. It's about an entire industry that demeans, mocks, and devalues everything most Americans - left and right (show me parents on either side of the political spectrum that would not lay down their lives for their children).

Don't mean to hit and run but very tired and busy. Back tomorrow. Hate mail to the ususal address.

How does the Left maintain a strangle
hold on Hollywood, does anybody know? Why are only lefty artists and musicians at the top of the charts? It seems the left has a strangle hold on the entertainment industry and main stream media, no?

@dahvid

They (the left) control all the money and companies doing all the work. In short it's a leftist monopoly. Then same story as most of the rest of the western world.

@ mamapajamas

"This could be done, and it could be done well, such as in the film "Tora, Tora, Tora"

There you got your knowledge about WWII from.

Now i understand why you can not seperate irony from reality.

i forgot to post my name

Whether one likes Oliver Stone or not, objecting to the movie at this point seems waaay over the top. I get the feeling that folks simply skipped over the article Ray D. linked to. Here's how the movies's described:

"The Paramount movie will focus on the true story of the rescue of two Port Authority police officers trapped in the rubble of the World Trade Center. 'The film,' the studio promised in its statement, 'is a portrayal of how the human spirit rose above the tragic events of that day.'"

I'm sorry, but I can't find a thing objectionable in that description.

I suppose that if one really wanted to find something to object to, this final blurb would be it:

"Stone, who was traveling from Europe to the United States and could not be reached for comment, was quoted in the Paramount press release emphasizing that the screenplay is 'an exploration of heroism in our country -- but is international at the same time in its humanity.'"

Of course one would have to ignore 'heroism in our country' and sieze on whatever vague evil one can find in 'international . . . in its humanity,' but if Oliver Stone is someone's anti-Christ, then there's the 'evidence'.

Last, Ray D., I would presume that you know Oliver Stone volunteered for and served a combat tour in Vietnam. 'Platoon', therefore, is at least partially an autobiographical work. Few of us can speak to whether he simply made things up or actually witnessed what's in the film, but an autobiographical film - or any film, for that matter - that focuses on a small unit in intense action wouldn't be expected to explain the larger historical context.

At least that's my read on film making.

Cheers,

@dahvid "How does the Left maintain a strangle hold on Hollywood"

It's a good question because one would normally associate rich actors and powerful Hollywood fatcat-moguls with the conservative side of politics. Unfortunately I fear the answer is somewhat complicated, but nonetheless intriguing. My conclusion is that it has to do with Elitism. In reaching that conclusion I considered the following:

1. Politics itself: what we currently consider as a debate between Liberal vs Conservative (in the US) or Left vs Right (in Europe) actually is a debate that fluctuates over time. Today in the US (decidedly NOT in Europe), conservative politics has hitched its wagon more to free markets and entrepreneurial capitalism rather than a 19th century defense of the status quo. Liberalism has come to be an umbrella more for identity politics and protecting the status quo when it has to do with "protected groups" such as trade unions, the UN and even bizarre Middle Eastern dictators. OK, I'm characterizing it in my preferred way - feel free to interpret it through your own eyes, but whichever way you do it, current conservatives (since Reagan/Thatcher) have favored market based outcomes, while Liberals have intervened to protect existing structures.

2. Related to point 1 above, icons of today's left are neither poor nor struggling nor defending against injustice: consider Kim Il Jong, Fidel Castro, Arafat, and Sadam Hussein. All lead or led a life of luxury amongst abject poverty - they are or were amongst the richest people on Earth! I hesitated to include George Soros in that group - others may feel less kind.

3. Many university radicals (certainly not all, and I am in no position outside my personal experience to even assert they're the majority) come from comfortable middle class families and, in places like Germany, stand to inherit considerable property from their parents' generation. Marx, himself a comfortable middle class German, inherited (and burned through) a moderate sized fortune before turning to consume that belonging to his friend, Engel. What is one to make of this? Well one might easily excuse Marx; he was surrounded by immiserating poverty of the early industrial revolution. That's not the situation modern students find themselves in. (See the discussion in the other thread: http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2005/07/jeff_gedmin_scr.html)

One can well imagine students being threatened by global capitalism, with its emphasis on risk-taking, smaller government (especially current US style capitalism) with fewer "functionary" positions to provide an easy, secure career path for themselves and eventually their offspring. I am rolling all students together merely to conserve space, there are many exceptions to this generalization, especially in engineering field. I am also for the moment assuming an understanding of capitalism that I really don't think is there. I live in Germany and I'm constantly dismayed by the simplistic understanding of what most here take to be a dirty word. Mention Schumpeter's creative-destruction of capital and you have students from privileged backgrounds running scared. They see their anticipated cozy career paths threatened.

