[–] observation1 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Neat from the guy who helped cover up for 911 and JFK murderers.

[–] whoisyehoudi 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Jews have always been crazy

[–] mendelbot 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Don't know much about Oliver Stone, but his interviews with Vladamir Putin were supurb.

[–] mememeyou 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

In Kennedy Assassination, Anyone But Mossad is Fair Game for U.S. Media

Oliver Stone made JFK, the coverup film for the JFK assassination:

There are many facts, factoids, fictions and distortions in "JFK," all used in the service of the story. To dissect the movie like a documentary is pointless.

"I do. My own conclusions go harder and further than the film. I think I pulled back to some degree, because I didn't have the proof necessary to name names and I can only make a hypothesis, and that's a very heavy thing to lay on somebody, to accuse them of killing the president. One way that could happen, he says, is if the locked CIA, FBI and Senate files on the assassination were to be made public.

"I think we should follow the example of today's Russia, Rumania and East Germany. I think we should invade the CIA and the FBI, and get these files out. Get the military intelligence files out on Lee Harvey Oswald; get the military intelligence files on Jack Kennedy that day in Dallas - why the security precautions were what they were. There's so much that they never gave to the Warren Commission. We should get the House Select Committee to release its files that are embargoed till 2029. They could just take a vote now, and release all those files. It only takes one congressman."

From his tone of voice, Stone made it obvious that he did not think the Congress contained such a man.

[–] LiamOdinThomas 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Looks like someone is jumping ship early for saffe distancing.

[–] observation1 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago  (edited ago)

“I never wanted to provoke. I was just seeking the truth," Stone says.

N: You’ve made a lot of movies and documentaries based on other people’s lives. Did that experience help you tell the story of your own?

S: Well, I thought of the book as having the structure of a novel. You set up a problem in the first chapter: The protagonist is in a box. He’s in New York City, 1976. He’s broke. He feels like a failure and has to take his whole life into account. Then the novel winds its way into the 1986 period. It’s a picaresque. It’s a bit like a Thackeray novel.

N: Should I be reading into the fact that you’re calling your memoir a novel and referring to yourself in the third person?

S: You can read what you want. It is “me,” but you have to distance yourself from yourself. That’s not to say you’re fictionalizing. If I write another book, which I hope to do, it’d be nice to get closer to where I am now. I’m not there yet. Making a film to close out your life? I don’t know. There might be a way. There have been some very nice farewell films. Mr. Kurosawa did “Rhapsody in August” — a very nice and gentle film.

N: Would you close out your life with a nice and gentle film? You think I’m so ungentle?

S: I don’t know if gentle is how I’d describe your sensibility. Fair enough. But even in “Natural Born Killers,” if you look closely there’s a tenderness there between Juliette and Woody. Or the Bush movie that I did, “W.” — at the end, it’s very tender with him and Laura.

N: I know you’ve felt marginalized by Hollywood in the past. Do you still?

S: I don’t think they think about me. I don’t feel bitter about it. “Savages” was my last movie in the mainstream, so to speak. I thought it was mainstream, and Universal did too, up until they distributed it. They decided to move it at the last second from fall to summer. So they put us in the middle of a schedule that was pretty tough. “Ted” was there. Remember that movie? It was hilarious. You don’t want to open against “Ted.” I do still get offered stuff, but I’m not inspired to make a movie. I don’t feel anything inside me, fire for going through that pain and misery. The last film I did was “Snowden.” It was so difficult to make. We struggled to get financing — I believe — because of the subject matter. But I’m still keeping my hand in with documentaries. I am working on two right now. One is on J.F.K. Since the film came out in 1991, there’s been quite a bit of new material revealed that people have basically ignored. It’s a hell of a story. “J.F.K.: Destiny Betrayed” is what we call it. Then I’m starting “A Bright Future,” which is about the benefits of clean energy, which includes nuclear energy. These are documentary subjects and aren’t necessarily going to be popular, but they’re important to me.

N: Are you poking the hornet’s nest by going back to J.F.K.?

S: I’m not scared of that. I’m past that age. I don’t need to make a Hollywood movie. I don’t need to get the approval of the bosses.

N: Do you think you’ve made your last Hollywood film?

S: I would have no problem doing another one, but I don’t feel it right now. Frankly, I did 20, and I got worn out.

N: You had about a 10-year period, starting with “Salvador” and “Platoon” and going up to “Natural Born Killers” or “Nixon,” when your films felt like these major statements on the country and the culture. When that zeitgeist-y period ended, which it inevitably does for artists, did it change how you approached your work?

S: I recognize the impact I had, but at the same time I enjoyed doing the films I did afterward. In 1999 I did “Any Given Sunday.” I get so much attention for that. “World Trade Center” was one of my most successful films financially. So the parade continued. The problem is in Hollywood. It’s just so expensive — the marketing. Everything has become too fragile, too sensitive. Hollywood now — you can’t make a film without a Covid adviser. You can’t make a film without a sensitivity counselor. It’s ridiculous.

