Despite my hacking, sniffling and overall feelings of malaise, Abby and I went on a date last night to see the much anticipated film, "W.". Well, highly anticipated for Abby. I seemed to be the only person in her world that was apprehensive and anything but excited about this film. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a closet Bush supporter, but something about the cartoonish trailer left me wary.
Without giving away too much, I think the predictable outcome happened: I enjoyed the movie more than I foresaw thanks to my low expectations while Abby was not as enthralled as she hoped to be. We both agreed on much if not everything in our post movie discussions and reviews, but the central issue that came out of this movie for me was "responsibility".
Does Oliver Stone have a duty to his viewers to be objective? Does he have a responsibility to us to "get it right"? I know there have been myriad historical films, and despite the fact that some are better than others, all have some degree of creative license; facts do get distorted. But so much of this movie seemed to be completely hypothetical. Lengthy conversations behind closed doors that I imagine are 100% Stone's own deductions about what might have been said. While such conversations felt plausible and never seemed outrageous to someone who is ardently opposed to Bush and his Cabinet's decisions over the past 8 years, I also was fundamentally disturbed as an objective American that such important moments in our History would be portrayed publically by a filmmaker using his own imagination to deduce what must have transpired.
So, when tackling historical events and personas, what is the filmmaker's duty? Does one soften the rougher corners of a personality to make a character a better protagonist? Does one completely demonize a "villainous" figure in History for the sake of tension and conflict in a movie? Does a director and/or writer have the right to completely fabricate words, conversations and hypothetical actions or events to make a film flow better?
I know this is the reality of the film industry, but something about W. really didn't sit well while I count many historical films as my favorite movies of all time despite their factual failings. Perhaps it's because W.’s characters are still primary actors in the tale that one day will become History. Perhaps it's because there hasn't been time for the truths about what was said and done to surface. Perhaps it's because such figures are in a position where a defense against such a depiction of the past seems unlikely at the moment.
I have enjoyed Oliver Stone's movies in the past, and again, while I know he likes to speculate, his films have always been based on a firm platform supported by History. In this case however, I think Stone went far beyond his rights as a filmmaker and I for one believe that he overstepped this one and walked into the realm of irresponsibility.
***Note: Perhaps there was far more that went into making this film than I realize. Perhaps Stone has transcripts or 100% reliable sources that can shed light on what was actually said in the depths of the White House, Pentagon or wherever else the movie took place. I highly doubt it, but if, in fact, most of the moments I question were actually accurate, then damn...this movie was eye-opening.
Without giving away too much, I think the predictable outcome happened: I enjoyed the movie more than I foresaw thanks to my low expectations while Abby was not as enthralled as she hoped to be. We both agreed on much if not everything in our post movie discussions and reviews, but the central issue that came out of this movie for me was "responsibility".
Does Oliver Stone have a duty to his viewers to be objective? Does he have a responsibility to us to "get it right"? I know there have been myriad historical films, and despite the fact that some are better than others, all have some degree of creative license; facts do get distorted. But so much of this movie seemed to be completely hypothetical. Lengthy conversations behind closed doors that I imagine are 100% Stone's own deductions about what might have been said. While such conversations felt plausible and never seemed outrageous to someone who is ardently opposed to Bush and his Cabinet's decisions over the past 8 years, I also was fundamentally disturbed as an objective American that such important moments in our History would be portrayed publically by a filmmaker using his own imagination to deduce what must have transpired.
So, when tackling historical events and personas, what is the filmmaker's duty? Does one soften the rougher corners of a personality to make a character a better protagonist? Does one completely demonize a "villainous" figure in History for the sake of tension and conflict in a movie? Does a director and/or writer have the right to completely fabricate words, conversations and hypothetical actions or events to make a film flow better?
I know this is the reality of the film industry, but something about W. really didn't sit well while I count many historical films as my favorite movies of all time despite their factual failings. Perhaps it's because W.’s characters are still primary actors in the tale that one day will become History. Perhaps it's because there hasn't been time for the truths about what was said and done to surface. Perhaps it's because such figures are in a position where a defense against such a depiction of the past seems unlikely at the moment.
I have enjoyed Oliver Stone's movies in the past, and again, while I know he likes to speculate, his films have always been based on a firm platform supported by History. In this case however, I think Stone went far beyond his rights as a filmmaker and I for one believe that he overstepped this one and walked into the realm of irresponsibility.
***Note: Perhaps there was far more that went into making this film than I realize. Perhaps Stone has transcripts or 100% reliable sources that can shed light on what was actually said in the depths of the White House, Pentagon or wherever else the movie took place. I highly doubt it, but if, in fact, most of the moments I question were actually accurate, then damn...this movie was eye-opening.
No comments:
Post a Comment