4. The Actors themselves: again mostly come from middle class backgrounds, often in the entertainment industry. After finishing drama school they wait on tables (unless unexpectedly lucky) where they develop a sensitivity to the downtrodden (who are usually their fellow actors from school - but I'm being unkind). Look up the career path of Ben Affleck or Matt Daemon. They often share rooms, similar background, collaborate on scripts ("Good Will Hunting") and eventually rise to positions of influence. Nothing wrong with that, but your question really is: why do they dominate? Or perhaps it is, given that they are affluent (certainly in the top 1%), why don't they identify with conservative politics.

My answer: because current conservative politics does not protect their privilege. I am not talking about their income or wealth because I take it at face value that they are sincere in what they believe and what they write about. I am saying that, like most, they have not been successfully able to look beyond themselves when they interpret the welfare of the world. They see the good of the world in a system that protects not necessarily their life style, but the position of influence of their entire elitist group. I include in this the UK's new Rockocracy elite of Sir Elton John, Sir Paul McCartney etc...

Here is a key but controversial observation I have made in my half century on planet earth: capitalist economies have provided for the poor in the most profound way possible. Of course we still have the mentally ill and individuals of enormous bad luck slip through the cracks (here on the Bodensee we have a fellow living in the nearby forest - he's occasionally seen rummaging through trash cans for food, so don't assume this is a US vs German thingy). Contrast that to socialist countries such as the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, North Korea and others where the poor stay poor with little or no hope of a better life for themselves or their children. I know, I know, yes Cuba has free health care and I'm sure a UN agency can be found to say it's better than that of the US. Without arguing the point, I am far from being convinced and I find it hard to take seriously anybody, including a UN or WHO, who would.

So my conclusion is that Hollywood defends it's interests as they see it: who would expect otherwise. They try to create a world that would weaken free market policies and governments (Reagan, Thatcher, even to a lesser extent, Bush). But they are mistaken when they believe that ridding the world of free market policies would benefit the poor: it would in my view be a most catastrophic event for the world's downtrodden.

Sorry for the long answer, but it is an argument with more than a few twists and turns.

Sean

@ joaninho : Quote " In reference to the discussion Gavin brought up: I´d rather live in a society with critical artists like Stone than in a society where everyone has the same opinion. ...."

like in Germany, with "critical" - " artists" ,all very much like Stone and everyone otherwise having the same opinion ?
Which means you DO like to live in a society with a uniform opinion, it just has (and is) to be a Stonian opinion.

@Gavin

So, unless he does that, he is not allowed to show some of the brutal acts commited by the US troops.

No unless he does that then he's biased.

@Niko

Exaclty: Rolf tries to argue that since Stone was in Nam that he is free to create a public film that presents events in a certain way, deliberately ignoring his hugging of Fidel Castro, a man who has killed thousands of his own people to maintain power.

I don't know, maybe Stone has a axe to grind and he uses his directing influence to achieve his political objectives. Note the hypocrasy: when Bush invades Iraq to free the people from dictatorship - he's there for oil. But when Stone makes a movie - it's objective and a revelation of the truth.

James,

Sorry, but you mischaracterize what I wrote.

I pointed out Stone's service to Ray as an explanation why 'Platoon' didn't explore larger issues. 'Platoon' was told from the grunts' viewpoint. It's not fair to expect a film with such a narrow context to look at all facets of the war.

Parenthetically, Stone very vividly showed an atrocity committed by the Vietnamese.

And if we acknowledge where Stone's sympathies lie (at least vis-a-vis Fidel Castro, and find them repugnant, can we then say that knee-jerk criticism of a movie that hasn't even been made - and sounds like its going to focus on American heroism - is a bit premature ?

Cheers,

Oops, sorry, the comment was for Niko, but from me...

@Rofe,

It's not fair to expect a film with such a narrow context to look at all facets of the war.

Right. And I didn't see any American soldiers from Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan giving German childern chocolate: but personal accounts of Helmut Kohl claim so.

The question is whether Stone is objective in his presentation of historical facts, some of his films cleary are not. Maybe he just likes to make films and money, but silently fancys himself a politician. Ironically, we all know what Europe thought of Schwartzenegger and moreso America when he ran for political office, although most of his films were a-political. I just love double standards...

Society has become rather tolerant so much that Michael Moore makes "documentaries" and Oliver Stone is a "historian." I enjoy history and will accept it for fact when fully researched. Call me old fashioned but I believe in facts, and research; just look back to my posting/response to Phil about Alexander the Great.

