By Adnan Tezer Jun 17, 2008, 11:30 GMT
Oliver Stone is one of the only true artists left amongst film directors in today’s cinema. His work has always been controversial but there is no debate that his films have left a lasting impression in cinematic history.
When we watch an Oliver Stone film, especially one which looks deep into the political system of the last few decades (J.F.K., Nixon) we look at Stone's vision and we yearn for the truth - we hope for the ideal of the American political system.
He belongs on the list of not just “Greatest American Film Directors” but “Greatest Film Directors” along with the likes of Martin Scorsese, Stanley Kubrick, John Cassavetes, Sam Peckinpah, Billy Wilder, Robert Bresson and Akira Kurosawa.
Whether it's in the horrors of a jungle in Vietnam or Mickey and Mallory Knox on a murderous rampage around the country, Oliver Stone's films are worlds upon themselves, reflections of our world shoved right back into our faces.
They are worlds laid bare as the torn psyche of a wounded nation. His characters are men and women either forever lost or searching for the goodness amidst the darkness.
He is a director who brings out the absolute best performances by his actors - including Anthony Hopkins, Michael Douglas, Tom Cruise, Woody Harrelson, Charlie Sheen, Val Kilmer, or Kevin Costner.
He is a director who has delivered countless images of pure cinematic beauty and unspeakable horror and tragedy. He is a director who will long be remembered for re-examining America's most recent history. But above all that, he is a director with a personal vision, a vision that proves how truly precious and special the cinema is.
Stone’s critics that frequently pummel him and his films are usually those that are part of the national establishment, and when they look at Stone's films, and because these films show the deep secrets of America, it becomes a threat, and they criticize Stone as someone crazy who is misusing the cinema to tell falsehoods about America's recent history.
Stone has never once said that any of his films are the “definitive” account of the Kennedy assassination, Richard Nixon, or George W. Bush (the subject of Stone’s upcoming W in the fall). Rather he blends fact and fiction. He doesn’t want you to take his films at face value but rather to use it as an impetus to question what and who is around you.
Like so many of Stone’s films, his detractors tried to bury what Stone was really trying to say with false criticism. J.F.K. was not meant to be a history lesson of the assassination but rather a presentation of how complex and unresolved the matter is, even to this day.
Because of the film, many people went out and bought books on the matter. Some of the classified evidence that has never been shown to the public before the film opened was released after the commercial success of the film.
These movies hit home - they tell the larger truths about amongst other things, our government and the Vietnam war, the ones we might not want to face, but have to in order to become a better country. As Stone himself says at the end of J.F.K., to not learn from the past is to be condemned to repeat it.
Stone believes and his films clearly show that “the imagination has to be sparked in both directions to make the unique individual.” You rarely leave his films without any strong emotion or passion.
Even the few recent Stone films that are below the high standard that Stone set for himself in his earlier work (U-Turn, Alexander, World Trade Center) leave you with strong emotions.
U-Turn was in Stone’s own words, an extremely nihilistic response to the poor financial reception Nixon received. Alexander is grand in scope and takes chances but suffered from poor casting choices (Colin Farrell didn’t possess that necessary madness that would inspire men to fight to their deaths, Angelina Jolie wasn’t much older than Farrell yet played his mother with a bizarre Russian accent) as well as incomplete characterizations and disjointed story lines that went back and forth in time.
This was by far the failure that hurt Stone the worst of any of his films so much so that he went back and released two additional versions of the film on DVD.
While Alexander isn’t the film you would want it to be and frequently plays like a choppy history lesson (something Stone’s films have always avoided doing), it is a visual spectacle the likes of which aren’t seen anymore.
World Trade Center disappointed Stone fanatics like myself because there were no Stone touches evident in the film. There are no politics in the film or any of his trademark visual techniques. Rather, he tells the story very straightforwardly. If you had walked into the film not knowing who directed it, you would never guess it was an Oliver Stone film.
