Assess the political significance of the work of a key director - Oliver Stone?s case

Résumé du document

Oliver Stone is an American director and screenwriter who often turns to contemporary American History to find the material for his work. Certainly it is because of this reason that he is one of the most controversial filmmakers since the 1980s. He is just as liked as disliked. In fact, the core of these controversies lies in what can be called his interpretation of Contemporary American History. It is particularly true for his films on the Vietnam war and on American Presidents. It would have been possible to include more films in this list but it is preferable to focus on the greater controversies which provide more sources. Oliver Stone describes himself as a historical dramatist. He mixes facts and fiction in his work in attempts to reveal larger truths about recent American history to challenge the often comfortable narratives and conclusions of traditional American historians. The problem is that Stone, aggressively defend(s) his interpretations, and even against scholars. He doesn't hesitate to say that scholar works are also subjects of interpretation from their academic authors.

Extraits

[...] Toplin p.1. See for instance Toplin p.46, note 1 : “Stone falsifies so much that he may be an intellectual sociopath, indifferent to the truth” George Will, Columnist. Toplin p.1. Ibid, p.17. Ibid, p.1. Ibid, p.7. and p.9 (Historian Robert A. Rosenstone) Ibid, p.46. Start scene of JFK, McCrisken, Pepper p.144. Rollins, O'Connor p.313. Quart, Auster p.179. [...]

[...] Basically, this movie was strongly applauded for its sense of reality but made audience in the United States uncomfortable with the American atrocities done in this war. Oliver Stones was criticised for two opposite things : the fact that some Vietnam veterans felt insulted by the atrocities shown on screen[17]. He was filming the “dark side” of the USA and he shook the audience by not reproducing the official view upon this war[18]. He didn't represented young people full of respect for their duty, but exhausted soldiers who wants to go home and are dehumanised though the conflict. [...]

[...] The late 80s were more open-minding about Vietnam war's view, and especially from a veteran as Oliver Stone is. There is one significant fact to support this idea : in 1986 happened the “simultaneous success of a patriotic film such as Top Gun and (the) much more critical film, Platoon”[27]. In a nutshell, the success of Platoon “signalled a decisive shift in the political and narrative focus of major Vietnam productions”[28]. It leads to more questions about Vietnam war : the bad memories were re-opened and moreover, by a veteran of this war which legitimised his work. [...]

[...] Assess the political significance of the work of a key director - Oliver Stone's case Oliver Stone is an American director and screenwriter who often turns to contemporary American History to find the material for his work. Certainly it is because of this reason that he is one of the most controversial filmmaker since the 80s. He is just as liked as disliked[1]. In fact, the core of those controversies lies in what can be called his “interpretation of Contemporary American History”[2]. [...]

[...] References Books - Hamburg Eric (Editor), NIXON, An Oliver Stone Film Bloomsbury. - McCrisken T. and Pepper A., American History and Contemporary Hollywood Film Edinburgh University Press. Chapter “Oliver Stone and the decade of Trauma” (p.131-159). - Medved Michael, Hollywood vs. America Harper Collins Publishers. - Powers S., Rothman David J., Rothman S., Hollywood's America, Social and Political Themes in Motion Pictures Westview Press. - Prince Stephen, Visions of Empire, Political Imagery in Contemporary American Film Praeger Publishers. - Quart Leonard and Auster Albert, American Film and Society since 1945, Third Edition, Revised and Expanded Praeger Publishers. [...]