By the way, didn't the British get in an uproar when the film U-571 showed Americans had captured the German Enigma code machine? We all know that it was the Polish who made the initial contributions to Blechly park.

You're right Rofe, I'll have to wait till I see the film. I cannot use Stone's historical behaviour or JFK's dubious Kennedy assasins as a predicition of the new film's content/message/empathies/morals. Meanwhile, Stone is laughing with his box-office proceeds: I'll wait till I download it from the internet.

@Rofe,

It's not fair to expect a film with such a narrow context to look at all facets of the war.

Right. And I didn't see any American soldiers from Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan giving German childern chocolate: but personal accounts of Helmut Kohl claim so.

The question is whether Stone is objective in his presentation of historical facts, some of his films cleary are not. Maybe he just likes to make films and money, but silently fancys himself a politician. Ironically, we all know what Europe thought of Schwartzenegger and moreso America when he ran for political office, although most of his films were a-political. I just love double standards...

Society has become rather tolerant so much that Michael Moore makes "documentaries" and Oliver Stone is a "historian." I enjoy history and will accept it for fact when fully researched. Call me old fashioned but I believe in facts, and research; just look back to my posting/response to Phil about Alexander the Great.

By the way, didn't the British get in an uproar when the film U-571 showed Americans had captured the German Enigma code machine? We all know that it was the Polish who made the initial contributions to Blechly park.

You're right Rofe, I'll have to wait till I see the film. I cannot use Stone's historical behaviour or JFK's dubious Kennedy assasins as a predicition of the new film's content/message/empathies/morals. Meanwhile, Stone is laughing with his box-office proceeds: I'll wait till I download it from the internet.

Well Abe - I am a New Yorker - I worked in the WTC ( Tower 2 - 13th Floor ) I was not in New York on that day

I understand that many, maybe even most New Yorkers do follow the caricature of Bush as printed in the NY Times and do HATE him ( so much for the loving tolerant liberals - you want to hear hate - talk about Bush in the village )

I support the Presidents resolute action against terrorism

I loathe the sycophantic adherance to the idea that the Clinton years were so wonderful...

Sure - real wonderful

The same folks who piss and moan that Bush didn't do enough to stop 9/11 in his 8 months don't even mention Clinton's 8 YEARS

No Abe - not ALL New Yorkers feel as you do

and thankfully - MOST Americans disagree with you

( And Bloomberg will be re-elected too ;) )

great stuff Niko

Right out of Team America and F.A.G. led by Alec Baldwin

Truth is really stranger than fiction

btw - apart from Platoon - which was very good - Stones movies suck wind and make NO MONEY

"Whether one likes Oliver Stone or not, objecting to the movie at this point seems waaay over the top. I get the feeling that folks simply skipped over the article Ray D. linked to. Here's how the movies's described:

"The Paramount movie will focus on the true story of the rescue of two Port Authority police officers trapped in the rubble of the World Trade Center. 'The film,' the studio promised in its statement, 'is a portrayal of how the human spirit rose above the tragic events of that day.'"

Really? Waaay over the top? Based on Oliver Stone's record of repeatedly lying and twisting history in his movies to this point? I think that is not way over the top but prudent caution.

As far as the description, yeah, sure it sounds fine. Maybe I am jumping the gun. But I expect to see Stone twist the event in some manner to fit his ideology. Maybe it won't happen, but I doubt it.

As far as Platoon goes, yeah, maybe it is just one 'autobiographical' movie. But how does that explain the rest of Stone's work? What about Born on the 4th of July? (Also a piece based on a man's life). What about Nixon? What about JFK? Why do all these films have the same hard-left political slant? Why do I always get the feeling I'm watching propaganda when I see this sort of a Stone movie?

Why doesn't Stone do a movie based on the fate of an anti-Communist Vietnamese family? (And believe me, you could come up with more than enough gut-wrenching drama to fill two hours). Why doesn't Stone ever do a movie on the killing fields in Cambodia? Why does he openly lie about history surrounding JFK's assassination? Why does he make an entire movie to smear and misrepresent Richard Nixon (as if Nixon's reputation needed further tarnishing)?

That is why I am worried and wary about the movie Stone will make. Because he has shown little respect for historic fact in the past and because his films reach and influence enormous numbers of people. Just as I don't expect SPIEGEL and Stern to have a sudden pro-American change of heart tomorrow or in one year, neither do I expect such of Oliver Stone.

