Ugh

by

I’m incredibly unthrilled to see that Oliver Stone is going to be making the first big Hollywood reaction to 9/11. 

"It’s an exploration of heroism in our country — but is international at the same time in its humanity," said Stone, who won best director Academy Awards for his war epics "Born On the Fourth Of July" (1989) and 1986’s "Platoon"

"It’s a work of collective passion, a serious meditation on what happened, and carries within a compassion that heals," Stone said in a statement issued by producers.

Oscar-winning star Cage will take the lead role of New York Port Authority policeman Sergeant John McLoughlin, who was trapped along with one of his fellow officers in the mangled wreckage of one of the twin towers that crumbled after being hit by hijacked passenger jets.

"I feel someone had to tell the story of the people who were in the Trade Center before and after it collapsed," said McLoughlin of the plans to make his story into a major movie.

"The people involved in putting this movie together are truly making an extraordinary attempt to tell those stories and the stories of those who are no longer with us," he said.

The movie will focus on the two men as well as on their rescuers and families as they battle to find out what happened to their missing loved ones in the aftermath of the attacks that left a total of around 3,000 people dead in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

I was initially going to say that I couldn’t think of a worse candidate for directing such a film, but I suppose Michael Moore would be slightly worse.  Stone’s paranoid bent and well known anti-government streak make him singularly ill-suited for such a project.  I’m going to be deeply dismayed when we see the conspiracy theory Stone spins out for 9/11.  And as Kaus mentions, Stone’s record doesn’t make it likely that he is going to handle well the fact that one of the main characters in the real story he has chosen was a hyper-patriotic, hyper-Christian Marine.  I can cross my fingers and hope, but if the track record is any indication, this isn’t going to be good. 

79 thoughts on “Ugh”

  1. I’m no great fan of Oliver Stone (U-Turn: ugh), but about the part about ‘his record’ making it unlikely that he’ll treat an ex-Marine fairly: Stone at least served in war, requested combat, and iirc got medals for his pains. That makes it seem less likely, to me, that he’d be reflexively anti-military.

  5. I’m incredibly unthrilled to see that Oliver Stone is going to be making the first big Hollywood reaction to 9/11.
    I’m incredibly unthrilled to see that anyone is making the first big Hollywood reaction to 9/11.
    (This episode of the West Wing got me screaming at the screen. Well, yelling, anyway. “Shut up, Toby!”)
    This I really appreciated, however. It was, as they say, “uneven in quality” (and IMO the poorest one was Youssef Chahine’s) but it had a range of responses to 9/11 that, taken in all, gave a better picture of the day than any Hollywood blockbuster ever will. No matter who directs it.
    Notoriously, Hollywood blockbusters get the history wrong, either in whole or in part: I doubt if September 11 will be any exception.

  6. “In what sense are “born on the fourth of July” or “Platoon” not patriotic movies?”
    I quite specifically did not attack Stone’s patriotism. I don’t like his penchant for historical revisionism(see especially JFK), his conspiracy-minded streak, and I suspect that his anti-government bent isn’t going to do anything good for his telling of the 9/11 story (and remember that in many respects I’m anti-government).

  7. I think there should be a moratorium on films for at least 10 years after such an event. But of course we’ve already had one bogus film version of September 11, with GWB as the hero of the day.
    I am disappointed to see Sebastian using “Christian” and “patriotic” as automatically including “right-wing” in their meanings. If the guy is conservative or Republican or whatever, say that.

  8. But of course we’ve already had one bogus film version of September 11, with GWB as the hero of the day.

    With George Takei as Norm Mineta! Jeez, I was unaware this movie even existed. I’m as unlikely to watch this as anything Moore puts out, FWIW.

  9. I am disappointed to see Sebastian using “Christian” and “patriotic” as automatically including “right-wing” in their meanings.
    Well he did say “hyper-” before “Christian” and “patriotic” — that seems to me to connote “religious right”.

  10. Movies are subjective as they should be. They should reek opinion and emotion. (most)Stones movies are great, they’re not the truth, but they are great fun and very entertaining.
    I recommend Salvador. I think he wrote that not directed?

