MovieChat Forums > Nixon (1996) Discussion > This film is hack auteur bull-crap.

This film is hack auteur bull-crap.

posted 12 years ago by kustom135
19 replies | jump to latest

Oliver Stone is guilty of embellishing history, exaggerating history, revising history, and even rewriting history--and then worst of all he passes it off AS history. And people buy into his 'vision' of American history.

In this film his bombastic paranoia turns to vomit. He's trying to turn American history into film art. Failure. History is not ART.

What's with the silly graphics? Eisenhower images fade in and out apropos of nothing; Mary Steenburgen stills fade in and out; red light over Nixon in the ER room; red tunnels, blue tunnels; sudden reverse negatives; sudden grainy black and white; constant Dutch angles; Chinese text; RUSSIAN text; unknown faces with black eyes; a teenage girl turns to the camera in slow motion at the Lincoln Monument; film footage of Cuban dancing girls; the moon rises in fast-mo over the White House; horses rearing in the mist ...

Good grief. There was nothing so supernatural or even GOTHIC about the Nixon administration. Why all this silly film witchcraft?

[–] fmarzz 12 years ago

It was more of a "drama based on some actual events." If you know who Oliver Stone is, you should not expect something acurate or straight forward. The scene where he talks to the Kennedy portrait was pretty moving and might have gave Nixon sympathy from the audience. Frost/Nixon is much better IMO.

This is my story. This is the sacrifice my father made. This was his gift to me.

[–] upnsmoque 12 years ago

But wouldn't it be amazing if the Nixon Administration were Gothic and supernatural? Imagine the capes!

It's my belief that not only does Mr. Stone suffer from rampant flashbacks, but he feels others suffer from the same affliction.
I think it's just his cheat to visually insert his point of view. He's not the best screenwriter, so he sometimes relies on film gimmickry.

[–] Hyman_Flomax 12 years ago

Oliver Stone is guilty of embellishing history, exaggerating history, revising history, and even rewriting history--and then worst of all he passes it off AS history. And people buy into his 'vision' of American history

.
If this is a valid criticism, then you might as well dismiss Shakespeare for writing history plays about real monarchs that were almost entirely fictional. What Stone attempted was similar in ambition and scope. He even took care to point out in the introduction that it was not intended to be a definitive portrait, but rather a subjective interpretation. Bitching about historical accuracy has very little place in cinema.

If I could drop dead right now, I'd be the happiest man alive.

[–] kustom135 11 years ago

Ny version has no introduction at all. It's the theatrical release.

So NOW the DVD has a caveat from Stone? Wow, a director has to preface his films with "it's not real, folks, even though Nixon was real!"

You're right. Stone should have had the actors speaking Elizabethan poetry. Hopkins could do that.

Stone passes off his films like this as documentaries--at first. Then he backpedals. Did Shakespeare do that?

[–] Hyman_Flomax 11 years ago

My version is also the theatrical release. There is a disclaimer at the beginning, not that it matters, because all films with actors are fictional. And all documentaries contain fictional elements.

Stone passes off his films like this as documentaries--at first. Then he backpedals

Stone has never done this. You're making it up. This is what we call a straw-man argument - attempting to refute something that was never true in the first place.

[–] mynameisnewid 11 years ago

Maybe your color blind or paranoid?

...I thought the film was brilliant!

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] The_Dougster 10 years ago

The OP has a point in that many people actually swallow up Stone's premises as is they’re documentaries. Of course it’s not Stone’s fault that people are so intellectually lazy but it is kind of a sad commentary. As Gerald Posner, author of the excellent book, "Case Closed", stated, "Chasing shadows around the Grassy Knoll will never substitute for real science". Sadly, for many people, real science doesn’t seem to be necessary.

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Closed-Gerald-Posner/dp/1400034620/ref=sr_1 _1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1394440553&sr=1-1&keywords=case +closed

[–] MarieGabrielle 10 years ago

Um, yeah, never question gov't. CASE CLOSED. [sarc.]

lol, no wonder the US is now so messed up. btw Pozner had an agenda, and his conclusion was incorrect.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/books.htm

stop believing mainstream propaganda, for a start

[–] The_Dougster 10 years ago

btw Pozner had an agenda, and his conclusion was incorrect.

The conspiracy theorist like you will never be content with the idea that Oswald acted alone. Unfortunately, chasing shadows around the grassy knoll doesn't substitute for real science.

[–] MarieGabrielle 10 years ago

The conspiracy theorist like you will never be content with the idea that Oswald acted alone. Unfortunately, chasing shadows around the grassy knoll doesn't substitute for real science.

lmfao....chasing shadows....

no that's for you nsa shills trying to prove that govt should always be trusted.

Cheers.

Most know better and we all know cnn and 911 was a controlled false flag. SAD isn't it. No one in amerika buys the bs anymore. Suck it up

[–] The_Dougster 10 years ago

You can laugh all you want to. Chasing shadows around the grassy knoll is exactly what people like Oliver Stones & Jim Marrs have been doing for over fifty years now. Marrs continues to write these silly conspiracy theories about 9/11. They do make for good fiction. And, by the way, there's a HUGE middle ground between being a wacko like Marrs and thinking that "govt should always be trusted".

[–] Duke-56 10 years ago

I agree...as much as I hated NIXON at the time...STONE proves he is a leftist LIBERAL by reeming NIXON so.......STONE is a HACK...

[–] chas437 10 years ago

Yep, and I'm somewhat of a liberal myself. Stone's reimagining history through his own polemic prism is just pure garbage.

He's beyond just another Hollywood liberal, he's an agenda driven charlatan. The fact that he's seen by many as a credible voice in the national discourse is idiotic and dangerous.

I'm a civilian, I'm not a trout

[–] au482 10 years ago

Oliver Stone's worst excess in this film was trying to make J. Edgar Hoover look gayer than he actually was. He was depicted in the type of white suit that he wore in the 1930s, when he vacationed in Florida with friend and associate Clyde Tolson. By the 1950s, he wore more serious, darker clothes.

[–] Mercader79 10 years ago

Since when is wearing a white suit a sign of gayness?
At least he was wearing a suit. Not a dress for once!