Fox News: or how I learned to stop worrying and love the dumb

I must start by apologizing in advance for starting with a rather ridiculous recent topic but I just couldn’t resist myself, it gives a great meaning to the title of my blog. On December 2nd, while watching “Follow the Money” on Fox News (for strictly masochistic reasons), the show’s host Eric Bolling had a seven minute segment criticizing the new musical comedy film “The Muppets” for apparently being part of some sort of Hollywood Leftist conspiracy to brainwash children into engaging in class warfare. Although this may seem as a joke to the reader, I can assure you I am not hyperbolizing any of this. Those were the exact words used. At first, I was laughing hysterically but then I slowly stopped and started thinking about it more carefully. I thought to myself: what sort of society do I live in where, you turn on the television and the arguments that you hear from supposedly “political commentators” who possibly have a degree in journalism or English or had some sort of academic success to be televising their thoughts nationwide, debating whether Kermit the Frog, our beloved, pig-dating, green-looking, fly-eating childhood puppet, stands by the ideology behind organizations like the Nomenklatura? Unfortunately this kind of outrageous debates do not come as a surprise to American audiences. The American public has gotten used to topics and questions like: whether Obama was born in the US or is he a secret member of the Muslim Brotherhood, whether Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales are cocaine buddies or just Communist dictators, whether one’s religious freedom is being threaten by abortionists baby-killers and perverted homosexuals or is it being destroyed by evil secular organizations and pot smoking Democrats…etc. I assure you that it’s partly because of this kind of ignorance that the American people are laughed at around the world…and also perhaps that we have the best political comedy material. But what is really disturbing about Fox News, is not the fact that it hides a false message of a biased and bigoted nature, it’s precisely the fact that they know it. In the same way I believe only atheists can truly understand the Bible, I think only social liberals can truly understand what kind of role Fox News plays in the mainstream media. One of the main criticisms people have used to attack Fox News is that the network in some way promotes subliminal biased messages behind their supposed objective headlines, for example if the headline that evening is: “Obama promotes tax hike for wealthy Americans to cut deficit”, the underline message would be something like  “Obama promotes class warfare against successful job-creators”. However, I believe that is not the case. Something much more interesting happens. I claim that the strategy is in fact reversed. In this case, the headline is actually “Obama promotes class-warfare” and the unsaid message is in fact “we’re not afraid of saying things that might not come from a reliable source or any kind of logical fact but it serves our agenda and satisfies everyone”. They are not discreet about it. Although they have always defended themselves and compared themselves with other news channels like CNN or MSNBC, the truth is, you would never find such obvious biased messages in MSNBC, and if you did, you would probably not even think about it that much. It would be something completely insignificant like: “we need Eco-friendly vomiting bags in airplanes”. The real interesting thing about Fox News is that they admit to their biased views themselves. They say that they lean towards the right and try to keep social as well as fiscal conservatives well-informed. When it comes to political opinion, I have absolutely no problem in having someone like Bill O’Reilly shouting anti-immigrant statements in his little evening show, specially because I find it amusing and at the same time sad that someone who has a last name like “O’Reilly” would stand so strong against immigration. My problem is when that “political opinion” becomes something you pass on as fact. News channels have a responsibility to inform the American people, whether it’s patriots, workers, immigrants, conservatives or anarchists, news is news. I say that because we specially live in delicate times. We have problems like the national debt, the war in the middle east, unemployment, global warming…etc we can’t risk to have a larger un-informed public. America is already dumb enough as it is. During the eve of the Iraq war, 70% of Americans thought that Sadaam Hussein was directly involved with the September 11 attacks, now 34% still do, the majority of Americans can’t name a single branch of government, 24% can’t name the country America fought in the Revolutionary War…etc. Of course, it would be naive of me to blame all of this on Fox News but let’s face it, they’re not exactly helping. And as a member of the Far-Left, I must say that I really hope that the word “communist” would stop being thrown as an insult at everyone who might disagree with American conservative nationalists. I had already found the statement “Obama is a communist” to be outrageously ridiculous and offensive to real communists but now with “The Muppets are communists”… that is just simply insane.


