Archive for Oliver Stone

By Crom

Posted in FILM, Politics with tags , , , , , , , , on April 12, 2014 by dcairns

conan

Caught the end of John Milius’s CONAN THE BARBARIAN on TV last night, a movie I saw when it came out. If my arithmetic is correct, it was an AA certificate and I was slightly too young. Saw it with my dad. I’ve seen bits of this movie on TV over the years but not the ending, because I usually decided it wasn’t good enough to watch. I still think that’s true, probably. (I’ve seen practically nothing of CONAN THE DESTROYER but am actually interested because it’s Fleischer.)

It would be ludicrous to say Schwartzenegger ever became an actor, but seeing him in this and RED SONJA (Fleischer again, and a favourite line reading from Ahnuldt, the casual, friendly “Yer sister’s dying,”) it’s striking how he just couldn’t do it at all to begin with: couldn’t say a line, couldn’t react, couldn’t move, couldn’t stand still.

Even accepting that, the film has problems — Milius’s Nazi fetish is apparent in the Riefenstahl firelight parade at the end, on a Fritz Lang set. Oliver Stone’s script was rewritten to heck by Milius, which is perhaps why, having offended Cubans (SCARFACE), Chinese-Americans (THE YEAR OF THE DRAGON) and Turks (MIDNIGHT EXPRESS), Stone’s barbarian epic wasn’t picketed by Cimmerians. But Milius has a problem of his own, and once you recognize it, everything he’s trying to do collapses like a camel — Milius is corny.

Compare his APOCALYPSE NOW script with what was filmed — Brando’s windy improvs are vastly superior to what was scripted, long, hawkish monologues that have the feel of being typed with Milius’s free hand while his other was busy down below. Incredibly, Milius practically steals Coppola’s ending, which Coppola stole from Jack Hill (spoiler alert) — Conan kills the evil ruler, the followers bow down to him, and the temple is set ablaze (as in some versions of APOC).

There’s also THIS –

conanthebarbarian8

Still, Milius’s film has a distinct personality — fascistic, bellicose, thuggish in its humour and humourless in its heart — which can’t be said for most modern fantasy films. And the modern guys haven’t looked at Kurosawa enough. Milius certainly has, and in addition is nutty enough to think he can actually BE Kurosawa. And why muck about with THE HIDDEN FORTRESS when you can muck about with THE SEVEN SAMURAI?

What I wish I could talk about is the reason the Ritz in Madrid to this day won’t allow filmmakers to check in. It has to do with Milius, and it’s a good story, but it’s gossip and I can’t prove it and it might be actionable. I find it quite believable though. Anyone else heard this one? I can only imagine the reason it doesn’t appear in Easy Riders, Raging Bulls is that Milius was Biskind’s top informant and got an easy ride…

Untold/Unheard

Posted in FILM, literature, Politics, Television with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 27, 2013 by dcairns

untold

The only downside of coming to America for ten days is that I’ve had to leave behind Oliver Stone & Peter Kuznick’s book The Untold History of the United States. Not because they’d impound me on crossing the border, though that seems conceivable, but because it’s a mammoth doorstop of a thing, if mammoths can be said to have doorstops (paleontologists are divided on the subject).

I’m highly skeptical of Stone as a filmmaker. His screenwriting produced three films accused of racism — MIDNIGHT EXPRESS (Turks); YEAR OF THE DRAGON (Chinese-Americans); SCARFACE (Cubans); it’s possible CONAN THE BARBARIAN was picketed by a few outraged Cimmerians. Of course screenwriters can’t be accused of responsibility for anything in their movies because they have no authority about what goes in ‘em. Robin Wood accused Paul Schrader of fascism based on his extensive writing output but I don’t think anything he’s directed really supports that, though Wood made a case for AMERICAN GIGOLO’s homophobic tendencies.)

Shadowplayer David WIngrove is an admirer of SEIZURE, but I’ve only seen the preposterous THE HAND from this period (come to think of it, the Michael Caine character who is so outraged that his barbarian cartoons are being rewritten after his hand is implausibly knocked off by a truck [true!] must be channeling Stone’s rage at getting rewritten by John Milius on CONAN — though he managed to get his response into cinemas a year ahead of Milius’s stimulus).

Then I thought SALVADOR was terrific and highly relevant, but was underwhelmed by PLATOON and since then have only sort-of liked anything from Stone. NATURAL BORN KILLERS has a compelling audio-visual style but is one of the more morally repellent films I’ve seen: though John Grisham’s attempted lawsuit against it was moronic, Stone’s film seems to invite such a reaction.

But I got stuck into Stone’s new book on the recommendation of (clunk of name-drop) Richard Lester, who had seen the TV series and pronounced it “brilliant” a word he does not use lightly (well, he never applied it to me). “I don’t know how he hasn’t been arrested for it.” The good news for non-Stone fans is that probably co-author Kuznick can be credited with the blinding insights, with Stone in charge of presenting them clearly in a way that works for an audience who may know only a little, or else quite a lot of misinformation, about the subject.

I’ve still to check out the TV show — only way seems to be to buy it so I’m waiting for payday — but I’m now fascinated to see what Stone does with it visually. The basic gist of the thing, chapter by chapter, is to present a contrary view to how large chunks of modern US history are understood. This is less the case in (skipping ahead) chapters about the last two presidents, but it’s certainly the case where the authors revisit world war two and the start of the cold war, a part of the book which presents Henry A. Wallace, a largely forgotten vice president, as the hero who could have changed the course of history for the better if democracy had been allowed to triumph over vested interests.