  11. “I am disappointed to see Sebastian using “Christian” and “patriotic” as automatically including “right-wing” in their meanings. If the guy is conservative or Republican or whatever, say that.”
    I’m confused, if you read the link this rescuer really was hyper-patriotic and hyper-Christian. I didn’t say anything about right-wing, and while I wouldn’t be surprised at all to find that he is conservative, I don’t see where you got the idea that I thought it was an important factor or where you are going with the idea that I think it is a crucial factor. You are going to have to be more explicit.

  12. This thread appearing here and elsewhere (and particularly Mickey Kaus’ moronic comments) is hysterical. It reminds me of nothing so much as the fanboys over at aintitcool (and related sites) complaining about selection of directors for their favorite comic book movie. JUST like the hairpulling when the choice for XMen 3 was announced.
    I mean, it’s not like Paramount has money involved here or anything. It’s not like they have talked over the movie with Stone or anything. It’s not like his last film was such an enormous success that he can afford to take a chance with a high-profile film.

  13. I don’t like the idea of anyone making a 911 movie. It’s too much like that country musician who has been profiteering from 911 for two years now.
    Aslo I don’t think anyone could tell the story right since we all have our own takes on it and our takes have become more divergent over time, not less.
    It is disgusting to me to think it might be someting like Titanic or that movie about the burning highrise, with a sentimental “human interest” substory tacked on to a lot of noise and special effects.
    The best way to tackle 911 would be to do it Studs Terkel-style, a book of first person narratives since 911 isn’t one story. It’s thousands of stories about how people react to terrifying circumstances.
    This is one movie I won’t watch.

  16. like that country musician who has been profiteering from 911 for two years now

    Who’s that, lily?
    Also, my dictionary has “profiteer”:
    profiteer n One who makes excessive profits, esp on commodities in short supply.
    I doubt the performer in question is making anywhere near as much as the recording company, for instance. And the question of what commodity is in short supply…country music? Songs about 9/11? Hell, if the supply is short, the market can fix that pretty quickly.

  17. Does your dictionary have “metaphor” in it, Slart?
    Hell, if the supply is short, the market can fix that pretty quickly.
    Only if good taste is also in short supply. It’s a complex market that is dependent on a number of variables.

  18. Does your dictionary have “metaphor” in it, Slart?

    Checking…why, yes, it does. There’s even a word “dissimilar” in the definition that I may have to look up. I’ll keep you posted, but I’m thinking we need metaphor tags just so I can keep track of when people are saying what they mean, as opposed to something else. And I say this in all unseriousness.

    Only if good taste is also in short supply.

    We’re talking country music, aren’t we? Case closed.

  19. The thrusts of Wolcott’s piece is that Stone is a good filmmaker from a technical point-of-view (to which I reply, duh) and:

    But of course the steam release over Stone’s tackling 9/11 isn’t about visual talent, storytelling ability, crosscutting, or any aesthetic considerations, it’s about his lefty politics, conspiracy theorizing, friendship with Fidel Castro, all that. Letting him do a major motion picture about 9/11 profanes the memory of those who died there and licenses him to convert the consecrated ruins at Ground Zero into an open-air cathedral to preach a pothead gospel of paranoia and anti-Americanism. How dare Hollywood once again betray everything Michael Medved holds dear!

    This is close to the problem I have, but wrong enough to be significantly different from what I think (and frankly seems to be a distortion of what the right-wing sites I have read on the subject).
    It isn’t that his Castro-loving or lefty-leaning or conspiracy-theorizing MAKE it wrong for Stone to be allowed to direct a film on 9/11. It is that these tendencies make it LIKELY that he is going to spin the first major 9/11 film in a way that is going to be ugly–especially with respect to conspiracy theorizing. It is not INEVITABLE that he must do so, but it is LIKELY.
    I’m not comforted by the ‘its someone else’s screenplay’ thing at all. The differences between screenplay and final product in Hollywood are legendary.

  20. This is not about Oliver Stone’s ability as a filmmaker. The guy has won, and deserved, multiple Oscars. This is not about Oliver Stone’s patriotism, Oliver Stone has a Purple Heart for wounds sustained in combat in Vietnam – combat he volunteered for and requested. This is about Oliver Stone’s politics. Change nothing about the situation other than Stone’s politics, and nobody on the right would be discussing this topic.
    We have come to a point where, for some, only those who support the ruling political party are fit to make movies, or own sports franchises, or otherwise participate in normal public life.
    If that idea is not demolished, we are on the road to facism.

