It comes to my attention -- once again -- that Oliver Stone is an idiot. It would be one thing if his work was worth anything, but he's just kind of a paper cut-out and so is his work. Like, I do believe Jane Fonda and Angelina Jolie are very good actresses, even though they seem extremely naive and misguided when it comes to politics. And Angelina Jolie is just insufferably pompous in that very calculating way that liberals adopt (including Oliver Stone.) I'd still go see their movies, for the plot, their performance, etc. I think Steven Spielberg is a fantastic director, probably one of the best to ever live, though I don't think we'd donate to the same political candidates. Oliver Stone, however, has always struck me as something of a fraud.
Was going to say, I haven't seen that many Oliver Stone movies, but actually, I have, when I think about it. They just aren't all that memorable. "Platoon" was OK, but even in that, Stone's grand debut as it were, I thought Willem Dafoe's likability carried the whole thing. And Tom Berenger is terrific, even as a bad guy. Not much plot to speak of. The good and bad guys were entirely unsubtley obvious; they could have been wearing white and black hats. Possibly they were. Stone was only hoping to document "the horror of war," and Charlie Sheen's performance did that -- in a way.
On the other hand, if you're involved in a bloody war with a ruthless enemy, would you rather your squadron leader was an easy-going dope-smoker or a hard-ass disciplinarian? Maybe Ollie didn't see enough actual combat when he was in Vietnam. It's a possibility. I knew a guy who's tour of Vietnam consisted of three days. He didn't do combat; he was a clerk. Then his plane was shot down taking off from Da Nang and he was the only survivor. I doubt ol' Ollie Stone experienced even that much of real combat, or he'd appreciate the need for mental alertness and chain-of-command. Or maybe he's just a blockhead.
And it's no secret that "war is all hell." In fact, it was General W.T. Sherman who pointed out that obvious fact, and unlike Oliver Stone, I don't believe Sherman felt he was revealing anything new and shocking.
"Scarface" was stupid. Al Pacino was very good, but the plot was stupid. At the end, the walls of the drug lord's marble palace are running with blood. It kinda brought to mind "The Amityville Horror." I mean, suddenly, the whole thing turns into sort of a cartoon. Then it's hard to take any of it seriously.
"Greed" was also kinda stupid. But then, I truly believe that "Greed is good." In real life, it's also counterbalanced by other peoples' greed and by competitors, but Ollie Stone doesn't take that into account. No, for Ollie, it's all about exploiting the union guy -- who, in reality, makes more than most people for doing less and also has a pretty secure pension, now underwritten by the federal government.
I saw parts of the movie about JFK's assassination and thought it was really ludicrous -- not the theme of it, which I didn't see enough to discern, or possibly it was just a kind of unintelligible hash. But the whole style of it was typical Oliver Stone -- sort of cobbled together shopworn cliches and stereotypes, and everything way over the top. Oliver Stone has never seemed capable of any kind of original thought, emotion, or genuine insight into human behavior. He leaves that up to the actors he works with, and they've been pretty good. In fact, in most cases, they've carried the movies.
The other day, Oliver Stone made some kind of comment about how Hitler might have been a Frankenstein, "but there was also a Dr. Frankenstein," he said. Yeah, Ollie, there was also a Dr. Hitler, doing all kinds of medical experiments on Jews, children, and other victims, or are we overlooking that horrible truth for the sake of promoting your stupid movies? And you point to Wall Street types as "greedy"? Wall Street, after all, has to deliver something of value. This doesn't seem to be required of Hollywood film makers anymore, unless you're really into brainless special FX and explosions for their own sake.
When I was a kid, a family member was in the military in Germany. This was within 10 - 15 years of the end of WWII. I remember a paperback book being in the house. It was just your standard 3"x5" paperback, with a black-and-white photo on the cover and wide orange bands on the top and bottom. The title and author's name -- I would imagine -- were printed in the orange bands, the title in that Olde-English-looking fancy type. It was "Butchers of Berlin" or something like that.
So one day I actually opened up this book and flipped through it. This family member had brought it back with him from Germany, I assume. Middle of the book were a number of black-and-white photographs on glossy paper. Photos taken by GI's as they marched into and occupied Germany. Photos of emaciated bodies piled in careless heaps. Piles of bones. The ovens. Things like that. I remember there was one of woman smiling and holding some kind of a whip, and I assumed she was one of the perps rather than a victim. I guess I was probably eight to ten years old. Had to ask my mom, what the hell was that all about? I mean, I'd been exposed to Dracula and the Wolfman, but this stuff was real.
Anyway, I've never been a fan of Hitler or Nazi Germany. And I've never been able to seriously consider that the Holocaust was just all made up. In high school, a good friend of mind used to go to a hair salon in Skokie. The lady who owned the salon had numbers tattooed on her arm. The five-digit number included a "seven" with a line drawn across the stem, European-style. The first time I ever saw that. I never heard the hairdresser talk about her past, though, and was too overwhelmed to acknowledge that I even saw the tattoo.
And now ol' Ollie has a movie out about Hugo Chavez and the rape of Venezuela. Yeah, it is a rape, and according to reviews and Stone's own admissions in one interview -- the victim really enjoys it.
Did ol' Ollie actually talk to anyone in Venezuela but that wily, ugly little monkey-man in the red shirt with the big guns around him? And actually, wasn't it fat-ass mockumentary maker Michael Moore and mediocre actor Sean Penn who popularized kissing the asses of vicious and violent dictators? Doing their public relations for them. I do believe even Cameron Diaz got there before Oliver Stone, carrying around a handbag that featured a red marxist star in Argentina. The Argentinians didn't appreciate it. Wonder if anyone bothered to explain all that nasty stuff to sweet young Cameron. And now here comes Oliver Stone, hopping on the radical-liberal politcally correct bandwagon once again. Just following the trend. Going with the flow and pretending to be some kind of maestro.
But you don't even need to see Oliver Stone's movies to know he's a phony. Did you ever see the guy talk? He's so studiously lofty, so careful to choose his words, his thinking so labored. He works so hard to appear profound, and then he comes out with some over-used platitude that may or may not be relevant to the question. It's all a pose. You just have to strike the right posture. Then drivel can pour out of your mouth and no one will notice -- they'll all be wondering who cuts (or doesn't) your hair. That's the really important thing.
Stone is supposed to be doing something like "The Secret History of America." I can't imagine what a mess he'll make of that. He has so little depth, such limited ability. I certainly won't disturb myself to see it. I won't even expend the energy required to actively boycott. I just won't pursue witnessing anything more from him, just in case someone drags out a DVD at a party or something -- which ain't likley. He just isn't worth it. Quite probably, Stone and the rest are just auditioning for the role of the Comrade's Entertainment Czar. That just may be the next big bill.
Save the republic.
No comments:
Post a Comment