The Battle of Algiers: reality, war, cinema and toilet bowls

One of the ideas I always try to convey is that reality is too weak for cinema. There is something about the cinematic fiction that tells us about reality itself.
In 1966, Italian filmmaker Gillo Pontecorvo made what probably has become the archetype of political art-house cinema. The Battle of Algiers takes place in French Algeria during the Algerian independence war. It is a sublime film, there is no doubt about it. It is the ideal film. It works as a political message, as an art film, as a commercial film, it speaks internationally and it inspires reflection and bewilders. It is unique in that sense. However, I think the film’s real strength lies in it’s relevance in time, not only today but in our recent past. If you look at the film today, you would undoubtedly see an obvious relevance between the story of the Algerian independence and the wars that go on currently in Muslim countries. Although Pontecorvo’s film is clearly anti-imperialist and sympathetic with the Algerian struggle it is at the same time not anti-French, if you look closely at the film, it stands in the very middle of the war. The protagonist is Ali la Pointe, a young member of the National Liberation Front that through acts of violence and terrorism, struggles for Algerian national independence. The film shows sympathy for the Algerian struggle but never falls into becoming a demonizing view on the pied-noires. Instead, it does something mush more radical; it shows how genocide is international. Loosing a son, a wife, a father or a sister has no nationality. There are two scenes in the film which I think are crucial: the first is when the two French officials place the bomb in Casbah killing hundreds of Algerians, and the other is when the three women of the National Liberation Front take action in avenging the death of the Casbah bombings by placing bombs in the cafe and bars of the city, killing also hundreds. However, there is a catch; the music heard in both scenes is exactly the same. In a way, Pontecorvo is telling us how murder is murder no matter what side you’re on. Wouldn’t this be a perfect film to show today? It is not a coincidence that this film has been popularly compared with the Israeli occupation in the West Bank, the American war against Iraq…etc. It’s clear that today we live in a world where the difference between nationalism and right-wing fundamentalism has unfortunately grown slim. Why can’t one be part of Palestinian struggle without compromising with anti-Semitism? Why can’t one sympathize with the Arab uprising without being accused of Muslim fundamentalism? These questions are still relevant today. They belong to our current political reality. We shouldn’t tolerate violence or racism in any situation. The Battle of Algiers, not only makes a political statement but also makes a humanistic study of the effects of oppression and war. For Pontecorvo, is not enough showing a bunch of people rebelling against French occupiers, the film must also show the human as well as the emotional condition that one would go through under such oppression. Any film that starts with a torture scene, you already know there will be no break, no moment of peace, no sigh. The cinematography of the film could possibly be an example of the beginning of cinema verité, it reminds us of newsreel footage from the late 50s, the type of footage that they would show audiences in movie theaters before they started the movie. The film was released in 1966, so the impact and relevance of that kind of newsreel style was quite effective. Nonetheless, it has not lost its impact and its relevance. In the middle of the film, you almost forget you are watching fiction. It’s almost as if the reality of the film becomes so powerful you think you are looking at real war footage. In a very simplistic and obvious sense, that is what I believe cinema was really made for. Any film you look at (any good film) whether it’s science fiction, horror or a realistic drama you always allow yourself to be “tricked” into thinking you’re watching something real; perhaps even something more real than you are willing to admit.You know very well that it’s a movie, that it’s fiction…but somehow it fills in that space between the audience sitting down on their seats and the light that’s being spilled on the white screen. The experience is as if we are staring into some sort of void. So, as members of the audience we finally eliminate any obstacle between what goes on the screen and ourselves. Of course, nobody knows this better than Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek who, in his documentary “The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema”, draws a rather tasteless analogy between cinema and a toilet bowl. In this vulgar analogy, Zizek argues that the experience we get when we sit in front of a screen, as soon as light is projected we are witnessing in a way, excrement coming back out from the toilet. Let me explain: when one goes to the toilet and flushes, it is in a certain way as if we are sending these “excrements” away to another dimension, somewhere away from our psychological space. We forget about them. They leave our reality as it were. In the movie theater, Zizek claims that the process is reversed: “Aren’t we, in a way, just waiting for shit to come out from the screen? But always from a safe distance.” Once the film starts, the void is opened, so we could probably expect almost anything to come out of it. That is what’s most traumatic in the film experience. Life is too comfortable for film, not the other way around. Cinema opens up something that is perhaps is too real even for reality itself. I think The Battle of Algiers is a perfect but simple example of that phenomenon. The reality is shit, it’s a series of terrible and unpleasant events, but the experience is somewhat magical. It is a fictional story yet it shows us something about ourselves and would so even if the film weren’t based on real historical events. The experience would still be real.