  21. Sebastian: It is that these tendencies make it LIKELY that he is going to spin the first major 9/11 film in a way that is going to be ugly–especially with respect to conspiracy theorizing.
    Part of the problem is that I’m not sure what qualifies as “ugly” given the hagiography attendant to certain aspects of 9/11. If he portrays Bush in an unflattering light — even if the allegations are true — would that count as ugly? What about a similar issue with firefighters or other emergency responders? If he’s insufficiently condemnatory of the hijackers? Gratuitously condemnatory of other Muslims? It seems as if this movie is guaranteed not just to be controversial but outright offensive to a large swathe of the population (irrespective of politics) simply because we’re still too close to the attacks and too polarized (and entrenched) about their meaning.
    And that’s all assuming that Stone sticks to a presentation of the facts. If he starts, uh, innovating in there, all bets are off.

  23. And that’s all assuming that Stone sticks to a presentation of the facts. If he starts, uh, innovating in there, all bets are off.

    Hmmm…I thought this was the entire issue with Stone to begin with: will he stick with the facts, or will he spin some wildass conspiracy-theory?
    Me, I don’t care. I’ll watch it if it looks like it’s worth my time, otherwise I won’t.
    Side note: has anyone else seen Primer? Speaking of revisionist history, I mean?

  25. Spike Lee did a movie that dealt a lot with 9/11. 25th Hour. Damn good, I thought. Post-9/11 New York was the setting, rather than than the plot.
    I don’t agree that art & movies should never deal with things like this. It simply raises the stakes. I do think it gives you extra obligations in how to proceed, to recognize it’s bigger than you, etc.
    Stone can be great or awful, he can do a fair history or conspiracy monger. We’ll just have to wait and see.

  26. “It seems as if this movie is guaranteed not just to be controversial but outright offensive to a large swathe of the population (irrespective of politics) simply because we’re still too close to the attacks and too polarized (and entrenched) about their meaning.
    And that’s all assuming that Stone sticks to a presentation of the facts. If he starts, uh, innovating in there, all bets are off.”
    I think that is the crux of my problem with Oliver Stone. A big 9/11 movie is going to be controversial even if it is really well done, really careful about the facts, and non-partisan. I can only count on Stone for the well done part.

  27. “Stone’s paranoid bent and well known anti-government streak make him singularly ill-suited for such a project.”
    He sounds like the modern Republican Party.

  28. It isn’t that his Castro-loving or lefty-leaning or conspiracy-theorizing MAKE it wrong for Stone to be allowed to direct a film on 9/11. It is that these tendencies make it LIKELY that he is going to spin the first major 9/11 film in a way that is going to be ugly
    Films I did not go see because the American spin on the facts made them ugly to me:
    1. Titanic – traduced First Officer William Murdoch.
    2. U-571 – simply rewrote a British achievement as an American one.
    3. Troy. Okay, “the facts” may be a source text three thousand years old, but it happens to be a source text I’m pretty fond of, thankyouverymuch.
    4. Saving Private Ryan. Please, let’s forget about anyone but the American troops who landed on D-Day.
    5. Pearl Harbor Please, let’s forget about American volunteers who were labelled “prematurely anti-fascist”. Also, please, let’s forget that the American volunteers were not the backbone of the RAF.
    My solution, given that I strongly suspected I was going to find them intrinsically offensive? Was not to go see them. I advise the same to you, Sebastian. Wait for a right-wing director to do it, if it’s something you want to go see.

  29. 3. Troy. Okay, “the facts” may be a source text three thousand years old, but it happens to be a source text I’m pretty fond of, thankyouverymuch.
    I’m with you.
    I didn’t watch Stone’s Alexander because I am too attached to Renault’s books.

  30. Jes –
    No debate about 1, 2, 3 or 5, but #4? C’mon, the story as written was about an American unit trying to find an American soldier; it in no way “ignored” the British or Canadians, it just didn’t involve events in their sector of the beachhead. Was it somehow mandatory to write in a secondary plot to encompass everybody?
    Spielberg has his faults, but he is no Michael Bay.

  32. Oliver Stone…you have been found guilty of Future Thought Crimes
    Please report to the nearest disintegration chamber.

  33. I think there might be a distinction between playing revisionist games with things well into the past, and things that aren’t. But I can’t really flesh it out so I’m sure it doesn’t really exist.

