Oliver Stone films representing the war - Research Paper Example

26 November Research paper: Introduction: It is usually implied that books are always better media than either movies or dramas to portray certain momentous events of the history, but there is much hype surrounding this assumption. Proponents of this claim opinion that historical events are of such rich nature and so deeply intense that showing every little detail to the viewers is beyond possibility in a limited time period. In contrast, opponents claim that considering books superior to movies is just a fake notion lacking sufficient evidence. This is because given changed public preferences, more people now are interested in going to cinemas to view a quality picture than buy a book and go through it page by page. Despite this trend, it is hotly debated among historians whether films can practically convey history as effectively as books or articles. They are highly concerned about the ability of movies to do justice to considerably intricate historical events balancing visual art with necessary complexity. Still, it is undeniable that film is a highly riveting medium for exploring multiple viewpoints that recreate the past. To explore the validity of this idea, this research paper will scrutinize some important Oliver Stone films to assess how perfectly each of them represents war. After that, Stone’s interpretation of war in all movies will be discussed from multiple perspectives also. Analysis of various ways in which Oliver Stone films represent the war: 1. JFK: This film portrays the events leading to the unfortunate assassination of President Kennedy. It is assumed that this film is based on two books from other authors exploring the same issue. But while the books attracted acclaim, Stone’s JFK instantly got slathered with harsh criticism. Furious historians and critics argued that Stone’s carefree attitude with important historical facts contributed to creation of a highly twisted picture. However, the way JFK later gained confidence and amassed many Academy nominations raises embarrassing questions about the angry criticism published in American newspapers upon the movie’s release. The way Jim Garrison in JFK investigates the assassination from a completely different perspective implying an infamous scheme within the government responsible for Kennedy’s death actually ended up interesting people far more than any book ever did written on the same subject. In fact, the magnitude of excitement felt by people who read books is dwarfed by the magnitude of thrilling suspense experienced by people who viewed the movie, in reference to how the picture reveals different ways by which powerful people use authority to manipulate events (Rendall). The fact that movies can speak louder than words is made emphatic by the way historical events are intelligently portrayed in JFK. 2. Platoon: Stone’s intense adaptation of Vietnam War in Platoon speaks for itself. The success garnered by this movie, despite boldly countering the orthodox vision of war presented in books favored by historians, defeats the assumption that movie is not an ideal medium to convey historical stories in modern times. This movie works to defy this argument that only books can be relied on for historical events because apparently, people are more easily attracted to the vision of a historical event presented by a good film than a more conventional and cliché version discussed in many books. This does not mean that Platoon deviates from true historical facts or makes any attempt to twist them, but it unfolds areas deliberately ignored by historians and explores them to send a fuller and more comprehensive message to the audience. Instead of presenting the typical image of an American warrior, Platoon compels the public to think how destructive the war has been evident in the gigantic transformation undergone by Chris Taylor. Taylor, by the end of the film, is not at all proud of his participation in the war as an American warrior which has hopelessly dehumanized him. 3. Born on the Fourth of July: This film is an adaptation of Ron Kovic’s equally famous autobiography about Vietnam War. It bagged many awards which shows how with the help of a talented director, a film can be made such an interesting way to narrate historical events. This film reached out to more people from all backgrounds raising more awareness about myriad facts related to Vietnam War than even Kovic’s best-selling autobiography did. People from all over the world ranging from intellectuals to those who never attended college praised this effort which identifies another reason why films can be more successful than books to portray history and attract people. This is because while books reach out to a certain social class, films can be enjoyed by people from all classes regardless of their educational background. In this movie too, Ron who serves in Vietnam on behalf of America is seen yelling in despair at his mother in one scene how he had to violate Christian morals in Vietnam by killing innocent people. He loathes himself and becomes increasingly acrimonious as an aftermath of serving in Vietnam. This psychological torment experienced by many Vietnam War veterans highlights many dark aspects of this historical event in the film which easily sink into anonymity otherwise. 4. Heaven and Earth: This film is also based on two books discussing the experiences of a woman during and after the Vietnam War. The story of Le Ly is captured with remarkable intellect in this movie which does full justice to the books it takes ideas from. Even in a short running time of 140 minutes, the way it manages to touch every single momentous experience of a Vietnamese woman and her journey through life is truly mesmerizing and explicates how little strength lies in the bigoted belief that film is an imperfect medium to portray history. Acknowledging the events of war through Le Ly’s eyes in Heaven and Earth and seeing her pain makes the audience realize more emphatically than any book in the world “how fundamentally wrongheaded the American strategy in Vietnam was” (Ebert). Not everything can be written down in black and white. Sometimes, things have to be shown to people to make them experience the emotions of others and through Stone’s this film, many people around the globe were enabled to identify with Le Ly’s tragic experience of war. 5. Nixon: Nixon portrays the personal and political life of former American President Richard Nixon. It is clearly identified in the beginning of the film how it is an effort to understand the truth on basis of incomplete historical evidence which suggests that the film is intended to achieve what could not be achieved by other media of portraying history. Though critics