Occupy Ideology: a monster called democracy

It’s been a little more than two months since the Occupy Wall Street movement started in New York this fall, becoming a nationwide phenomenon and spreading in cities all across America. Not surprisingly it has been subject of praise as well as criticism. Along with the Republican primaries, the Occupy protests have been a continuous topic among the mainstream media and an issue of debate in public and private discussions. On one hand many well-respected academic intellectuals, artists and social critics like Slavoj Zizek, Cornel West, Noam Chomsky…etc have given their support to the protesters and have participated in rallies as well. On the other hand, the movement and the protesters have been demonized by conservative as well as liberal political and public figures who have accused the protesters of participating in violent left-wing extremism. The conservative critique of the Occupy movement is a somewhat neo-Mccarthyist one; “they are against democracy, against American liberalism…”. However, the liberal critique of the Occupy movement concentrates on the idea that none of the protesters offer empirical solutions to a well-known crisis ; “they do not know what they want, what is their goal?…etc. Although I agree with liberals when they say that the Occupy movement is not a single issue movement and doesn’t have a concrete goal, but I believe that it is precisely what makes it an important movement and should remain in that way. No, the movement doesn’t have a manifesto with solid demands and specific solutions…and it shouldn’t! We (and by we I mean the “99 percenters” who are participating in the movement) have already achieved something that I think is very interesting,  something perhaps even the very same protesters don’t realize: we have broken the taboo of questioning American liberal democratic capitalism as a whole. Until now, the twentieth century have been inundated with single-issue protests that have been focused on changes: for more immigrant rights, for ecological protection, for universal health care, for re-distribution of wealth through welfare-state, against racism, against poverty…etc but always remaining within the current political and economical space. What if all of the issues listed above, are not possible to fix within the current political and financial establishment? Now we find ourselves confronting a bigger monster, a monster called democracy. Now you are probably thinking that I am some kind of Bolshevik totalitarian nut, but all I am really saying is something very simple: we shouldn’t be afraid of questioning our democratic system as a whole. For a very long time, we have been blindly attached to the ideal that democracy and capitalism mean the same thing. I think that the link between capitalism and democracy is coming to a certain end, they will no longer be synonyms. Of course now the big question rises among the 99%: “If we know that our political and our economic system is failing what will we replace it with?”. Nobody seems to know. The people certainly don’t know, the politicians don’t know, economists have no idea what is going on and intellectuals who say they have a solution are undoubtedly lying. We can’t really imagine the end of capitalism, we have an easier time imagining the end of the world than we do imagining the end of this “post-Berlin Wall” utopia called Western democratic capitalism. That is why there is hard work and hard thinking ahead of us and that is why I suggest everyone (or at least the 99% ) should support the Occupy movement. Let’s make noise! Let’s ask questions (the right questions) and let’s not fall into the trap of becoming simply a harmless, non-violent political statement. Let’s face it, there is no such thing as a “convenient  protest”. Let us be violent! Of course not physically violent but metaphysically violent instead. Violent in the sense of trying to disrupt an entire system and not just make little changes here and there. Violent in the same way that Mahatma Gandhi was violent. Slovenian philosopher and cultural theorist Slavoj Zizek said it best when he said we should  have the courage to do nothing: “Sometimes, doing nothing is the most violent thing to do”. But of course, “doing nothing” here means in the sense of non-dialogue and non-violence, not in the sense of non-action. When two opposing forces are pressing against each other, the first force will fall on itself  if the second suddenly stops pressing. Freedom is at stake. It’s no secret that mayors across the nation are now loosing their patience, they are being pressured by the top 1% to get rid of the protesters who are “doing nothing” in the parks and squares of many American cities nationwide. And in result we have seen numerous park evictions in the past weeks. Plutocrats and oligarchs are desperately demanding an answer from us. We shouldn’t answer. Let them figure it out. They will try to dilute it in the same way they diluted Obama’s universal health care platform. A space has been opened, a vacuum has been created, let’s not fill it in too quickly. Every bad decision comes from lack of thinking. We should think before we act and accept that the twentieth century is over and that solid empirical solutions have never worked out without a hard and long thinking process. I truly believe we are now beginning this process.

