I like the films of Oliver Stone, though I am acutely aware he tends to pound us over the head to get his message across, is known to bully his actors and audiences, and from time to time has bent history to suit himself and the film he is making.
That said, it cannot be denied Stone creates powerful, visceral films, beginning with the vastly under appreciated “Salvador” back in 1986 that was somewhat overshadowed by his Vietnam drama “Platoon” which won the Oscar for best film and director making Stone a household name. Aside from being the most realistic film about the war in Vietnam, “Platoon” obliterated those terrible comic book style films like “Rambo: First Blood Part II” and “Missing in Action” in which the war had been reduced to a comic book and a single American could go back and win it!!
Three years later he won his second Academy Award and Directors Guild Award for “Born on the Fourth of July” a film he had wanted to make for years, at one point in the 70s with Al Pacino as Ron Kovic. Both Vietnam films were powerful and deeply moving, populated with strong performances that drew the viewer into the story. In between those pictures he made “Wall Street,” now horribly dated, and “Talk Radio,” an underrated little film based on the hit play.
He drew the wrath of the White House and the United States government, including no less than then President George Bush (Sr.) for his masterpiece “JFK,” which explores many theories about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the government’s cover up of the killing. You want to believe President Bush would have reason to be concerned, he sat on the Warren Commission, the government committee that after years of research made the ridiculous decision that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone.
I think the scene in “JFK” that resonates strongest with me is the one between Kevin Costner and Donald Sutherland as a high ranking military man who explains to Costner’s character why the government and the many corporations that helped elect Kennedy wanted him dead. “Who killed Caesar” has never left my head. Superbly acted, directed, shot and edited, “JFK” was a huge hit at the box office and drew rave reviews from those that liked it, the anger of those who did not. Stone threw all his theories out there, and years from now when the findings of the Warren group are made public, I would bet my soul, at least one of them is right on the money.
In the years since “JFK” his films have been hit and miss, and frankly most miss. “Heaven and Earth” his attempt to tell the other side of the story of Vietnam is a fine picture if a tad unfocused, containing a strong performance from Tommy Lee Jones. “Natural Born Killers” is, I think, a stunning work, grossly misunderstood when first released, and in years to come might come to be thought of as a masterpiece.
The film that tells me “W” might just be one of Stone’s finest is “Nixon” which is without question one of his best films, and perhaps the single most under valued of the 90s. When everyone thought he would go into pit bull mode and attack the disgraced President, he made a fair and sensitive look at a man who did great things, yet was eventually brought down by his own insecurities and lack of self worth.
President Nixon opened China and Russia, ended Vietnam (after escalating it) and for years up to his death, every single U.S. President sought his advice in matters of foreign diplomacy. Yes he was worried about how history would view him, but I think history sees him as a great statesman and flawed human being. Anthony Hopkins does not look or sound like Richard Nixon but captured his soul, his spirit and within minutes of the film we believe we are watching Nixon himself. Equally good in the film, and along with Hopkins in being Oscar nominated was Joan Allen as Pat Nixon. A superb film and certainly among the best of the decade.
His subsequent work, “U-Turn,” “Any Given Sunday” and the terribly over-directed, over-produced and overwrought “Alexander” have not once seen him capture the genius of his early career, but perhaps “W” is the film to do that. His anger at the current U.S. president may be the driving force of the film, and though he believes Bush may be the worst President in American history, one cannot deny the great stories surrounding him. What could emerge is a scathing satire, a vicious black comedy and all round knockout film. If he can stay away from being bombastic, from pounding the audience over the head, he could have a truly great film in release.
Or not.
Comments
11 responses to “Stone’s ‘W’ could be his ticket back to Oscar”
I dunno… I just don’t have a good feeling about “W” at all. I simply don’t see the benefit of making this biopic so soon… without knowing how the story ends, as it were, it’s difficult to know what perspective to take on the subject. I sense the film could grow awfully dated awfully quickly.
