TheMojoPin
05-19-2007, 09:08 PM
OK, I've been kind of obsessed with Stone's films for the last week or so. I've been a big fan of his stuff for well over a decade now, but in recent years he had kind of fallen off as a director that I was always dying to see what he would do next. While I'm not going to say that he's the best director I've ever seen (though he's up there), I think he just might be the most "American" director out there...or at least in the last 30 years or so.
Yeah, I know some people will just chalk it up to politics...people like to dismiss him as a "liberal nut" off the bat, but I think that's incredibly shortsighted. While he definitely has some strong liberal tendencies, I think he's a very unique political construct, at least with his films. He almost comes across as a "neo-con Liberal," if such a thing is even possible. The ugliness and brutality and harshness of his films really seperate him from the "leftist" herd...and that's not say that these aspects are indicative of conservatives. I just think that when taken as a whole his films are actually very much a hodge podge of social and political ideaologies and passions...just like the country itself, hence why I think he's the most "American" director I've seen.
Another thing people criticize him for is playing fast and loose with the historical aspects of his films, which he does, but not as blindly or ignorantly as his critics would have you believe. He's always been upfront in saying that his films are his versions of what may have happened...he's more concerned with making a good film and telling a good story than simply trying to make an expensive documentary. He's not out there claiming that his films are reality...just that they have some basis in reality and he's taken it from there and turned it into something bigger and more dramatic.
He's also criticized for having very "male-centric" films...but that's what they are. His best films deal with, for better or for worse, so-called masculine characters in masculine situations in masculine settings. This would only be a problem if he was propping all of these men up as the pinnacle of humanity...but he's constantly portraying them as deeply flawed and destructive. In Stone's worlds, men are power...but they all too often use that power to destroy.
He started off as a writer, penning the scripts for films like Conan the Barbarian, Midnight Express and Scarface, very clearly setting the tone for his own films when he would begin directing himself. He wrote and/or directed a few clunkers before finally getting his big break with Salvador. I can't express enough how much I love this film. James Wood is playing the role he was born to play as a jaded photojournalist down in El Savador in the midst of revolution and warfare. It was made for very little money, but you really can't tell in watching it. It's so full of life, and with the perfect balance of movie "drama" and politics. If anyone else has seen this, I'd love to know what they think of it.
Platoon got the greenlight because of the success of Salvador, and there's really not that much that needs to be said about it. It is THE best Vietnam film ever, period. Stone served himself, saw plenty of combat and was wounded twice, and received medals for his valor. Platoon is the most personal of his films, and it shows. A ton of young actors got their big breaks in this one (John C. McGinley, Kevin Dillon, Forrest Whittaker, Johnny Depp, Charlie Sheen), and the whole thing is just stunning, from the music to the camerawork to the acting. I really don't understand how anyone who has an appreciation for war films couldn't like this one.
Wall Street came next, and man, if a film didn't ever sum up a single decade so perfectly...Michael Douglas is fantastic as Gordon Gecko. Charlie and Martin Sheen playing off of each other in a great story of innocence lost and found...a few superficial aspects of this film have dated, but most of it still knocks it out of the park. And again, the cinematography...Stone's style of directing and editing and shooting just got better leaps and bounds with each film...WS looks like it was made just in the last few years.
Talk Radio, Born on the Fourth of July and The Doors all followed...lesser masterworks in my eyes, but I know plenty of people love them, especially the last one. Personally, I hate the Doors as a badn and think Jim Morrison was a pretentious twat...and the film did nothing to change that. That said, however, the film itself is so well acted and shot so brilliantly that I can't help but enjoy it when I do see it. It's an indulgent mess that is ultimately only about Morrison, and paints a pretty shallow picture of him, but it's an enjoyable mess, the first of several that Stone would have over the years. BotFoJ introduced us to "serious" Tom Cruise, and he does do an excellent job as paralyzed Vietnam vet Ron Kovic, but the film is a little too aimless in my eyes to be truly great. Kovic is the only character that we see throughout the film...everyone else only has 3 or 4 scenes, tops, which makes the whole thing seem rushed, but it's still very impressively shot and cut, and the performances are always enthralling.
