Log in

View Full Version : Oliver Stone stirs up history



Bandito
14th January 2010, 16:09
Hitler? A scapegoat. Stalin? I can empathise. Oliver Stone stirs up history


In a film-making career spanning almost 40 years, Oliver Stone (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/oliver-stone) has turned political controversy in America into an art form. He has upset financiers with his caustic portrayal of Wall Street; conservatives with his depiction of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez and George Bush; and Democrats with his conspiracy theories about the assassination of John F Kennedy.
All of which may come to look like a tea party – of the social as opposed to right-wing protest variety – when his next big venture hits the screens.
Stone announced yesterday that a 10-hour crash course in the history of the 20th century he is putting together for American TV is designed as an antidote to the inaccuracies and biases he believes exist in the conventional historical narrative dished out in American schools and mainstream media. The title alone gives an inkling of what lies ahead: Oliver Stone's Secret History of America.
The thrice-Oscar winning director gave a further glimpse into his thinking at a gathering of TV critics in Pasadena on Saturday, when he didn't so much open up a can of worms as unleash an entire supermarket shelf-load. He began by startling the panel by bringing up the H word.
"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."
Then he went on to mention two M words – Chairman Mao and Joseph McCarthy, architect of the 1950s anti-communist purges in Washington, and the T word – Harry Truman's dropping of the atom bomb in 1945.
Of the many potential storms that could be brewing over his Secret History, which will be broadcast by the cable channel Showtime later this year, Hitler promises to be the most incendiary. 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."
The implication that Stone is seeking to put forward a good side of the German dictator hitherto not seen by Americans is, even by Stone's own accomplished record of stirring up stinks, pretty radical.
The comment inspired Stone's collaborator on his Secret History, Peter Kuznick, a history professor at the Washington-based American University, to tell the audience of television critics and, in an apparent damage-limitation exercise: "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."
Even so, such a relativist approach to Hitler as a product of his time as much as an individual embodiment of evil is likely to prove hot material. Stone said he would similarly put Stalin "in context". "I've been able to walk in Stalin's shoes and Hitler's shoes, to understand their point of view. You cannot approach history unless you have empathy for the person you may hate."
Within hours of the comments being made, they had begun, in the predictable pattern of such things, to effervesce on the internet like yeast in dough.
A blogger by the pen name Orphia Nay summed up the billowing emotion: "Ohhhhhh, this is not going to end well," she wrote. Others were less temperate. "Again, another 'blame America first' person. If he/they hate it, just leave it. We'll all have a party and help you pack. You won't even have a full body scan."
Say what you will about Stone, he can't be accused of opting for the easy life. His 2006 film on 9/11, World Trade Center, was both critically acclaimed and a box office hit, with an appeal to all political persuasions. Next he bounced back with a sharp portrait of George Bush in W. Then he made South of the Border, his glowing portrayal of Chávez as champion of the poor which premiered at the Venice film festival in September where Stone appeared with Chávez on his arm. His Wall Street 2, with Michael Douglas reprising Gordon Gekko, is in post-production; it's a fair bet that the money men will come off no better this time than they did the last.
Now his Secret History. "Obviously, Rush Limbaugh is not going to like this history," Stone told the TV critics, which may go down as one of the great understatements of all time.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/jan/10/hitler-stalin-oliver-stone-history

cop an Attitude
14th January 2010, 16:13
"Back and to the left, back and to the left"

The Vegan Marxist
14th January 2010, 16:15
I find this to be very fascinating. I can't wait to see what Stone brings us with this newly open minded view of Hitler, Stalin, Truman, etc.

Scary Monster
14th January 2010, 18:32
i love how Stone chose to approach this show- like the article states- objectivist. Which is why i cant help but think this could change many people's minds here in the States (who will finally be presented with our true history and actions of our government), who are far too right-leaning, due to the onslaught of propaganda in our schools, media, entertainment and shit. So this new show is BADLY needed. I only wish they would air this on basic cable, instead of the movie channels, so that most people would have access to it =P

Prairie Fire
14th January 2010, 19:29
It is flawed from the beginning, because he is allready placing J.V.Stalin and Adolph Hitler in the same handbasket.

Any "sympathetic" portrayal of Stalin is likely to be in the cinematic tradition of "Enemy at the Gates": Still upholding all of the questionable allegations attributed to him, but trying to rationalize these "facts".

He is most likely to go in the "militaristic dictator, with nationalist redeeming qualities" direction than a historically accurate (and just as controversial) one.

Ismail
14th January 2010, 19:33
It is flawed from the beginning, because he is allready placing J.V.Stalin and Adolph Hitler in the same handbasket.

Any "sympathetic" portrayal of Stalin is likely to be in the cinematic tradition of "Enemy at the Gates": Still upholding all of the questionable allegations attributed to him, but trying to rationalize these "facts".

He is most likely to go in the "militaristic dictator, with nationalist redeeming qualities" direction than a historically accurate (and just as controversial) one.Pretty much. The "modernizing dictator" argument which is so numerous, anti-Marxist and annoying. A movie which portrayed him as a genuine Marxist striving to build up a socialist state within the context of international encirclement, internal plots, and World War II would, as you said, be truly controversial and would not appeal to the whole "RNNNGH GLORIOUS RUSSIAN ASIATICS BLOW UP TANKS AND SHIT WHILE STALIN SATISFIES HIS LUST FOR BLOOD BY KILLING EVERYTHING AND BUILDING INDUSTRY THROUGH DEATH!!!1"

Wanted Man
14th January 2010, 19:57
It is flawed from the beginning, because he is allready placing J.V.Stalin and Adolph Hitler in the same handbasket.

Is he, comrade? I'm not so sure. It's more that he is making a feature about 20th century history, and of course, in that case, Nazi Germany and the USSR will inevitably be well-represented. I'm not excluding the possibility that he will do exactly what you suggest, but I'd like to wait and see.

The Red Next Door
16th January 2010, 01:28
I can't wait to watch it.

Yazman
16th January 2010, 03:28
Yeah, its not a good idea to make sweeping assumptions before you've actually even seen it. I suggest you wait and see before you criticise it.

bcbm
16th January 2010, 03:33
that's what he said

leninpuncher
16th January 2010, 03:34
"RNNNGH GLORIOUS RUSSIAN ASIATICS BLOW UP TANKS AND SHIT WHILE STALIN SATISFIES HIS LUST FOR BLOOD BY KILLING EVERYTHING AND BUILDING INDUSTRY THROUGH DEATH!!!1"

To be honest, he did do a little bit of that.