Oliver Stone: a historical view on cinema and American politics

The film school generation of the 1970s

An immense and flourishing production of both creative and commercially acclaimed films emerged during the 1970s, these films were made by great new talented directors who, for the first time in film history, came straight from film school. In California, Francis Ford Coppola went to film school at UCLA, Stephen Spielberg studied film and dramatic arts at California State and George Lucas graduated from University of Southern California among many others. In the East Coast, Martin Scorsese, Brian De Palma, Woody Allen and Oliver Stone all attended New York University. Many of these “film school generation” filmmakers became the new directors of the 1970s and 80s. These filmmakers had academic formation on film history, production, aesthetics and other related subjects as part of their graduate school program.

One of these filmmakers was Oliver Stone who was born in New York in 1946 to Jacqueline and Lois Stone, a stockbroker. Stone attended New York University and Yale. In 1967, Stone enlisted in the United States Army and then sent to Vietnam where he fought in combat duty with the 25th Infantry Division and then with the First Cavalry Division. He earned a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart with an Oak Leaf Cluster before he was sent back home in 1968, after fifteen months in the service. His experience in Vietnam influenced his career and will become a key factor in Stone’s films. Stone’s professional experience with filmmaking didn’t come until 1974 when Stone directed a surreal horror flick called “Seizure”(1974) produced by Cinerama Releasing Corporation.  The film was not a big success but it wasn’t until four years later, when Stone achieved wide recognition as a Hollywood screenwriter with his screenplay for Alan Parker’s film “Midnight Express”(1978) based on the book by Billy Hayes. Stone won an Academy Award for best Adapted Screenplay. In Midnight Express, we can begin to notice Stone’s strong critique for American foreign policies and the politicians involved.


The blockbuster era of the 1980s

The next decade began with what is known to be the biggest financial disaster ever to hit the American film industry. In 1980, Michael Cimino, who was widely acclaimed for directing “The Deer Hunter”(1978), released a forty-million-dollar epic Western named “Heaven’s Gate”(1980). It was withdrawn from distribution almost immediately after the film’s opening night.  This box office “bomb” affected the way films were produced and distributed during this decade. Studios were scared to finance something other than survival horrors, sci-fi or the so-called “teenpix” films. During the 1980s the “Heaven’s Gate” disaster as well as the rise of the videocassette and cable television market convinced studios to finance films with a more secured audience and a high-gross promise, in other words, films which have less of a chance in failing in the box office. Teenagers and their younger siblings drove this new American box office face to an all-time high of 4.3 billion dollars by 1987. This phenomenon caused the rise of a very specific type of film which Stone remained distanced from. Instead, Stone’s idea at the time was to make films that completely disrupted the flow of the 80’s blockbuster trend and make a political statement against the current American conservative thinking of the Reagan Administration.  Stone’s second experience with Hollywood success as a screenwriter was with his script for Brian De Palma’s epic crime drama “Scarface” (1983). A contemporary remake of the 1932 film with the same name, the film opened with mostly negative reviews, people walking out of the theater and criticized for its graphic violence and hard language. However the film became a huge success as the weeks passed and gathered an enormous cult following. Stone became a widely known director with his next film, “Salvador”(1986), a war drama about an American photojournalist in El Salvador during the Salvadoran Civil War got two Oscar nominations; one for Best Actor in a Leading Role (James Woods) and another for Best Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen (Oliver Stone and Richard Boyle). This film was a big turning point for films during the 80s. It was undoubtedly controversial. Its portrayal of the American alliance with the violent right-wing totalitarian governments across Latin America was shocking for audiences. The controversy wasn’t the ignorance among the American public about these alliances, the American public knew very well about the American presence in Salvador during that time. The real controversy was that the Salvadoran war was never portrayed before in a Hollywood film. It was something to grim and to close to reality to be shown in a movie house along with “Top Gun” (1986) or “First Blood” (1982). We must remember that during this decade, films were made to be big blockbusters. The top grossing films were “E.T the Extra Terrestrial”(1982), “The Empire Strikes Back”(1980), The Return of the Jedi”(1983), “Batman” (1989) and “Raiders of the Lost Ark”(1981) all grossing more than $245 million. All made to please a very wide audience. Such a harsh, crude, pessimistic war drama like “Salvador” was defiantly not common in this teenage-dominated market.