  35. Slart,
    the script is here
    Jes,
    How about Braveheart? It always tickles me to think that Americans probably think that Charles, et al sprang from William Wallace’s kilt.

  36. 2. U-571 – simply rewrote a British achievement as an American one.
    That’s okay. The British have a tendency to forget that it was the Poles who broke the codes and gave the Brits a reverse engineered Enigma machine in the first place.
    5. Pearl Harbor Please, let’s forget about American volunteers who were labelled “prematurely anti-fascist”. Also, please, let’s forget that the American volunteers were not the backbone of the RAF.
    Of course not. The backbone of the RAF was a bunch of New Zealanders and escaped Poles.

  37. Slart, I’ll give you Raising Arizona and a couple of indie roles, mostly comic. But when Cage gets cast as a big budget hero, the results have often been bad.

  39. Please, let’s forget about anyone but the American troops who landed on D-Day.
    Well, if you’re going to make a dramatic film about D-Day, Omaha Beach is the place to set it. The British and Canadian landings went very much better; Omaha was the only spot where the invaders had a realistic chance of being thrown back into the sea.
    I mean, should we ask for an action movie about Montgomery’s taking a month to capture Caen?

  40. st: Was it somehow mandatory to write in a secondary plot to encompass everybody?
    Eh… I have a feeling that should Spielberg have wanted to do a movie about a British soldier in a British unit, he sure as hell would have written in a secondary plot to include Americans. 🙂 But to be honest, I didn’t go see Saving Private Ryan for several reasons, of which an allergy to American aggrandizement was only one.
    Slarti: I’m sure I’m going to be embarrassed by this, but what do the RAF and Peal Harbor have to do with each other?
    Nothing at all. One of the American pilots in the movie Pearl Harbor is PAF – volunteers for the RAF and is shot down in the Battle of Britain. Don’t be embarrassed, it’s the director who should be embarrassed.
    Sebastian: I think there might be a distinction between playing revisionist games with things well into the past, and things that aren’t
    There is. That’s why I didn’t complain about Robin Hood – Prince of Thieves, or Braveheart. (And why I’m not really that sore about Troy.) But revising the past which is still a part of living memory is another matter.

  41. Although no Americans were shot down in the Battle of Britain, several were shot down while volunteering as members of the Eagle Squadrons of the RAF. So, slight time inaccuracy. I don’t think that was all that remarkable of an excursion from the truth, do you?

  43. “But when Cage gets cast as a big budget hero, the results have often been bad.”
    Hey, I liked ConAir and The Rock.
    On the other hand, tho his politics approach mine, I can’t think of a single Stone movie I liked. I hate propaganda, and if you want to send a message, use Western Union.
    Ok, Salvador was tolerable because of Woods and Belushi. And the script about the disembodied hand strangling people was good. But even Salvador and Wall Street felt like getting flagellated with the banal and obvious. Like Moore, Stone is a bourgieous lefty, agitprop of t-shirts and bobble-heads.
    You want decent lefty art, think about Spartacus and 12 Angry Men and compare those to what Stone does.

  44. Or for that matter, anything Kubrick or Lumet did. Compare Full Metal Jacket to Platoon or Dog Day Afternoon to whatever the name of that garbage with Harrelson. Shiny baubles of technique have destroyed whatever mind used to be there, and Stone wouldn’t know Art if it showed up as streaks in his underwear.

  45. How Did It Take Four Years?

    Yahoo news reports that Oliver Stone will “make the first major US film about September 11”. “It’s a work of collective passion, a serious meditation on what happened, and carries within a compassion that heals,” Stone said in a statement…

  46. I kind of agree, Bob.
    But in the case of “12 Angry Men”, today the Lee J. Cobb character would be sought out to run for and be elected as a Republican to the U.S. House.
    The Fonda character would be labeled “Hanoi Henry”.
    More to say, but I’m just testing my network connections.

  47. How Did It Take Four Years?

    Yahoo news reports that Oliver Stone will “make the first major US film about September 11”. “It’s a work of collective passion, a serious meditation on what happened, and carries within a compassion that heals,” Stone said in a statement…

  48. Natural Born Killers is a pretty good title for a 9/11 movie, actually, though from a different perspective than the one described. They could get that guy from “Wings” to play Mohammed Atta. (Now there’s a career-killer on your resume.)