As far as Oliver Stone's service goes, he should be commended for that. But I also know of many other veterans who served in Vietnam and have a very different recollection of what went on there.

great stuff Niko

Right out of Team America and F.A.G. led by Alec Baldwin

Truth is really stranger than fiction

btw - apart from Platoon - which was very good - Stones movies suck wind and make NO MONEY

NYT has an editorial today slamming the "Take Back the Memorial" group.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/opinion/12tue1.html

Yes, it's a shame to see that tool Oliver Stone assigned to a 9/11 movie. There are many movies that Oliver Stone could be trusted to do a good job with, but this isn't one of them.

As for the proposed "Freedom Center" at the new WTC, why even have it there? Can't we just have a simple, dignified memorial without the politics? If you put the Freedom Center there, it will inevitably try to cash in on it's "hallowed ground" location. Put the Freedom Center somewhere else in New York. Put it in DC. Put it at a major university somewhere. But don't put it at Ground Zero. Just leave the memorial there to speak for itself--it doesn't need any help in that regard. Especially not from the "good cause" industry who will try to profit from the 9/11 cachet.

More lunacy from Stone:
----------------------------------
Stone wagged his head and continued. "The studios bought television stations," he said. "Why? Why did the telecommunications bill get passed at midnight, a hidden bill at midnight? The Arabs have a point! They're going to be joined by the people who objected in Seattle, and the usual ten per cent who are against everything, and it's going to be, like, twenty-five per cent of this country that's against the new world order. We need a trustbuster like Teddy Roosevelt to take the television stations away from the film companies and give them back to the people!" There was more applause, and a few uncertain murmurs. "Does anybody make a connection between the 2000 election"—for the Presidency—"and the events of September 11th?" he asked, and added cryptically, "Look for the thirteenth month!" He went on to say that the Palestinians who danced at the news of the attack were reacting just as people had responded after the revolutions in France and Russia. ...

[snip]
"This is the time for a bullet of a film about terrorism, like 'The Battle of Algiers' "—Gillo Pontecorvo's 1966 movie about the conflict between the French and F.L.N. terrorist cells in Algeria, in which the director's sympathies lie with the terrorists. "You show the Arab side and the American side in a chase film with a 'French Connection' urgency, where you track people by satellite, like in 'Enemy of the State.' My movie would have the C.I.A. guys and the F.B.I. guys, but they blow it. They're a bunch of drunks from World War II who haven't recovered from the disasters of the sixties—the Kennedy assassination and Vietnam.
----------------
http://slate.msn.com/id/2122431/&#revolt

I can barely wait for the movie.

@ ricardo III:

"like in Germany, with "critical" - " artists" ,all very much like Stone and everyone otherwise having the same opinion ?
Which means you DO like to live in a society with a uniform opinion, it just has (and is) to be a Stonian opinion."

I live in a society with a uniform opinion? Ever been to Germany?

Yes, joaninho, I live in Germany. Show me people who talk good or at least neutral about Israel and the US. I read only negative reports. I heard only negative statements the last years. I am curious where I can find DIFFERENT opinions? Please help me.

@joaninho

if you live in Germany you live in a society with a uniform opinion, yes.
90 % Gleichsprecher.

10 % are courageous and smart enough to think for themselves.

Ray, whether Stone should make this film or not doesn't interest me very much, to be honest. I don't like Stone, but that's not the point here. A twist in your argumentation interests me: Stone is a "liar" because he made a film about the Kennedy assassination which is committed to the conpiracy theory. Why? Because there is a film that shows the conspiracy theory is wrong.....

To cite a review of this film from http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/kennedybeyond.php:

"The reliance on inference and the lack of true objectivity really undermines the conviction of Beyond Conspiracy, giving it the same sense of didactic delirium as many of the conspiracy theory movies made. Granted, the information here is presented in a far more logical manner, but some of what is being called "definitive" proof has the reek of a reverse plot philosopher—that is, someone readily buying into a series of establishment statements without a single bit of background confirmation. This may be too harsh a criticism of a well-researched, expertly presented and compelling look at one of the darkest mysteries of American history.... "

It's not important whether this review gets it right. Of course you will find contrdicting reviews, as about everything on this issue. You know how many stuff on the Kennedy assassination has been published. Nobody with a realistic perception of his own ability to survey thousands of pages and GB of information will claim to have a final judegement on this issue. So you are not any better than Stone or any promoter of the conspirancy theory or the single bullet theory. But you call him a liar....

That's (and I don't waste yout time with more examples, you will continue without the slightest change of direction anyway) why your blog is not about any spin zone, it has developed to a spin zone itself - with very obvious aims. What a pity. Case closed.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28