Of course, Oliver Stone didn’t stop there. In that very same year Stone went off to direct what might be one of the most important war films in history next to “Apocalypse Now”(1979) and “Full Metal Jacket”(1987). Stone wrote “Platoon”(1986) based on his experiences as a U.S Infantryman in Vietnam. He won the Academy Award for Best Picture that same year. “Platoon” was an anti-war film denouncing the savage killings and raping that went on in the American army against Vietnamese civilians and the chaotic struggle the US Army had to face against itself due to the harsh environmental and mental health circumstances under which American soldiers had been submitted to. In an interview with Playboy magazine in 1988, Stone had said that “Platoon” was an antidote to idealist military themed films like “Top Gun” or “First Blood”. The entire film takes place in Vietnam. In the interview he says: “I think there are a lot of people who learned nothing from Vietnam. Because of them, all the men who died in Vietnam have died for nothing”.

His success with “Platoon” drove him to direct “Wall Street”(1987), a film that takes place during the stock market boom of the 1980s. This film caused a lot of mixed feelings. Although Stone’s experience with his father Lou Stone, who worked as a stock broker in Wall Street during the great depression, where a crucial factor in the making of this film. The film stood strong against the corporate greed and the conservative economic system know at that time as “voodoo economics” or  “Reaganomics” which involved a lot of deregulation in the stock market. Ironically, the film’s political content was praised by “yuppies” and liberals and envisioned Michael Douglass’s character, Gordon Gekko as an idol. In the same year, Stanley Kubrick released “Full Metal Jacket”, another Vietnam War film with an even more controversial approach. As opposed to Stone’s film, Kubrick’s film explores the transformation of an American soldier into a natural killing-machine instead of conveying a more moralistic anti-war message like “Platoon”.  Both films are the most important war films of the 80s. But it was “Platoon” that sparked the return of the Vietnam War as a popular debate subject while during the 1970s it was still considered a taboo.

The 1980s was also a decade famous or perhaps even notorious for its trend for ongoing sequels. For John Carpenter’s low-budget, highly acclaimed slasher “Halloween” it had four sequels in the 80s and six more in the 90s and 2000s. The other big slasher hit was “Friday the 13th” it had seven sequels and four more in later decades. The next franchise is Wes Craven’s “A Nightmare on Elm Street”(1984) with five sequels in the 80s and four more films later on, three “Rambo” films and so on and so on… Stone had, what he called his own “Vietnam war trilogy” consisting on three films: “Platoon”(1986), “Born on the Fourth of July”(1989) and “Heaven and Earth”(1993). “Born on the Fourth of July” won 8 Academy Award nominations, including Best Directing and Best Editing. The story follows a young man’s journey from being a small town, middle-American patriot to becoming a crippled Vietnam veteran and national anti-war activist. This film was Stone’s big hit, earning almost all positive reviews, earning 161 million dollars and a very wide reception. From this point, Stone was recognized worldwide as a big Hollywood director.

The cultural hangover of the 1990s

The 1990s began with what I like to call the “hangover” of the big, wild, crazy and expensive decade of 1980s. The rise of independent cinema as well as independent studios such as Miramax and New Line served as a counter reaction towards the big budget Hollywood studio films that inundated the past decade.  In the big studio world, the 90s were known also for it’s Disney renaissance, starting with: “The Little Mermaid” (1989), “Beauty and the Beast” (1991),“The Lion King” (1994) and ending with “Tarzan” (1999). But Disney wasn’t just re-making their old-style animated children’s stories they were also developing new ways to make animation. As we all know, this decade is also known for launching probably the biggest technological advancements in film history. With the advancements in 3-Dimension animation and CGI, in 1995 Disney partnered with Pixar to make the “Toy Story” (1995) franchise. Videocassettes also ruled the movie market throughout this decade; many films were made for TV screens and just had VHS distribution while with other films, the home-video market was an important factor in their revenue sometimes even doubling the total income. In the independent world, low-budget and independent films were popular not only in the festival circuit but also in the box office. The new “indie film” movement starts with the big box office success of films like “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” (1990) grossing 200 million dollars making it the highest grossing independent flick in history, followed of course, by more serious and critically acclaimed ones like Gus Van Sant’s “My Own Private Idaho” (1991) and “Good Will Hunting” (1997), Tarantino’s debut films “Reservoir Dogs” (1992) and “Pulp Fiction” (1994), Jane Campion’s “The Piano” (1993) from New Zeeland, Kevin Smith’s low-budget debut film “Clerks” (1994), Larry Clark’s controversial  “Kids” (1995), Cameron Crow’s  “Jerry Maguire” (1996), Roberto Benigni’s “Life is beautiful” (1998) from Italy…and many more. Almost all of these films mentioned were made by what used to be the small independent studio Miramax founded by the Weinstein brothers that grew into a million dollar industry.