N: Why is that ridiculous?

S: The Academy changes its mind every five, 10, two months about what it’s trying to keep up with. It’s politically correct [expletive], and it’s not a world I’m anxious to run out into. I’ve never seen it quite mad like this. It’s like an “Alice in Wonderland” tea party.

N: In what respect?

S: Oh, David, don’t go there. That’s going to be your headline. You know, I just read something about how films are going to be very expensive to make now, because you need to take all these precautions, and a 50-day shoot becomes a 60-day shoot, and social distancing for actors. That’s what I’m talking about.

N: Tell me more about your J.F.K. documentary. Is there a big revelation in it that you can share?

S: I would be doing an injustice to say there’s one big one. There’s no smoking gun. It’s accretion of detail, David. Please watch the film when it’s out, and write me an email when you see it, and tell me if there’s cogency in it.

N: Does it turn out that the bullet went back and to the right?

S: We can make fun, but let me give you some quick points about what is in the documentary: There’s no chain of custody on the magic bullet, which is called CE-399. There’s also no chain of custody on this damn rifle, the Mannlicher-Carcano, which Lee Harvey Oswald was accused of shooting. I don’t want to go into the details, but we can’t account for who was in possession of the bullets and the rifle at various times. It’s a mess. Then we got more detail than ever showing that there was a huge back-of-the-head wound in Kennedy, which clearly indicates a shot from the front. It’s also clear that the autopsy from Bethesda, Md., was completely fraudulent. And there’s Vietnam. No historian can now honestly say that the Vietnam War was Kennedy’s child. That’s crucial. The last thing is the C.I.A. connection to Oswald. 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. Those are the main points. I don’t want to criticize your paper, but if it was honest, it would be doing this work instead of just saying, “It’s all settled.”

N: But on some level you must know that we’ll never be able to tie up all the loose ends of the Kennedy assassination. So what do you want people to take away from your new work on this?

S: Those who are interested will find it’s pretty clear that J.F.K. was murdered by forces that were powerful in our government. We point the finger at a couple of individuals. But I don’t want to get into that here. Now, why do I have to do this? I’m doing the documentary for the record so that you can see for yourself what the evidence is. That’s all. We’re just finishing it and beginning to show it. It will be out. Even if it’s on YouTube. Or in Transylvania.

N: So many of your movies, “J.F.K.” in particular, are about presenting counterevidence to the sort of officially sanctioned grand narratives that America tells about itself. Can you think of any areas where your belief in the importance of counternarratives might have been detrimental to your own political thinking? I’m thinking here about your series of interviews with Vladimir Putin, where it seemed that you were more interested in letting him lay out contrary perspectives to the popular American view of him rather than really challenging him on anything.

S: I don’t think President Putin’s views from the 1999 period to the 2016 election period were ever presented honestly to the American public. The documentary is a great work of scholarship. It can be studied because he’s saying a tremendous amount that was fluffed off: “Oh, Oliver Stone is an apologist.” I’m not an apologist. I’m always probing, and that’s why he liked me to the degree that he did. He didn’t think I was a patsy. He was a very patient man. He reads. He prepares. He’s not like so many of our fool politicians, and that’s why he has lasted for 20 years. But the American press has demonized him.

N: Even though he benefits from American destabilization and therefore tries to foment it?

S: I don’t think he thinks that way. I think he sees American destabilization as a dangerous thing because he thinks about the safety of the world. If anything, he would like a balance of power to exist and he would like to have a nuclear treaty with us. It’s very difficult to talk when America doesn’t talk. It hasn’t been dealing honestly with him in a long time.

N: Putin is obviously a canny politician. What do you suspect he believed he had to gain by talking with you?

S: I think his intention, as he forthrightly says again and again in the documentary, was: Let’s talk. Let’s be mature. Let’s be adults in the room.


edited for clarity

[–] ardvarcus 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Dude, I hate to break it to you, but Stone isn't going to read this. [edit] Oh, wait, I see -- you're reproducing the entire fucking interview. I thought you were some nut doing stream of consciousness.

[–] observation1 ago  (edited ago)

I'm surprised I seem to be the only one who ran into nytimes paywall.

I will edit so it's more clear.

[–] Whitening 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

And it was YOUR Generation that pushed it that direction!!!!

[–] CheeBooga 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Hollywood = israel

so is Oliver being anti-semitic? oy vey

[–] Conspirologist [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

You would expect an elite made of satanic pederasts and whores to be crazy.

[–] Whitening ago 

The book Easy Riders To Raging Bulls, tells about the types that started pushing it in that direction( though that's not the message )

load more comments ▼ (3 remaining)