In the global war for ideas, which side are you on?
Oscar-winning Stone is famous for movies like: Platoon, Wall Street, W, JFK, Alexander, The Doors, Joy Luck Club, and the list goes on.
Clearly, Stone has the credentials & popularity to get his movies viewed all around the world. However, after filming his latest documentary on South American leaders straying from imperial power (mainly Britain & the U.S.), it was censored here in the United States.
American Reviews of South of the Border:
Before watching it, I read a NYT review on the documentary. Simply amazing how the author completely leaves out anything worthy of relevance dealing with the meat of the movie. It starts off comparing South of the Border to Stone's JFK - going on about how Stone is a paranoid conspiracy theorist. This paints too much of an ugly perspective which is non-existent in the film, which I would argue is largely positive. The main story is how this group of people (7 South American Presidents) have been getting fucked by Imperialism for the last hundred or so years, and are finally rising up, banding together, and working towards a common goal of self-autonomy.
Before watching it, I read a NYT review on the documentary. Simply amazing how the author completely leaves out anything worthy of relevance dealing with the meat of the movie. It starts off comparing South of the Border to Stone's JFK - going on about how Stone is a paranoid conspiracy theorist. This paints too much of an ugly perspective which is non-existent in the film, which I would argue is largely positive. The main story is how this group of people (7 South American Presidents) have been getting fucked by Imperialism for the last hundred or so years, and are finally rising up, banding together, and working towards a common goal of self-autonomy.
Stone's Take:
The 7 South American presidents interviewed all share a common goal: "They wanted to control their own resources, strengthen regional ties, be treated as equals with the US, and become financially independent of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)."
Hugo Chavez media propaganda:
American media often lies to the public without regard for truth or basic intelligence (this we know - from NBC's Today to Fox & Friends). Stone takes on American media by exposing an American propaganda campaign against "dictator" Hugo Chavez. Without doing any independent research on the life and times of Chavez, who would you believe: Fox's Gretchen Carlson or filmmaker Oliver Stone?
Chavez is continually blasted in the U.S. - to such an extent that people hardly know why they hate him. Stone clearly likes the man - even admires him. South American leaders seem to love the man - and it's hard not to like him while watching the film. One major reason Americans hate the guy is over Chavez's comments about W being the devil. I didn't appreciate the comment either coming from a foreign leader. But did anyone care what ethnicity the guy had who told the king he wasn't wearing any clothes?
The major problem here:
Stone is an exemplary American. He is an artist - and to keep his art from reaching the American public fairly (like how his box office movies, like the Savages, are publicized) does a disservice to our nation. The stifling of ideas is never a good thing - and that's all there is here - unpopular ideas from people Americans seem to have a skewed view of - like Chavez. The ideas expressed in South of the Border aren't entirely new or revolutionary, the bigger story becomes - why is the American status quo attempting to shield American eyes from a Stone film?
American media often lies to the public without regard for truth or basic intelligence (this we know - from NBC's Today to Fox & Friends). Stone takes on American media by exposing an American propaganda campaign against "dictator" Hugo Chavez. Without doing any independent research on the life and times of Chavez, who would you believe: Fox's Gretchen Carlson or filmmaker Oliver Stone?Chavez is continually blasted in the U.S. - to such an extent that people hardly know why they hate him. Stone clearly likes the man - even admires him. South American leaders seem to love the man - and it's hard not to like him while watching the film. One major reason Americans hate the guy is over Chavez's comments about W being the devil. I didn't appreciate the comment either coming from a foreign leader. But did anyone care what ethnicity the guy had who told the king he wasn't wearing any clothes?
The major problem here:
Stone is an exemplary American. He is an artist - and to keep his art from reaching the American public fairly (like how his box office movies, like the Savages, are publicized) does a disservice to our nation. The stifling of ideas is never a good thing - and that's all there is here - unpopular ideas from people Americans seem to have a skewed view of - like Chavez. The ideas expressed in South of the Border aren't entirely new or revolutionary, the bigger story becomes - why is the American status quo attempting to shield American eyes from a Stone film?
No comments:
Post a Comment