Stone faced the new decade with “The Doors” (1991), a biopic on legendary rock icon Jim Morrison. The film starred Val Kilmer as the controversial singer. With a modest budget of 32 million, the film explored in-depth the man behind the legend, experimenting with a psychedelic style very similar to one of his later films, “Natural Born Killers” (1994) and “Nixon” (1995). The film had mixed reviews, on one hand it was criticized for it’s historical accuracy and its clichéd look of the 1960s but on the other hand, it was praised for its unusual style and for re-introducing The Doors to new generations. It’s not until the premiere of his next film that will once again, rise big controversy like never before in Stone’s carrier. Stone’s next film “JFK” (1991) is based on the investigation led by former New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison (played by Kevin Costner) of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy which lead to one of the biggest conspiracy theories of American History claiming that the C.I.A, F.B.I, angry Cuban exiles and even members of The White House plotted in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.  The film is based on two books: “On the Trail of the Assassins” by Jim Garrison and “Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy” by Jim Marrs. The film won two Academy Awards, one for Best Cinematography and Best Editing. The film’s controversy came even before the film was released. The Washington Post national security correspondent George Lardner visited the set of the film and wrote an article attacking the film. When the film opened, it was bombarded with accusations of anti-Americanism and manipulation of historical facts. Despite the accusations, the Academy honored the film nominating it in eight categories including Best Picture. The popularity of the film among the public led to Congress’s passage of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992. This is the first time a film influenced Congress to pass a public act. It became one of the highest grossing films of 1991.

Stone’s filmmaking career evolved around American political culture and American history. His next films were, in a way, continuations of these themes exploring almost all aspects of society’s political class. He was perhaps the first American “film leftist” to really shout out his ideals and openly stand against the right-wing in American government, much earlier than other political filmmakers such as Michael Moore or even Spike Lee. “Heaven & Earth” (1993) was his last film about Vietnam, the third of his Vietnam Trilogy. The film was not well received although Stone considers “Heaven & Earth” one of his greatest films. However, his following film “Natural Born Killers” (1994) sparked new controversy and became a cult classic. With the story by Quentin Tarantino, Stone co-wrote and directed “Natural Born Killers” casting Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis as a more violent, bloody and contemporary version of Bonnie and Clyde. The film holds a strong critique of the mainstream media in America as well as the Television boom in the 1990s, a decade where criminals and serial killers became entertainers in the explosion of the reality show business in Television. Shows such as “Cops” and “America’s Most Wanted” were big hits in Television as well as the sitcom face with shows like “Seinfeld”, “Frasier”, “Friends” and “Cheers”. Stone used the Television style of fast cut editing, color shifts in contrasts and exaggerated camera angles to produce a very stylized film about the violent human nature of society. Stone saw the hypocrisy in the media, which tried very hard to censor violence and at the same time exploiting it for money. Ironically, the film was given an NC-17 rating by the MPAA, which told Stone to re-edit the entire film as an R rating.  The film was a bit unusual for an Oliver Stone film, because up until “Natural Born Killers”, Stone was just making films about historical or political dramas. But Stone returned to this genre without abandoning the non-linear style with a mixture between the Hollywood structure and the stylized filmmaking that he experimented with in “The Doors” and “Natural Born Killers”. Eventually this mixture of “pshycopolitico” drama became “Nixon” (1995) which, in my opinion is one of his greatest films. According to Frank E. Beaver’s essay that appears in Don Kunz’s book “The Films of Oliver Stone”, Beaver claims Stone had a “Wellesian” view on Nixon as a failed public figure and draws the parallel structure of “Citizen Kane” (1941) and “Nixon”. For example, Beaver compares how taking away the Rosebud sled in “Citizen Kane” represented a moment of ensuing opportunity and later melancholia and the loss of Nixon’s brothers Arthur and Harold was, according to Stone’s representation, a recognized by Richard Nixon as something significant in a political career fixated on a drive to succeed at all cost. The film stars Anthony Hopkins who, like Orson Wells, is recognized as a Shakespearean actor. He gives an outstanding performance as President Nixon. This was Stone’s second film about an American president, made four years after “JFK” and thirteen years before “W.” (2008), a biopic of George W. Bush Jr, that like “Nixon”, it portrays a more humanistic character study of the man behind the monster.