The book is at times heart-breaking, because we’re told that Hiroshima & Nagasaki, and then the cold war, were not in fact necessary. To give you just a small sense of the book, I want to talk about the bomb — because this chapter has haunted me since I read it.

I’d always swallowed the terms of the argument, if not the argument itself, you see. There’s something very compelling about the moral conundrum we’re told faced Truman: invade Japan and face severe casualties from US troops, or drop the bomb and cause many civilian casualties. The obscenity of war means a commander-in-chief is forced to weigh up the lives of friendly combatants versus enemy civilians, and how are you supposed to calculate that.

But this whole argument is academic and irrelevant here because that’s not what happened. George W.H. Bush once credited the atomic bombings with saving “millions of lives.” But the figure Truman claimed was “just” a quarter of a million. And he was lying too — he was provided with all sorts of contradictory figures (how can you be sure anyway?) but the highest was nowhere near that and the lowest was just three thousand.

But playing that game is still assuming that the choice came down to nuking or invasion. In fact, Japan was ready to surrender: they had been putting out feelers to the USSR, in hopes that Stalin could broker a more favourable peace. They were terrified that the “unconditional surrender” Roosevelt had spoken of meant they could lose their emperor. A lot of advisers were telling Truman that a clarification of the terms of surrender could have provoked an immediate favorable response.

Hiroshima did not prompt a surrender because the situation with Emperor Hirohito remained unclear. The Japanese already knew we could bombs cities out of existence since we’d done that to Tokyo, What probably prompted them to down arms was the USSR launching an invasion against them — this caught them between two super-powers, and meant they could abandon all hope of help from that direction. But before they could even respond to this attack, Nagasaki was bombed.

The argument is made, and it convinces, that America wanted to avoid the USSR making territorial gains in the East, and earning economic aid that had been promised for its participation in the war on Japan. Furthermore, General Groves, who oversaw the Manhattan project, was quite clear in his own mind that the goal of the bomb drops was not to affect Japan, but to affect the Soviet Union. The impact of using the atomic bomb would obviously far greater than the impact of merely possessing it — Japan was the USA’s last opportunity to show itself willing to annihilate a whole city with a single weapon.

If you have any more doubts about this, a direct quote from Truman may help allay them: he said that his announcement of the dropping of the bomb was the “happiest” he ever made.

Highly recommended stuff. I’ll be checking out the series.

Rewriting History

Posted in FILM with tags , , , , , , , , on June 5, 2009 by dcairns

StarTrek

The new STAR TREK is an extremely enjoyable ride, capitalising ruthlessly on any affection we may have for those 1960s TV characters. It also touches on an idea recently explored in another project associated with director JJ Abrams, the TV show Lost. In Lost, which Abrams co-created, the latest series has introduced time travel as a device which not only offers a solution to many of the apparently imponderable mysteries of the previous seasons, but offers a happy ending to characters much knocked-about by fate and the writing team. Briefly, in the last few episodes, a plan is hatched to change the future by detonating an atomic bomb, which will cause a chain reaction of events ultimately preventing the plane crash that began the series. If this plan works, the show’s narrative will erase itself.

In STAR TREK (written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, directed by Abrams), a black hole transports a rogue Romulan vessel back in time, altering the flow of history by killing Captain Kirk’s father, and then, more seriously, destroying an entire planet. Since this event is not undone, it means that sequels to this movie will not have to follow the continuity of the TV show, since the whole course of history has changed. It’s an ingenious way to defeat the objections of pedants.

(Both Lost and STAR TREK feature temporal paradoxes in the form of the ourobouros – in Lost, one character gives another a compass, and the receiver then travels back in time and returns it. That compass has no maker, and is immune to destruction: it exists in a perfect loop of time. In STAR TREK, Spock comes back in time and gives Scottie a set of equations that Scottie is supposed to formulate in the future: now the equations have no origin, and are merely passed from brain to brain without ever being invented.)

star-trek-abrams

The idea of rewriting history also seems like a metaphor for the story of STAR TREK as told in the movie. It seems to me that the writers may have taken some inspiration from Oliver Stone’s W, or perhaps from the trailer for Oliver Stone’s W. Consider: in both W and STAR TREK, the hero is the son of a man called George (Captain George Kirk, George Bush Snr) who is a powerful leader, but only briefly (twelve minutes, in STAR TREK). The hero is a ne’er-do-well and barroom brawler who seizes power ruthlessly during a time of crisis, defeating a more sober and apparently reliable authority figure by underhanded means (Spock; Al Gore and John Kerry). The hero must then do battle with a psychotic terrorist. At this point the writers depart from the W plan: realising that what it takes to make this story popular is a happy ending, they have Kirk rise to the responsibility of the position of Captain. His combination of guts, instinct, tactics and authority allow him to triumph over the opposition and unite his colleagues.

Rewriting history, get it? I don’t mean to be cynical and I’m not knocking STAR TREK –

Pluses: a really well-cast bunch of charismatic people; some very good lines for older Nimoy; lots of excitement; and I loved futuristic Iowa!

Minuses: I wouldn’t have so callously destroyed Vulcan; the idea of a supernova “threatening the galaxy” is silly, even if you’re not a science nerd; the canister of “red matter” looks like a poor man’s lava lamp; they stole so much from STAR TREK II that I seriously hope Nicholas Meyer is getting royalties.

– I just thought it was sort of interesting.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 361 other followers