Stone often criticized for his creative interpretation of
historical facts, events
By Lael Loewenstein
Daily Bruin Staff
Few would have expected Oliver Stone to jump back into the fire
of historical filmmaking after the media bloodbath he received for
"JFK," but America’s most controversial auteur has never been one
to walk away from a challenge.
"I’ve always been interested by power, how people get it and
what they do with it," Stone says of the motivations that led him
to make "Nixon," which he will be discussing today in Ackerman.
"After ‘JFK,’ I had made two films in other genres ("Heaven and
Earth" and "Natural Born Killers") and I was feeling refreshed and
ready to come back to a subject that I cared about a lot:
contemporary issues."
Yet while critics have generally praised "Nixon" for its
technical artistry and skilled performances, Stone has been
criticized once again for a creative interpretation of history.
"I don’t call myself a historian," Stone says, speaking by phone
from the Sundance Festival in Park City, Utah. "I’m a dramatist, a
filmmaker. My films help cast light on contemporary history. I
don’t offer them as the only interpretation or definitive
biography. Perhaps because they are strong and because they have an
impact, it evokes the wrath of the media establishment."
Having repeatedly called history "a prism, a ‘Rashomon,’" (a
reference to the famed Akira Kurosawa film in which four people
provide conflicting accounts of a crime), Stone has repeatedly
found that his own view is more harshly attacked than that of any
other filmmaker.
"Oliver’s only fault is that he’s more thorough in his research
than other people," says "Nixon" co-star James Woods in Stone’s
defense. "He takes the time to go through all the warts and creases
of the characters."
Yet, as Woods adds, the pervasive myth still exists that
documentaries are objective and historical films have no right to
dramatize events.
"People labor under this extraordinary delusion that a
documentary is somehow an absolutely, perfectly rendered recreation
of the facts as they were, not realizing that whatever way you
point the camera or whatever cuts you’ve made you editorialize,"
says Woods.
"Thank god an artist like Oliver Stone has some kind of
preemptive notion of what he wants to do, because that’s what
storytelling is about. There’s no delusion that these are the
facts. This is an interpretation of history."
Stone concurs.
"I’m content to see myself as a mythmaker. But when I say that I
walk straight into the wall of the thought police, who say ‘What
right does he have to re-interpret history,’ not realizing, of
course, that the Warren Report was one of history’s great myths and
all we were doing with ‘JFK’ was providing a counter-myth."
In a recent Newsweek cover story on "Nixon," Stryker McGuire
aptly suggested "If Stone were a less powerful filmmaker, he’d be
less hated."
Indeed, at the root of the criticism Stone has received seems to
be a fear that he has a louder voice than that of any other
filmmaker. That moviegoers, especially young ones, may get their
history from Oliver Stone films rather than textbooks is not, he
suggests, his cross to bear.
"I don’t know that that’s right, but if the books are no good,
they’ve got to go somewhere. I don’t know that most kids are that
interested. They’d rather see ‘Natural Born Killers’ than
‘Nixon.’"
That said, Stone has to acknowledge that young people would
probably rather see "Nixon" than a documentary.
"I don’t know where their heads are. There’s a certain
percentage that care and seek enlightenment and a larger percentage
that don’t care and just want to have a good time at the movies and
not think. I think my films appeal to those that are seekers."
EVENT: Oliver Stone and James Woods will speak in conjunction
with screening of clips from "Nixon." Today, Ackerman Grand
Ballroom, 12:00 p.m.. Admission is free.Comments to
webmaster@db.asucla.ucla.edu