Posted on 07/13/2010 11:39:09 AM PDT by Kaslin
At the end of June, I wrote a short op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. In that article, I criticized Oliver Stone’s “documentary” South of the Border. I wrote the following:
What Mr. Stone and his writers have presented is a standard far-left narrative that is part of a long line of propaganda films, a modern American version of the old agitprop. There are no dissenting voices in this film. Nor is there any mention of the fact that Mr. Chávez has closed down television and radio stations that disagree with him and arrested dissenting political figures.
I then followed that op-ed with a longer article that appeared on my blog and was then put up on the website of the History News Network, the major website of the historical community. I wrote the following paragraph about Chavez’s big mistake of allowing himself to be interviewed by a reporter who knows his stuff, footage Stone knows about but somehow failed to use for his film:
Finally, you should not miss the incredible BBC Hardtalk interview conducted by the fearless BBC reporter Stephen Sackur, who, unlike his US counterparts, knows how to ask the tough questions to Hugo Chavez, and who confronts him head on with his lies, obfuscations, and his inability to be honest. You will see Sackur confront Chavez on his arrest of General Baduel, which I referred to in my WSJ op-ed. Fortunately, Chavez has not learned what Fidel Castro would have told him — never agree to be interviewed except by fawning American acolytes like Barbara Walters, Dan Rather, and all the others who have interviewed Castro and failed to confront him about anything meaningful.
Today, I woke up to find that none other than Oliver Stone himself has answered me in a short letter, in which he refers to my critique of him as a “diatribe,” a word that of course fits his own film and writing far better than anything I have written. He claims that he really does have dissenting voices in his film, as well as opposition leaders criticizing Hugo Chavez. What Stone does is to include brief bits of criticism, in standard propaganda set-ups in which a few words are used to knock the critics down and show Hugo Chavez’s greatness. Nowhere does he include any substantive critic who can provide a different perspective on Chavez and his policies. This is not surprising. As I pointed out by quoting Tariq Ali, his main writer, the film is meant to be one defending and praising Hugo Chavez, not a non-partisan or balanced view of the dictator’s reign.
What one can note from Stone’s letter is that he does not even seek to answer any of the main points I make in my PJM blog, or to refute any of the specific obvious distortions Stone makes in the movie. For example, he does not answer the following charge I made in the WSJ op-ed:
The film depicts the ups and downs of Mr. Chávez’s rise to power, including his failed 1992 coup. It recounts how he was saved from death by armed forces loyal to him, and was brought back to power in large part by Gen. Raul Baduel. The general is shown discussing the role he played in Mr. Chávez’s restoration.
A small detail Mr. Stone conveniently leaves out is that in 2009, Gen. Baduel, who Mr. Chávez had appointed as defense minister, was stripped of power, indicted for corruption, and imprisoned because he had opposed Mr. Chávez’s attempts to institute constitutional changes that would transform Venezuela into a formal dictatorship.
Instead, he cites his own lengthy answer to the devastating article that appeared in the New York Times by Larry Rohter. Rohter, I am sure, will write his own answer to Stone.
By sending his letter criticizing me to HNN, and not to PJM, where my post originally appeared, Stone has revealed something about himself. HNN is a site read mostly by professional historians, whose respect Stone obviously is most anxious to get. He knows that most of them, even many on the left, know that his penchant is to distort history and to present the past as one giant conspiracy, a trait most revealed in his film JFK.
So Stone wants to distort history and present agitprop propaganda, while passing it off as genuine history. The problem is that the goal is irreconcilable. He can do one or the other, and not both. Then he is obviously burned when anyone from the historical community writes to expose his methodology. He wants to dish it out, but obviously, he can’t take it. Mr. Stone, it turns out, is very thin-skinned. Or perhaps no one is going to the theaters to see South of the Border. That is the best revenge we all can have for his paean to a would-be Leninist dictator in our hemisphere.
I disagree.
Hugo is not Leninist.
He is Hitleresque.
Well, maybe he is both.
I’ve spoken to Columbians on the internet, they are terrified of Chavez, and wonder what is wrong with the “American President” that he seems to like him. They are all worried about getting drafted to fight Hugo’s animals coming over the border and attacking them.
Reminds me a bit of Fidel Castro and Huber Matos.
ML/NJ
There is no one on the left who doesn’t like dictators. So why should the arrogant pos who currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave be different?
Marxism and fascism are often embodied in the very same person, or the very same movement, and Chavez is a good example.
In the end, the ideology often is just a cover for totalitarian rule that is its own end and again, Chavez is a good example.
Maybe now he can’t do both.
But soon when Obama completes building his Brave New World of HOPE, Oliver will be able to write history as he wants it to be.
And them we will all Love Big Brother.
That word is one of many that must have been included in the course of "How to respond to Conservatives". It pops up with such regularity in letters to the editor on such a regular basis that is seems to have been the result of coaching from the left. Other words that spring to mind are:
"regime" - As in the Bush regime
"Selected" President - In reference to president Bush.
"ilk" - as in any Republican.
Feel free to add to the list
I wouldn’t believe Oliver Stone if he told me grass is green.
And he did not pay the company money it was owed from those 11 rigs working for PDVSA, Hugo's oil company.
Actually, Oliver Stone’s films are incredibly educational. Take any one, believe the opposite of the story he tries to tell, and you will have the truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.