Stone Blames ‘Unsophisticated’ American Audience, Flees to France

Utopia Unmasked ^ | Jan. 16, 2005 | William R Alford

[walford]

---

Stone Blames ‘Unsophisticated’ American Audience, Flees to France

by William R Alford - Jan. 16, 2005

Apparently the ill-advised heat is coming to Oliver Stone from all sides in the United States, so he is abandoning us to our galling ignorance.

Quoting the clearly exasperated director from a recent New York Post article: “The gays lambasted me for not making Alexander openly homosexual and in the Bible Belt, pastors were up in the pulpit saying that to watch this film was to be tempted by Satan.”

It doesn't matter so much that Stone affixes a few arguably plausible character traits upon an ancient historical figure. One can empathize with the rationale: These are people about whom we know little more than what they did, when they did it and where. Insofar as specific personality style, we can only speculate. So why not try and flesh them out a bit to make them more three dimensional?

Stone’s historical dramatizations consistently get him into trouble because he fails to appreciate that many will not take kindly to having events that never happened and characters who never existed inserted into a storyline that is out of phase with the way things actually occurred. Suspension of disbelief has its limits.

Stone's product comes off as more of a fantasy world made of real people whom he can manipulate to suit his biases and whims. This is merely an adult version of a child playing with caricature dolls who muses, “it would be neat if THIS happened.”

Thus his period pieces are more about Oliver Stone than they are about anything else. The fact that he is willing to blame those on all sides of the political/cultural spectrum who lack the sophistication to appreciate his work clearly demonstrates his essential narcissism and arrogance.

Stone is certainly a gifted director who is capable of presenting a lavishly appointed cinematic canvas with nicely developed, believable characters. To that effect, his purely fictional works can generally withstand greater scrutiny. However, when Stone transparently decides to use an entertainment vehicle to open our eyes to his Superior social perspective, this only serves to alienate the skeptical.

An early example of his veering from entertainment in favor of proselytism appears in his 1987 movie Wall Street. None of these people ever existed, but the fictional format is eclipsed by his apparent urge to create an evil capitalist bogeyman. Thus the film aptly serves to illustrate Stone’s distorted/uninformed views of venture finance. The likes of this will in turn placate the like-minded, confuse those not in the know and alienate those who ARE aware of how things really work.

Stone’s films increasingly seem to be borne of a necessity to construct an archetypical Straw Man of that with which he disagrees and a romanticized superhero representing his own predispositions. Then the latter either topples the former or is tragically thwarted.

It is impossible to do all of that AND make it entertaining. The fact that he blames the audience for not ‘getting it’ and fleeing to a country he hopes will be more wisely receptive indicates that he is as of yet incapable of the necessary self-examination that could promise to redeem his career. That truly is a shame. Otherwise he likely would have a number of good movies left in him.

---

---

HOME | EDUCATION | IDEOLOGY | THEO/ETHICAL | MEDIA

---

[oolatec]

Oliver, get over yourself. The movie sucked.

[zzen01]

Which movie?

[Tijeras_Slim]

Which movie?

Alexthander the Fabulous.

[zzen01]

galling ignorance!! Is that why he fled to France(Gaul... get it)!

[ChefKeith]

BYE OLLIE!

You want me to kick you in the butt to help boarding the plane go faster?

[Uncle Vlad]

I was unfortunate enough to sit through it--I've seen better film on teeth.

[zzen01]

I was just wondering which movie of his sucked. Seems to me that ALL of his movies sucked!

[VOA]

I think Stone's "Alexander" got second worst film of 2004 on The Hugh Hewitt Show.

[CasearianDaoist]

Given His surname, this is actually a triple pun. Hard to do, especially inadvertently

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Since Americans are so stupid and unsophisticated, Stone, go to France and don't come back. And take the rest of Hollywood with you.

[B.O. Plenty]

Oliver Stone from all sides in the United States, so he is abandoning us to our galling ignorance....

heh heh heh...one more bites the dust.

I hope 'ol Ollie Stone has a happy life in FRANCE.

[Brilliant]

"Oh, poor, poor, pitiful me...."

[xJones]

After all the Hollywood types promising to leave if Bush won re-election it's a relief to see one (Stone) actually do it, even if was really because his latest movie bombed.

[McGavin999]

Quick! Somebody steal his passport so he can't get back in.

[elfman2]

LOL!

[nothingnew]

...I've seen better film on teeth.BWAHAHAHA!....Thanks...now to clean up the phlegmonitor!

FMCDH(BITS)

[FreedomCalls]

Quoting the clearly exasperated director from a recent New York Post article: “The gays lambasted me for not making Alexander openly homosexual and in the Bible Belt, pastors were up in the pulpit saying that to watch this film was to be tempted by Satan.”

If he had made a film about Alexander the warrior, or Alexander the leader, or Alexander the conquerer, or all three, he would not have had to mention his sexuality at all. That would have avoided the controversy altogether and made for a better film. But no, he had to make his sexuality a prime focus of the story. Imagine a film about Patton that focused on his sexuality! How would that have been received?