Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is Oliver Stone Homophobic?


Recommended Posts

     There has been a recurrent narrative in the M$M and on social media lately accusing Jim Garrison of homophobia, and Oliver Stone of being homophobic in his depiction of Jim Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw in the film JFK.

      Fred Litwin was an early promulgator of this homophobia narrative about Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw, and Oliver Stone's movie, JFK.   But the homophobia narrative has also been repeated in the Washington Post by Louisiana State University historian Alecia P. Long, and, more recently, by James Kirchick.

      This homophobia narrative appears to be an obvious straw man-- an attempt to deflect attention from Clay Shaw's work for the CIA, and his association with Oswald in the summer of 1963.   Instead of being a known CIA asset who committed perjury in the Garrison trial, Shaw is made out to be a victim of homophobic persecution by Garrison and Stone.

      My own take on the depiction of homosexuality in the film, JFK, is that it was historically accurate and of secondary importance to the central plot, about men in New Orleans who had apparent foreknowledge of JFK's assassination in the summer of '63.  The characters might just as well have been heterosexual, if history dictated as much.

      As for the more general issue of Oliver Stone being accused of homophobia, there are two Stone films I know of that debunk that narrative.  One is Alexander, which prominently features a sympathetic, historical narrative about Alexander's relationship with Hephaestion.  Where's the homophobia?

      Another is the more subtle depiction of the relationship between Chris (Charlie Sheen) and Sgt. Elias (William Dafoe) in Platoon.

     

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

8 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

     There has been a recurrent narrative in the M$M and on social media lately accusing Jim Garrison of homophobia, and Oliver Stone of being homophobic in his depiction of Jim Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw in the film JFK.

      Fred Litwin was an early promulgator of this homophobia narrative about Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw, and Oliver Stone's movie, JFK.   But the homophobia narrative has also been repeated in the Washington Post by Louisiana State University historian Alecia P. Long, and, more recently, by James Kirchick.

      This homophobia narrative appears to be an obvious straw man-- an attempt to deflect attention from Clay Shaw's work for the CIA, and his association with Oswald in the summer of 1963.   Instead of being a known CIA asset who committed perjury in the Garrison trial, Shaw is made out to be a victim of homophobic persecution by Garrison and Stone.

      My own take on the depiction of homosexuality in the film, JFK, is that it was historically accurate and of secondary importance to the central plot, about men in New Orleans who had apparent foreknowledge of JFK's assassination in the summer of '63.  The characters might just as well have been heterosexual, if history dictated as much.

      As for the more general issue of Oliver Stone being accused of homophobia, there are two Stone films I know of that debunk that narrative.  One is Alexander, which prominently features a sympathetic, historical narrative about Alexander's relationship with Hephaestion.  Where's the homophobia?

      Another is the more subtle depiction of the relationship between Chris (Charlie Sheen) and Sgt. Elias (William Dafoe) in Platoon.

     

Agreed.

Not only that, it is regrettable that Jim Garrison may have been homophobic, or disliked Cubans as non-Anglos, or may have had a problem with authority figures, such as CIA officials. All of that could be true about Garrison. 

But the question remains: did anti-Castro Cuban exiles, and CIA officials or assets, and some individuals who happened to be gay, act in such a way as to bring about the JFKA? 

I think it is very likely CIA assets, who may have been gay or Cuban, brought about the JFKA. The ethnicity or private sex lives of the perps is the last thing I am concerned about. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below are three easy steps to being labeled as homophobic:

1. Criticize someone who happens to be a homosexual. 

2. The actual criticism does not need to be related to the persons sexual preferences, as is the case here. The fact that you are brazen enough to have an issue with something a homosexual has done is enough to earn your homophobe badge.

3. Congrats, you are now a homophobe! 

Apply this method to other groups of people for the same result. Criticize a POC, racist! Criticize a Jew, anti-Semite!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Shocker.  It looks like Parnell will not leave his Trail of Delusion to respond to the historical evidence from Oliver Stone's filmography that Stone is no homophobe.

 The apparent (I have not seen the film so I am relying on your characterization) depiction of a homosexual relationship in Alexander may be there to partially atone for his past missteps and because there is at least some historical evidence to back it up. I did not read the relationship in Platoon the same way as you did but maybe I am naive. But it would be best for him to issue an apology for JFK-that would be the most helpful thing he could do because that was very hurtful to the gay and lesbian community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

 The apparent (I have not seen the film so I am relying on your characterization) depiction of a homosexual relationship in Alexander may be there to partially atone for his past missteps and because there is at least some historical evidence to back it up. I did not read the relationship in Platoon the same way as you did but maybe I am naive. But it would be best for him to issue an apology for JFK-that would be the most helpful thing he could do because that was very hurtful to the gay and lesbian community.

What should he say-- "I'm sorry that the film JFK was historically accurate regarding the sexual orientation of some key characters who had foreknowledge of the JFK assassination plot in the summer of 1963?"

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

But it would be best for him to issue an apology for JFK-that would be the most helpful thing he could do because that was very hurtful to the gay and lesbian community.

 

Why would the depiction of a homosexual orgy be hurtful to the gay community?

I'm white and I'm pretty sure that there are films depicting orgies among white people. Should I be hurt by those? Maybe that example doesn't count because I'm not a member of a minority group. Okay, should the portrayal of black people engaging in orgy be hurtful to black people? If so, why?