Now we have JFK showing up. This is the film of his that really got me into his work, way back when it first came out on video. It's also the one that sent me into my decade-long obsession with the JFK assassination and all things conspiracy. Historically speaking, JFK is the stinkiest crock of shit that ever shat. That said, however, it is one of the greatest films ever made. Stone may personally believe some of the things he presents, but he's never been shy in saying that his film isn't supposed to represent what he or anyone else necessarily thinks actually happened...as he's put it himself, he wanted to present a "countermyth" to what he sees as the myth of the Warren Report. It's essentially an American Rashamon, and it's brilliant. The editing alone is a work of art that's studied in film classes around the world. Stone's use of different film stocks and exposures give this film textures and emotions that no other film outside of Stone's own Nixon have even come close to. The ensemble cast is incredible, both in reputation and their performances on screen. If this film was about a fictional presidential assassination, it would be hailed far and wide as one of the greatest films ever made. Instead, politics overshadow what is one of the most brilliant pieces of American filmmaking we will ever see.
Heaven and Earth, the final film in his unoffical "Vietnam trilogy," comes next, and it's pretty average. A solid film, it just doesn't compare to the films he makes when he's at his best. The infamous Natural Born Killers followed it, loosely adapted from a barebones Quentin Tarantino script. Like The Doors, this film is a complete mess, but it's still impressive. Like JFK, NBK is mind-blowing in how inventively it's shot, directed and edited. It's a scathing indictment of our obsession with violence and sensationalisim in the media, and again, Stone corrals a very impressive ensemble cast. Love it or hate it, NBK stirs powerful emotions in everyone who sees it, and that's the mark of a filmmaker with true passion.
Nixon was released after NBK, and this is easily in my personal top 5 favorite films of all time. Like JFK, much of it's public perception is tainted by people's biases and pre-conceived notions, which is too bad, because this film is the closest we've had to a Shakespearean epic since the Bard himself. Stone never claimed he was making a totally accurate biopic of Nixon...he was always upfront about expanding on what we did know to make a truly epic story of an American rise to power and then a crushing fall into failure. Stone was damned if he did, damned if he didn't with this one...people on the Right assumed he was making a hackjob of a Republican president...people on the Left felt he went too soft on someone they simplify into a cartoon monster. Stone bucked them all and made an incredibly human portrait of a flawed man...it is neither spiteful nor sympathetic. It is the portrait of an incredibly brilliant and gifted man brought down by his own crippling paranoia and mistrust. The scope of the cast is just insane...it has more names than an Altman film; hell, probably more than The Longest Day and they all work, especially Anthony Hopkins. People complained that he wasn't slathered in makeup to look exactly like Nixon, but I've rarely seen an actor so fully and successfully inhabit a character. The director's cut is just shy of 4 hours long, and not a single goddamn second is wasted. If you haven't seen this film, you need to. It's that simple. No matter what your political persuasion, just watch it. It really is a staggering achievment in filmmaking.
Since Nixon, Stone seems to have mellowed and lost some of his fire...perhaps the refusal of many to see beyond political biases when judging movies like JFK and Nixon drive out the desire to make truly epic and challenging films. U-Turn is very creatively shot with an entertaining ensemble cass, but it's ultimately just a slightly above average neo-noir thriller. It's fun because it's another "mess film," but it's the first one of these where Stone's inventive shooting and editing styles feel as if he's just going through the motions. Any Given Sunday is probably the best representation of any actual sport in play on the big screen itself, but something about the film ultimately feels hollow. Decent performances from the ensemble cast abound, but the overall metaphor of football players as modern day gladiators ends up feeling sloppy and somewhat hamfisted. Alexander was another mess, but not in a good way at all. It's not totally horrible, but given the subject matter and the talent of the filmmaker, the wasted potential can't help but make this film anything but a disapointment. World Trade Center is better, but it's the first Oliver stone film that feels nothing like an "Oliver Stone film." A review summed it up best when it said, "you know it's too early for a WTC film when even Oliver Stone seems afraid to be Oliver Stone." It's not a bad film by any means, but it feels like it could have been directed by anyone, and Stone's name just happens to be on it.
As of now, Stone's name isn't attached to anything in any stages of production. WTC made a lot of money, as did Alexander and AGS, so it's not as if he's become a money pit of a director. His films have almost always been on time and under budget, so I'm sure he could pretty much have his pick of a film at this point. There's been talk of an abortive Martin Luther King, jr. project that has stopped and started for over a decade now. I'd love to see him get a chance to make it, but I doubt at this point in his life he'd necessarily want to go through the fight it would take to have a white filmmaker make such a movie...especially since he'd probably lose that battle in the end.
