• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Oliver Stone's "W"

Stone should make a movie about Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter. Christopher Hitchens and Oliver Stone only make movies and write books about controversial figures like George W. Bush and Henry Kissinger because controversy sells. Those books and movies aren"t even very objective or unbiased.
 
And yet sometimes Hollywood also seems to be the voice of the right, when it shows how the heroes have to throw the rulebook out the window in order to get the criminals/terrorists. Presumption of innocence? Police brutality? Pshaw. Just get Kurt Russell in there to bust some heads without Internal Affairs do-gooders looking over his shoulder and he'll be able to stop the bad guys with a cigar in one hand and an uzi in the other.

In actuality, I think Hollywood is the voice of whatever will make them money.... by getting people excited or agitated, in whatever way happens to be controversial at the time.
 
gnome said:
And yet sometimes Hollywood also seems to be the voice of the right, when it shows how the heroes have to throw the rulebook out the window in order to get the criminals/terrorists. Presumption of innocence? Police brutality? Pshaw. Just get Kurt Russell in there to bust some heads without Internal Affairs do-gooders looking over his shoulder and he'll be able to stop the bad guys with a cigar in one hand and an uzi in the other.

In actuality, I think Hollywood is the voice of whatever will make them money.... by getting people excited or agitated, in whatever way happens to be controversial at the time.
Click to expand...

And Pauline Kael's scathing reviews of Clint Eastwood's "Dirty Harry" movies reinforced how liberals were intolerant of views (even in make beleive scenarios) where the Warren Court rulings were shown to be flawed. Perhaps this just reinforced how liberals live in a world of the theoretical and not in the world of the actual.
 
...and your response to how Hollywood portrays different ideologies is... to tell me about a review you didn't like?

I know I'm in for it, but perhaps we can split a thread where you tell me what Warren court rulings you're referring to?
 
Last edited:
gnome said:
...and your response to how Hollywood portrays different ideologies is... to tell me about a review you didn't like?

I know I'm in for it, but perhaps we can split a thread where you tell me what Warren court rulings you're referring to?
Click to expand...

In the 1930's, Hollywood did not portray different ideologies. There were no movies critical of FDR. After 1970's "Patton," which actually won Best Picture Oscar, Hollywood tilted predominately to the left in movie themes. Kael was the premier critic during this decade and her reviews were strained through her political ideology. Is that the way to judge a movie on its own merits? Of course not.

Kael continued to pummel any movie that Clint Eastwood had any connection with. On the other hand, any Barbara Streisand movie earned favorable reviews from Kael no matter how feeble the flick.

Is Hollywood's only concern the bottom line? Sure. But considering that the contemporary Conservative artists in Hollywood consist of Eastwood, Voight, Stallone, Milius, Abrahams, Zucker, Russell, Selleck, Willis and maybe a handful of others, there political power in Hollywood does not allow for anything more than a murmur of conservative voices.

The Warren Court's Miranda decision (and to a degree Escobedo) has been a staple of the anti-hero flicks of the 1970's.
 
Last edited:
boloboffin said:
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton weren't controversial?
Click to expand...

Not in the minds of Hollywood producers, writers, or directors. The only movie supposedly about Clinton (aka Jack Stanton) was "Primary Colors." Mike Nichols and wife Elaine May gave the character much better treatment than Republican Presidents fare in Hollywood movies. Of course Oliver Stone has no problem using real names in his movies about Republican Presidents. I wonder why Mike and Elaine needed to use psydonyms?
 
tomwaits said:
Roger Ebert seemed to think it was amazing, but I'm not a fan of the fact that they made this movie while he's still the president (and that it's Oliver Stone). Give it another decade so all the facts are in and we can gain some perspective.
Click to expand...
That would be the same Roger Ebert who swallowed Fahrenheit 9/11 whole, and faulted Team America for not taking on the Bush administration directly.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
Wag the dog wasn't supposed to be about Clinton?
Click to expand...
Politicians are routinely accused of starting wars to distract from domestic problems. Clinton wasn't the first and won't be the last. Although I didn't see the film, my recollection from the trailer was that it played off CNN's treatment of the Gulf War.
 
It was a movie that was making light over the accusations at that very time that Clinton was attacking Al Qeada in Afghan to distract the public form the Monika Lewinski scandal.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
It was a movie that was making light over the accusations at that very time that Clinton was attacking Al Qeada in Afghan to distract the public form the Monika Lewinski scandal.
Click to expand...

The themes in the movie were actually about President Bush 41's 1988 and 1992 campaigns. The Lewinsky deal didn't even hit the news until a month after the movie was released.

So "Primary Colors" remains the only movie about Clinton, which of course doesn't even use his name.
 
The book was about Bush 41, not the movie. The Movie even specifies that the Gulf war was in the past, not the present. Also, there was a sex scandal with clinton prior to Monica, thanks to Paula Jones.
 
This ought to be good. Anybody here interested in seeing this?
Click to expand...

Nah. And I won't be seeing the recent anti-Michael-Moore "American Carol", either. Preachy movies about political opponents suck as entertainment.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
The book was about Bush 41, not the movie. The Movie even specifies that the Gulf war was in the past, not the present. Also, there was a sex scandal with clinton prior to Monica, thanks to Paula Jones.
Click to expand...

The Gulf War I conissted of a two week ground war in 1991. So it would be in the past at the time of the 1992 campaign.

Clinton's personal life consisted of moving from one sex scandal to another, but it was his camel back-breaking assignation with Lewisnky that the already released "Wag The Dog" movie was then considered prescient.
 
I was dragged to see this a few days ago and I gotta say it played out like an After School Special: I'm Not Good Enough for Daddy. Complete with heart-tugging soft piano music in all the appropriate places (what was the deal with the Robin Hood motif?).

Seemed like they just took well known events and made up a bunch of emotional back story for it, and the drama didn't work at all. I think somebody mentioned it, but whoever played Rice came across like an SNL caricature...Maya Rudolph would have been a better casting choice.
 
IMO: Oliver Stone is hit or miss, but generally worth a watch. The trailer to this caught my eye, so I grabbed it off the torrents last weekend.

I would rate it 4 out of 10.

Political disclosure: voted for Bush in '00, turned against him in '03 when the Iraq War began. I've spent time on both sides of the W issue, so hopefully that gives me a shred of objectivity.

The trailer gave me the impression that this was going to play as a comedy, and to be honest, I think a well-made dark comedy about Bush II could be a real winner. This wasn't it.

I'm not quite sure what the message of this movie was supposed to be. Although overwhelmingly critical of Bush, the movie takes time to build sympathy for Bush also. His failure to live up to his father's expectations and legacy are drawn out over several confrontations with Bush Sr, but ultimately, this plot point, like the Presidency itself, remains unresolved.

There is no character development, no resolution, and no real insight into anything that hasn't already been covered elsewhere with greater accuracy.

I also find it interesting that in Stone's version of history, Colin Powell gets a complete pass. It makes me wonder if Stone was prophetic, or simply re-cut a few scenes after Powell's endorsement of Obama (extremely unlikely, given the schedule).

If you enjoy kicking Bush while he is down, this film is for you. If you've grown bored of Bush, or are fed-up with Bush-bashing, this is not the film for you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom