James DiEugenio Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/13/magazine/oliver-stone-interview.html The NY Times always is antagonistic with Oliver. And here we go again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Norwood Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 Jim, Many thanks for posting this interview. I felt that Stone responded very astutely to the edgy questions posed by the interviewer. The documentary sounds exciting, and Stone provided a good teaser, especially in his point about what we know today about Oswald: "The last thing is the C.I.A. connection to Oswald. This is also far from settled fact. We have a stronger case, not only for post-Russia but also for pre-Russia. In other words, he was working with the C.I.A. before he went and when he came back." Thanks! James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 13, 2020 Author Share Posted July 13, 2020 I thought he did fairly well myself. The thing is I have seen interviews when the interviewer is not antagonistic, and its much more educational. Which, of course, is what the NY Times does not want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 If this work of Stone's turns out to be a movie then I think I will go to a movie again. Haven't been to a movie in years. There's way to much "social" content in movies today and not enough good scripts telling an interesting story with interesting characters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 Agreed, the interviewer's kind of an as-hole, but that's kind of what you'd expect. The trick is not to get sucked into his games of definition, and Stone did pretty well articulating his own path. Good Job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 13, 2020 Author Share Posted July 13, 2020 (edited) John: No, these two films are documentaries. The first on JFK, and the second on alternative energy. Oliver and producer Rob WIlson could make a lot more money doing features. But apparently he wants to do something meaningful. Edited July 14, 2020 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 40 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: John: No, these two film are documentaries. The first on JFK, and the second on alternative energy. Oliver and producer Rob WIlson could make a lot more money doing features. But apparently he wants to do something meaningful. I really admire Oliver Stone as a script writer and feature film maker, but I admire him even more for his incisive political/educational documentaries during the later years of his career, including the Untold History. I think I've now watched every film Oliver Stone ever made, including (finally) the Showtime Putin interviews. As for the Putin interviews, my impression is that Oliver Stone was a bit exasperated (or, at least, incredulous) about Vlad's prevarications in the final interview, after reports had surfaced about GRU meddling in the 2016 elections. I also thought that Putin seemed far less forthright and credible in that final interview, when he repeatedly denied to Stone (with sideways glances and a faint, sly smile) that Russia had conspired to put Trump in the White House. Far from looking like a "useful idiot," Stone looked visibly disappointed with Vlad for pulling his leg. Just my impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 14, 2020 Author Share Posted July 14, 2020 (edited) BTW, about doing something meaningful, I think he essentially says that in the interview. He gets offers which he does not take. But he then goes out and does these documentaries. BTW, I should add, because they are documentaries that does not mean they are easier to do. Or less time consuming. Not the way he does them. This particular JFK one, this has been going on for well over a year now. Many long days where we did not get out of the office until like 9 PM. And Rob Wilson, the producer, has been doing a remarkable job digging up archival footage which I did not even know existed. Edited July 14, 2020 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted July 14, 2020 Share Posted July 14, 2020 Congratulations Jim on Stone getting even just the title of the Documentary Destiny Betrayed mentioned in the NYT magazine as well as a few comments on it. "and then there's Vietnam. "No historian can now honestly say that the Vietnam War was Kennedy's child". Touché, for you and him. "I don't Want to criticize your (news) paper , but if it was honest, it would be doing this work instead of just saying "It's all settled". Double touché for him on that one. "It will be out. Even if it's on YouTube. Or in Transylvania." Nice to see his commitment to it being available to be seen by the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 14, 2020 Author Share Posted July 14, 2020 Wait until you see what we have on Vietnam, between Newman and James Galbraith. Galbraith talks about his father and JFK, what a story. Kennedy was really lucky to have JKG as a tutor because that is the way he communicated with him when he became president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted July 14, 2020 Share Posted July 14, 2020 9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Wait until you see what we have on Vietnam, between Newman and James Galbraith. Galbraith talks about his father and JFK, what a story. Kennedy was really lucky to have JKG as a tutor because that is the way he communicated with him when he became president. If this information about JFK, Galbraith, and Vietnam can't go mainstream in the U.S. media, nothing should. Move over, Ken Burns. I liked the line in the NYT interview where Stone wonders why he has to do the investigative reporting on JFK and Vietnam, instead of the "investigative reporters" in the M$M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 14, 2020 Author Share Posted July 14, 2020 That was a really telling point. Which I am surprised they kept in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 14, 2020 Author Share Posted July 14, 2020 And I agree, the stuff in the film makes Burns look like he cooperated in an act of censorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Thorne Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 Don’t forget to click on the highlighted text within the interview to see more snide footnotes from the interviewer repeating the official story. But regardless, that was a good discussion from Oliver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 15, 2020 Author Share Posted July 15, 2020 Those footnotes were really something. They deliberately tried to misconstrue what Oliver said about CE 399. The SBT is not the same as the issue of CE 399. Its a distinction with a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now