In many ways, Stone is to be commended for taking a hot-button issue like 9/11 that his critics probably said before viewing the film “Here comes another Oliver Stone conspiracy film” and NOT infusing the film with his beliefs. He also, not coincidentally, was able to get the best Nicolas Cage performance since his Oscar winning performance in Leaving Las Vegas. World Trade Center was a good film, just not Oliver Stone great.
His greatest films explore and investigate which is what true art should do. In the case of cinema, it has the highest reach and effect of any art form as it has the ability to pass on mythology, values, imagery and stories to future and past generations better than any other art medium. Stone’s films are complex and demand multiple viewings.
Often the first viewing of a Stone film is a purely emotional/visceral experience. On subsequent viewings, one can detach one’s self emotionally and look for the mythical, hidden meanings.
In Stone’s Vietnam trilogy (Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July and Heaven and Earth) he gave us an up front view of the war through his own experiences there in the form of Chris Taylor in Platoon, Ron Kovic’s in Born on the Fourth of July and Le Ly Hayslip’s in Heaven and Earth.
Ghosts also play prominently in Stone’s films, which are his way of saying that we all carry ghosts with us. Whether it’s Jim Garrison being haunted by J.F.K.’s death or Jim Morrison being haunted by the dying Indian he saw as a child.
Whether it’s Mickey and Mallory Knox being haunted by the abuses (sexual, physical) layed upon them by their parents or Tony D’Amato and Willie Beamen being haunted by football legends of past or Richard Nixon haunted by his domineering mother and the premature deaths of his two brothers. Many of Stone’s characters have ghosts as their driving force behind what they do.
Stone’s film technique has also been criticized. From when he did Salvador (1986) through Born on the Fourth of July (1989), Stone used a guerilla type film method that put you literally in the action.
Around 1991 when J.F.K. was released, one could see that Stone was using a more cubistic style of filmmaking, a style that has been repeatedly copied – that of using different film stocks, such as 35mm, Super 8 as well as rapidly cutting back and forth between color and black and white film while mixing sound and music. Stone found a new way to tell his stories – to emphasize or overemphasize when necessary.
Some of his later films would be completely over the top like Natural Born Killers but that was used deliberately on Stone’s point to point out the film’s satirical nature. Natural Born Killers, which held a mirror up to the society that America was becoming in the 90s and has become today, was relentlessly attacked for it’s over the top film style and for its perceived glorification of violence.
Like other controversial films that showcased iconic scenes of violence (Alex singing “Singing in the Rain” while raping a woman in A Clockwork Orange, the Russian Roulette scenes in The Deer Hunter, or Travis Bickle’s last stand in Taxi Driver), Natural Born Killers was ridiculously held responsible for several copycat murders, including the Columbine shootings, committed by youths who had seen the film multiple times while on drugs.
Oliver Stone’s films hit close to home and inspire fierce debate because they are always powerful and potent. His films make us look at our government and ourselves with much more scrutiny than any other films by any other director working today.
He shows humanity with all their flaws, imperfections and contradictions yet always suggests the possibility of redemption, glory and honor. When listening to his DVD commentaries you feel like you are being educated not just on the art of filmmaking but also on the subject(s) of the film.
He admits when he takes artistic licenses in certain scenes and will frequently give out the names and authors of books that he drew from for research. Again, this goes to show the depths of respect that Stone has for his audience.
The great majority of DVD commentaries are nothing more than an actor, director or writer reminiscing about making the film. Stone gives you that and much more. He truly is a director that wants to educate his audience. He does not try and force his beliefs on you but rather wants to inspire you to go out and do your own research and come up with your own opinion.
Whether it’s the Kennedy assassination, Richard Nixon, a bloodthirsty media or the Vietnam War, Stone wants to show us different shades of American history that may have previously been unavailable or untold. The fact that he can do that and have us question our own beliefs and morality at the same time further exemplifies the man’s genius as a filmmaker.
Oliver Stone’s Alexander will premiere on AMC on Sat. June 21 at 8PM | 7C. Click Here for more information on premiere.
Your Talkback on this Story