  50. Slarti: Although no Americans were shot down in the Battle of Britain, ….. don’t think that was all that remarkable of an excursion from the truth, do you?
    Um, not what I actually said:

    5. Pearl Harbor Please, let’s forget about American volunteers who were labelled “prematurely anti-fascist”. Also, please, let’s forget that the American volunteers were not the backbone of the RAF.

  51. “letting” oliver stone make a movie really profanes the dead alright, in all the ways that “not letting” him wouldn’t.
    in any case, let’s leave tony shalhoub on monk (and wings reruns) where he belongs.

  52. in any case, let’s leave tony shalhoub on monk (and wings reruns) where he belongs.
    Impressive! Can’t remember a single “Wings” actor, tho my ex-g’friend recalled seeing the female lead back in their college days, singing evangelical songs about how none of her ancestors was a monkey.

  53. As Wolcott put it, thank you Sebastian for trying to help Hollywood reclaim its blacklist glory days.

  55. Did I miss the part where Sebastian said Stone should be blacklisted, etc.?
    Doesn’t any studio have to decide whether to “let” any director handle any project?
    Keep it “reality-based,” people. Sheesh.

  65. OTOH, Steve Spielberg always has had unrealized potential as an artist, and his planned movie on the Israeli retribution for Munich 72 sounds very interesting, subtle, and a possible illumination of our current covert activities too subtle for the Powerline types to flame. Although they managed to be offended by Lucas, so doubtful.
    Just watched Big Night again last week. The perfect omelette, executed perfectly. I no longer crack my eggs on the side of my mixing bowl.
    Tucci very good in many things. Tripping in Big Trouble. A great Lucky Luciano.

  66. Well, it seems to me that we have already had to endure an ongoing bad movie about what 9/11 means for four years now from the Bush administration. I doubt that Stone can do much worse in making up baloney, or much worse in making false charges or factual errors about the event.

  68. Anderson, did you ever see the Electrolite alternate-universe speculation on what the US would look like if George W. Bush had been elected? I couldn’t find it, but I found Shetterly’s exposition of it, which sort of proves I’m not just making it up.
    I think.

  69. That’ll be true a year from now; this year it’s nearly four years.
    Given that they just announced Stone’s involvement, principal filming likely won’t begin for at least another six months and more likely closer to a year.

  70. With George Takei as Norm Mineta! Jeez, I was unaware this movie even existed. I’m as unlikely to watch this as anything Moore puts out, FWIW.

    I’ve seen George Takei perform in the theatre. He’s actually a pretty good actor. That’s not to say he’s any good in this particular film, but I wouldn’t use him as an excuse to slam it. (There are plenty of other reasons for that, it appears.)

  71. Oh, c’mon. No one else could have done Raising Arizona like Cage.
    Two words, Slart: Cohen Brothers. These are the same people who manage to turn John Goodman into one of the best actors I have ever seen. Methinks that Cage’s performance in RA was more due to the Cohens having a certain touch with certain actors (not unlike David Lynch)

  72. It’s my experience that the director is a far better indicator of the likely quality of a film than is the cast.

  73. Seems I recall Cage hated his direction on Raising Arizona, but reconsidered on seeing the finished product.
    And, yes, Goodman was great in that movie. Not a great actor, but absolutely, wonderfully, perfectly over the top. Never (before or since) has a simple extended bellow extracted such hysterical laughter from me. And yeah, the Cohen Brothers definitely have a particular genius. Not sure that it’s Art, but I like it.

  74. Y’all might get a kick out of Japander.com, which is advertisements made by western stars for the Japan market, usually with the rider that the ads can never be shown outside of Japan. The link is to Cage’s oeuvre, but do have a look around.

  76. That’s Coen brothers
    Yeah, I always get that wrong.
    Slart:
    Goodman’s been in a bunch of Coen brothers films (most notably Barton Fink and Big Lebowski) I’ve never seen him in anything else (never watched Rosanne for obvious reasons). But wither he is one of the most under-rated actors or he just clicks with the Coens.
    Seems I recall Cage hated his direction on Raising Arizona,
    To reitterate, that’s because he is an idiot. If he does play the lead in Stone’s 9/11 pic it will suck.

  77. Judging by Stone’s last “great” epic, this one’s gonna be a big fat bust. I hope Stone doesn’t have Amiri Baraka on speed dial.

Comments are closed.