The XXI century: from tragedy to romantic comedy.

The 1990s ended with the biggest box office hit in film history, with James Cameron’s “Titanic” (1997), breaking the record for highest grossing film in history only to break it again by the same director twelve years later with “Avatar” (2009) at the end of the following decade. It’s strange and perhaps a little early to fit the first decade of the 21st century within film history but for Oliver Stone it’s a very important decade. From the September 11th attacks through the presidency of George W. Bush to the wars in the Middle East, to Fidel Castro’s retrospective look on communist Cuba, to the emerging of new socialist governments in South America finally ending with the financial meltdown of ‘07. Stone covers every single one of these topics in his films.

There is no denying that the September 11th attacks had a major impact on not only American culture but on the world, and not just in politics but in music, art, film, sociology…etc.  During these unsettling times, countless anti-war screenplays where written but not a single one was financed. The FCC, investors and producers knew very well that anything that had to do with Iraq, Afghanistan or September 11th could not be a subject in any of the entertaining arts. The American people were still too sensitive, a big distrust in the government re-appeared and anger among the public made no room for political controversy. A big line was drawn between liberals and conservatives dividing them politically like never before. Very few films were made about the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq war but didn’t do very well at the box office. In a very simple way, I could probably say that people who became politically aware were more interested in documentaries and people who just wanted to forget about reality were more interested in super-hero films or romantic comedies that were exploited during the last decade. Of course, this did not stop Oliver Stone. He made a film about a Port Authority fireman during the September 11 attacks staring Nicholas Cage, he made a biography of President Bush as a failed public figure, unmasking the man behind the monster, he made two documentaries on Centro and South American Socialism: one called “South of the Border” (2009) and another one called “Comandante” (2003). He also directed a sequel to his Wall St film covering the financial crisis of 2007 and updating it to the current financial status and an epic drama about Alexander the Great that became a critical as well as commercial failure, nonetheless, Stone remains confident that “Alexander” (2004) is his most ambitious project he has ever made. All of these films mentioned, not surprisingly, caused great controversy among the American public. Stone has always been subject of criticism and praise by many historians. In an interview with Gar Crowdus for Cineaste magazine, Stone claims: “The large historical truths that I think good dramatists go after involves dealing with a the absence of a pattern in the historical record. If you look at Nixon, all the decisions are awash in forty-six meetings and four hundred phone calls (…) So every decision was the result of a lot of hesitation, doubt, of back-and-fourth discussions, and in a movie we don’t have time to show all those meetings and phone calls, so you go for a pattern, for a larger truth. A decision was made, so you show the motive (…) Historical accuracy generally involves the absence of a pattern.”


Oliver Stone, a brief retrospective

In conclusion, I believe Oliver Stone’s films have not only caused discussion about technical excellence or artistic originality in his films but has also sparked political discussion and debate about American history that has never before belonged in the film world. After three decades working in the motion picture industry, Oliver Stone has not yet made a film that remains un-debatable. Like Kubrick, he has not made a film that wasn’t controversial. He revived the Vietnam war as an issue when it was just a taboo, he has explored in incredible depth some of our most important figures of recent and ancient history, he has made a film that influenced Congress to pass a public Act, his films have been hated, loved, praised and awarded by film and history experts. He has explored the thin line that divides fact and fiction, drama and reality, lie and truth, good and evil…He has always stood on the edge and after thirty years of filmmaking, he still stands.


1-“The Films of Oliver Stone” (1997, The Scarecrow press, Inc) edited by Don Kunz

2-“Oliver Stone Interviews” (2001, University Press of Mississippi) edited by Charles L. P. Silet

“History, Dramatic License, and Larger Historical Truths: An Interview with Oliver Stone” by Gary Crowdus

“Playboy Interview: Oliver Stone” by Marc Cooper

3-“A History of Narrative Film” (1996, W. W. Norton) by David A. Cook