Yeah, I know this post is waaaaay too long and nobody will probably read it, but like I said, I've been watching his films again this past week, and since I don't have a film class to blabber on in, I gotta vent here. Stone's name is one that rarely comes up when people talk about "the best American directors," and I think that's a a terrible oversight. I'm wondering what the rest of you think of him and his films...anyone wanna go next?
Yeah, I know some people will just chalk it up to politics...people like to dismiss him as a "liberal nut" off the bat, but I think that's incredibly shortsighted. While he definitely has some strong liberal tendencies, I think he's a very unique political construct, at least with his films. He almost comes across as a "neo-con Liberal," if such a thing is even possible. The ugliness and brutality and harshness of his films really seperate him from the "leftist" herd...and that's not say that these aspects are indicative of conservatives. I just think that when taken as a whole his films are actually very much a hodge podge of social and political ideaologies and passions...just like the country itself, hence why I think he's the most "American" director I've seen.
Another thing people criticize him for is playing fast and loose with the historical aspects of his films, which he does, but not as blindly or ignorantly as his critics would have you believe. He's always been upfront in saying that his films are his versions of what may have happened...he's more concerned with making a good film and telling a good story than simply trying to make an expensive documentary. He's not out there claiming that his films are reality...just that they have some basis in reality and he's taken it from there and turned it into something bigger and more dramatic.
He's also criticized for having very "male-centric" films...but that's what they are. His best films deal with, for better or for worse, so-called masculine characters in masculine situations in masculine settings. This would only be a problem if he was propping all of these men up as the pinnacle of humanity...but he's constantly portraying them as deeply flawed and destructive. In Stone's worlds, men are power...but they all too often use that power to destroy.
He started off as a writer, penning the scripts for films like Conan the Barbarian, Midnight Express and Scarface, very clearly setting the tone for his own films when he would begin directing himself. He wrote and/or directed a few clunkers before finally getting his big break with Salvador. I can't express enough how much I love this film. James Wood is playing the role he was born to play as a jaded photojournalist down in El Savador in the midst of revolution and warfare. It was made for very little money, but you really can't tell in watching it. It's so full of life, and with the perfect balance of movie "drama" and politics. If anyone else has seen this, I'd love to know what they think of it.
Platoon got the greenlight because of the success of Salvador, and there's really not that much that needs to be said about it. It is THE best Vietnam film ever, period. Stone served himself, saw plenty of combat and was wounded twice, and received medals for his valor. Platoon is the most personal of his films, and it shows. A ton of young actors got their big breaks in this one (John C. McGinley, Kevin Dillon, Forrest Whittaker, Johnny Depp, Charlie Sheen), and the whole thing is just stunning, from the music to the camerawork to the acting. I really don't understand how anyone who has an appreciation for war films couldn't like this one.
Wall Street came next, and man, if a film didn't ever sum up a single decade so perfectly...Michael Douglas is fantastic as Gordon Gecko. Charlie and Martin Sheen playing off of each other in a great story of innocence lost and found...a few superficial aspects of this film have dated, but most of it still knocks it out of the park. And again, the cinematography...Stone's style of directing and editing and shooting just got better leaps and bounds with each film...WS looks like it was made just in the last few years.
Talk Radio, Born on the Fourth of July and The Doors all followed...lesser masterworks in my eyes, but I know plenty of people love them, especially the last one. Personally, I hate the Doors as a badn and think Jim Morrison was a pretentious twat...and the film did nothing to change that. That said, however, the film itself is so well acted and shot so brilliantly that I can't help but enjoy it when I do see it. It's an indulgent mess that is ultimately only about Morrison, and paints a pretty shallow picture of him, but it's an enjoyable mess, the first of several that Stone would have over the years. BotFoJ introduced us to "serious" Tom Cruise, and he does do an excellent job as paralyzed Vietnam vet Ron Kovic, but the film is a little too aimless in my eyes to be truly great. Kovic is the only character that we see throughout the film...everyone else only has 3 or 4 scenes, tops, which makes the whole thing seem rushed, but it's still very impressively shot and cut, and the performances are always enthralling.
Now we have JFK showing up. This is the film of his that really got me into his work, way back when it first came out on video. It's also the one that sent me into my decade-long obsession with the JFK assassination and all things conspiracy. Historically speaking, JFK is the stinkiest crock of shit that ever shat. That said, however, it is one of the greatest films ever made. Stone may personally believe some of the things he presents, but he's never been shy in saying that his film isn't supposed to represent what he or anyone else necessarily thinks actually happened...as he's put it himself, he wanted to present a "countermyth" to what he sees as the myth of the Warren Report. It's essentially an American Rashamon, and it's brilliant. The editing alone is a work of art that's studied in film classes around the world. Stone's use of different film stocks and exposures give this film textures and emotions that no other film outside of Stone's own Nixon have even come close to. The ensemble cast is incredible, both in reputation and their performances on screen. If this film was about a fictional presidential assassination, it would be hailed far and wide as one of the greatest films ever made. Instead, politics overshadow what is one of the most brilliant pieces of American filmmaking we will ever see.