Do you need to consult an expert to know the answers to these questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Why would the depiction of a homosexual orgy be hurtful to the gay community?

I'm white and I'm pretty sure that there are films depicting orgies among white people. Should I be hurt by those? Maybe that example doesn't count because I'm not a member of a minority group. Okay, should the portrayal of black people engaging in orgy be hurtful to black people? If so, why?

Do you need to consult an expert to know the answers to these questions?

If you would read the articles at the links I posted before, you could find out. I think that is much of the problem here-no one is looking at the other side of the issue. Fred has posted newspaper clipping and so on documenting concerns that the gay community had back in 1991.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

 The apparent (I have not seen the film so I am relying on your characterization) depiction of a homosexual relationship in Alexander may be there to partially atone for his past missteps and because there is at least some historical evidence to back it up. I did not read the relationship in Platoon the same way as you did but maybe I am naive. But it would be best for him to issue an apology for JFK-that would be the most helpful thing he could do because that was very hurtful to the gay and lesbian community.

What are your credentials as spokesman for the gay and lesbian community?  Yes, in the film JFK the only characters whose sexuality is indicated are depicted as engaging in debauchery or are prostitutes.  Well, I'm not sure how describe the effort to entrap Garrison in a restroom meeting for sex, but it needs to be mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tony Rose said:

What are your credentials as spokesman for the gay and lesbian community?  Yes, in the film JFK the only characters whose sexuality is indicated are depicted as engaging in debauchery or are prostitutes.  Well, I'm not sure how describe the effort to entrap Garrison in a restroom meeting for sex, but it needs to be mentioned.

I have no credentials at all. I am reporting what the experts say and I hope I am doing it accurately. Fred will let me know, I'm sure, if I make a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

What should he say-- "I'm sorry that the film JFK was historically accurate regarding the sexual orientation of some key characters who had foreknowledge of the JFK assassination plot in the summer of 1963?"

He should say "I'm sorry that I depicted the gay characters in a bad light compared to the heterosexual ones solely for the purposes of my film." That would be a good start. As I noted above, it is obvious that no one here has read the two books I mentioned or even the blog articles at Fred's site. If they had, they wouldn't need to ask these questions.

A good example of this is the criticism that Morley directed at Alecia Long when it was obvious that he had not read her book. If he had, he would have known that she takes no stand on the JFK murder. She doesn't even talk about if LHO is guilty or not. And Morley tried to say she worshiped at the church of the lone gunman or something like that.  And that was a false statement that he could have avoided making.

So, everyone-at least read a few articles on Fred's blog so you understand both sides of the issue. Then make up your mind. But don't ask me to spoon feed the information to you-I have done all I am going to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not address what Kirchik is trying to do?  I talk about it in the essay.

"The McCarthyite attempt by the CIA to link Kennedy assassination writers and investigators to Communist causes and thereby labeling them dupes of Russian disinformation, that propaganda tactic preceded Max Holland for decades. It first started with Joachim Joesten over his book Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy back in 1964. Using Gestapo files, they labeled Joesten a member of the German Communist Party. (Click here) This about a man who worked for Newsweek in the forties. As was reported in Time, the Warren Commission—with help from Dick Helms—was out to spike Joesten’s book and one way of doing that was smearing him. (John Kelin, Praise from a Future Generation, pp. 168–71) It is very disappointing to see Kirchik use similar smear tactics today, especially when they are even more groundless now than they were then."

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Why not address what Kirchik is trying to do?  I talk about it in the essay.

"The McCarthyite attempt by the CIA to link Kennedy assassination writers and investigators to Communist causes and thereby labeling them dupes of Russian disinformation, that propaganda tactic preceded Max Holland for decades. It first started with Joachim Joesten over his book Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy back in 1964. Using Gestapo files, they labeled Joesten a member of the German Communist Party. (Click here) This about a man who worked for Newsweek in the forties. As was reported in Time, the Warren Commission—with help from Dick Helms—was out to spike Joesten’s book and one way of doing that was smearing him. (John Kelin, Praise from a Future Generation, pp. 168–71) It is very disappointing to see Kirchik use similar smear tactics today, especially when they are even more groundless now than they were then."

That kind of thing still goes on today.  I found this on the internet sometime back.

John-Butler-and-famous-communists-a.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, if you want to see Holland and his KGB disinfo story devastated from head to tail by Gary Aguilar in a masterful performance, just click here.  Gary found the source for Holland's spin cycle.  It was, you guessed it, Richard Helms.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?183565-4/warren-report-garrison-investigation&fbclid=IwAR1hFGOcHMk4nKftAflku82Z78TRJ8QI9pebAMMro93wTu3QDdKsfwADbPo

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Helms, the keeper of the secrets.   Who told Sam Halpern I think it was to discredit anything from the Kennedy's, then Halpern made this his life's mission.   He who ordered destruction of all the MKULTRA files upon his sudden "retirement" / reassignment after refusing that the CIA take the fall on Watergate for Nixon.  There as a protege of Dulles in 1951, assigned to find out if someone under hypnosis could be convinced to murder another.  Then there to become his replacement after LBJ came to power and replacing JFK's replacement of Dulles, McCone.  The only director to serve time, for lying to congress.  Just as Dulles told the Warren Omission any agent would do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...