That said, we won’t know until we see it. And Josh Brolin is inspired casting.
I have to say, it always rubs me wrong when people say “JFK” (one of my top 10 films ever, by the way) is the result of Oliver Stone’s theories.
First and foremost, they aren’t “theories.” They are the result of exhaustive research on the part of Dallas journalist Jim Marrs and can be found in the pages of “Crossfire,” from which the script for “JFK” was adapted (along with a Garrison book).
Secondly, and obviously, they aren’t the pure conception of Stone, and the line of thinking that they ARE always provides to easy a path to demonizing his work and the film as propaganda and manipulation.
Anyway, kudos on the good notes for “Natural Born Killers.” I think it’s a masterwork, and still, I long for Stone’s return to form. Sadly I don’t think “W” will be that return. The script is too silly, too soon, too awful, too everything but “good.”
In my opinion, of course.
it’s too soon to make a movie about W… people are still too angry, to biased, to much in the middle of this whole mess to be even slightly objective…
Kris: I second that. I’ve read the W script and it doesn’t offer anything reveling or insightful…at all. In fact, it seems to be more of an exposé on Karl Rove’s dirty past and Dick Cheney’s borderline intimidation of Bush than anything else. But this really isn’t new news, right? And the dialog, to use your word, is downright silly. I wish Stone would have gotten his hands on James Vanderbilt’s Against All Enemies script – Amazing. It’s right up Stone’s alley, and, I think, would make a much better movie.
Foote: The ending cast credits of Nixon is one of the best ending credit sequences EVER. The use of Shenandoah by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir gets me every time. By the way, have you seen the deleted scene where Nixon visits the CIA director played by Sam Waterston? Jesus…creepy stuff. I believe it’s on youtube.
” Lunch is for wimps ” – Gordon Gekko.
You nailed it, Gittes. Nixon’s near-transcendent ending and the deleted scenes with Helms are dynamite. Apparently Helms threatened to sue the production and Stone was forced to cut (Oscar-worthy) Sam Waterston’s scenes. Stone actually wanted Peter O’Toole to play the CIA director, but the old man turned it down because he couldn’t do an American accent.
I’d say W.’s script had/has potential. The scenes portraying Bush’s rise to politics are pretty solid and interesting, but the White House stuff is borderline SNL. Most of it is backed by research, but it’s still overdone. The smirking, swearing, gung-ho Bush of the later scenes seems like a whole different character from the laid-back, ambitious and even sympathetic guy of the earlier scenes.
Kris:
Right you are — they are not Stone’s theories and I was wrong to state it like that — for the record I believe Garrison in that the government killed Kennedy — he was going to end Viet Nam and dismantle the CIA which would have cost powerful people millions, so they dealt with him — within days of his death Johnson escalated Viet Nam and the CIA was safe —
And though I am not an American I follow American politics very closely, I find it fascinating — Bush Jr. is a buffoon, a terrible President and I remember sitting in shock when he was re-elected — he created a war predicated on a lie (weapons of mass destruction…where are they?) and has proven to be, well, for lack of a better word…stupid.
Stone’s W could be interesting. The question is, will it be ready by October?
Second that question Marvin. As l0ng as it is not rushed, I am cool. I an still indifferent towards the film, but I am warming up to the idea.
According to The Telegraph, Stacy Keach has been added to the cast as a fictionalised version of Billy Graham. The character is probably a composite character of Graham and Arthur Blessitt. The script seems to have gone through some major changes, judging by this bit of news.
“…he created a war predicated on a lie (weapons of mass destruction…where are they?) and has proven to be, well, for lack of a better word…stupid.”
Just cause they haven’t been found doesn’t mean they don’t exist. They could. Just be patient for once.
As for the movie, well, Bush has read the script and said that it’s all pretty much true. The makeup looks incredible. All I’m waiting for is a trailer.