Heaven and Earth, the final film in his unoffical "Vietnam trilogy," comes next, and it's pretty average. A solid film, it just doesn't compare to the films he makes when he's at his best. The infamous Natural Born Killers followed it, loosely adapted from a barebones Quentin Tarantino script. Like The Doors, this film is a complete mess, but it's still impressive. Like JFK, NBK is mind-blowing in how inventively it's shot, directed and edited. It's a scathing indictment of our obsession with violence and sensationalisim in the media, and again, Stone corrals a very impressive ensemble cast. Love it or hate it, NBK stirs powerful emotions in everyone who sees it, and that's the mark of a filmmaker with true passion.
Nixon was released after NBK, and this is easily in my personal top 5 favorite films of all time. Like JFK, much of it's public perception is tainted by people's biases and pre-conceived notions, which is too bad, because this film is the closest we've had to a Shakespearean epic since the Bard himself. Stone never claimed he was making a totally accurate biopic of Nixon...he was always upfront about expanding on what we did know to make a truly epic story of an American rise to power and then a crushing fall into failure. Stone was damned if he did, damned if he didn't with this one...people on the Right assumed he was making a hackjob of a Republican president...people on the Left felt he went too soft on someone they simplify into a cartoon monster. Stone bucked them all and made an incredibly human portrait of a flawed man...it is neither spiteful nor sympathetic. It is the portrait of an incredibly brilliant and gifted man brought down by his own crippling paranoia and mistrust. The scope of the cast is just insane...it has more names than an Altman film; hell, probably more than The Longest Day and they all work, especially Anthony Hopkins. People complained that he wasn't slathered in makeup to look exactly like Nixon, but I've rarely seen an actor so fully and successfully inhabit a character. The director's cut is just shy of 4 hours long, and not a single goddamn second is wasted. If you haven't seen this film, you need to. It's that simple. No matter what your political persuasion, just watch it. It really is a staggering achievment in filmmaking.
Since Nixon, Stone seems to have mellowed and lost some of his fire...perhaps the refusal of many to see beyond political biases when judging movies like JFK and Nixon drive out the desire to make truly epic and challenging films. U-Turn is very creatively shot with an entertaining ensemble cass, but it's ultimately just a slightly above average neo-noir thriller. It's fun because it's another "mess film," but it's the first one of these where Stone's inventive shooting and editing styles feel as if he's just going through the motions. Any Given Sunday is probably the best representation of any actual sport in play on the big screen itself, but something about the film ultimately feels hollow. Decent performances from the ensemble cast abound, but the overall metaphor of football players as modern day gladiators ends up feeling sloppy and somewhat hamfisted. Alexander was another mess, but not in a good way at all. It's not totally horrible, but given the subject matter and the talent of the filmmaker, the wasted potential can't help but make this film anything but a disapointment. World Trade Center is better, but it's the first Oliver stone film that feels nothing like an "Oliver Stone film." A review summed it up best when it said, "you know it's too early for a WTC film when even Oliver Stone seems afraid to be Oliver Stone." It's not a bad film by any means, but it feels like it could have been directed by anyone, and Stone's name just happens to be on it.
As of now, Stone's name isn't attached to anything in any stages of production. WTC made a lot of money, as did Alexander and AGS, so it's not as if he's become a money pit of a director. His films have almost always been on time and under budget, so I'm sure he could pretty much have his pick of a film at this point. There's been talk of an abortive Martin Luther King, jr. project that has stopped and started for over a decade now. I'd love to see him get a chance to make it, but I doubt at this point in his life he'd necessarily want to go through the fight it would take to have a white filmmaker make such a movie...especially since he'd probably lose that battle in the end.
Yeah, I know this post is waaaaay too long and nobody will probably read it, but like I said, I've been watching his films again this past week, and since I don't have a film class to blabber on in, I gotta vent here. Stone's name is one that rarely comes up when people talk about "the best American directors," and I think that's a a terrible oversight. I'm wondering what the rest of you think of him and his films...anyone wanna go next?