in accordance with the usual pattern hastened to criticize Stone for deviating from historical facts, truth is that every depiction of Nixon’s personal life even those involving his alcohol and drug abuse in the film are not the director’s personal creations but are taken from other books written on Nixon by other authors. This suggests that blaming films on grounds that they deviate from true path showing twisted facts is empty mockery. But, this is also true that Stone’s Nixon continues to force many historians to date to defend the real Nixon because of its misleading portrayal of the former president as a stammering confused man who in reality was quite decisive and confident (Tunzelmann). What are Stone’s major theses about the war? One of the major Stone’s theses about the war in general is that it was the product of a dangerously flawed American political system. According to Stone, the war did not offer America any good but only introduced the American nation to myriad disturbing challenges from shaken economy to psychologically traumatized youth who served in Vietnam. Stone has directed three films about Vietnam War and he stresses each time how destructive the strategy behind this invasion had been politically, socially, and economically. The war benefited a few and destroyed millions. Because of exploring facts and attaching heavy importance to them in his movies regardless of the opposition’s criticism, Stone claims that he and other people like him are infamously portrayed as “conspiracy theorists” (cited in Vineyard) when the real fact is that more people realize now than ever before how pathologically the American government tells lies to the public. His movies about the war are only an honest attempt to familiarize the public with reality and expose the hideous atrocities of the American government which in the name of establishing peace wreaked havoc in Vietnam. The main idea about the war conveyed by Stone through his movies is that it was a demonic example of American brutality. It is suggested that not all people may agree to the conclusions drawn in his movies about the war, but that does not change solid facts. The chain of events about the war unfolded in these movies mirrors pure tragedy which forms the bedrock of Stone’s theses about the war. Does Stone present a consistent interpretation of the war in all these films? The interpretation of the war in all films by Stone can be considered consistent given the same nature of message conveyed each time. The war is consistently portrayed as a lethal and destructive historical event which cruelly swallowed lives of many and marred America’s reputation also. It is claimed that few modern filmmakers take their projects as personally as Stone did at peak of his career (Grierson) because not all have personally experienced what they mean to show in their films unlike Stone who has been a war veteran himself and personally knew what he aimed to deliver. It was because of this personal experience that his interpretation of war was decisive and unchangeable. He knew what things had actually been like in Vietnam and why destruction prevailed because of immoral American government’s motives. His movies present a consistent interpretation of the war in all films because he was not confused about facts, but recognized them acutely and wanted to deliver them with the same acuteness. In Platoon, his interpretation of war concentrates on ill-planned American political strategies which provoked mass destruction. In Born on the Fourth of July, he continued the pattern and interpreted war as the driving force behind trauma of many unfortunate Vietnam veterans. Finally in Heaven and Earth also, he maintains consistency in his interpretation of war by showing the turmoil the war stirred. This consistent interpretation of the war shows how often Stone sought political controversy in a time when few others filmmakers were attracted to it (Ebert). How does Stone’s interpretations of the war compare to those of the historians? According to Stone, the American brutality started when President Truman decided to drop bombs on Japan and that accustomed the American public to the horrors of civilian casualties in war. That also quite effectively paved the way for Vietnam War and generated more damage as is shown in his three films. His interpretation of the war suggests that when one has power on one’s side, one gets insanely arrogant at the end of the day. Same happened with the American government too which blinded by might currently easily gets away with unjustified behavior in Iraq the exact same way it did years ago in Vietnam and has no guilt or shame about its strategies now in the same way it had no guilt or shame about Vietnam (cited in Boserio). Might justifies every action just like it justified the American invasion on Vietnam back in the day. It was this might which made people wonder around the world during the Vietnam War if “American wealth was the cause of their problems or a symbol of what could be done” (Farber). America assumed then just like now that most countries were going wrong which needed to be corrected. In contrast, Wilentz as a typical American historian strongly argues against Stone’s ideas about the war suggesting how those ideas are meant to portray America in a negative light. In response to this argument in Stone’s book that the US history “has been marked by proud achievements and terrible disappoints” (Stone and Kuznick), it is claimed by Wilentz that those ideas go against the curriculum taught in the American schools and colleges and only focus on what the US has done wrong. It is stressed by Wilentz and other historians that in an attempt to unveil a hidden history, Stone has actually just popularized a particular set of ideas preferred by himself which is why his reworking of the history cannot be considered “thorough, factually accurate, and historically convincing” (Wilentz cited in Gosztola). Is film an effective medium for presenting the “truth” of the Vietnam War? Stone’s one after another successful films about the Vietnam War are enough to prove that film in deed is not only an effective but ideal medium for presenting the truth about important historical events. It is normal for criticism to generate and for historians to point at filmmakers who dare to go against the conventional American history pattern taught in the public schools and colleges for years, but such things do not have in them to change solid facts as suggested by Stone himself. Myriad typical American historians prefer to see some things permanently hidden from a common man’ eye, so film can be used as a perfect medium to present truth about the hidden history as Stone did consistently in all three films having no fear for outrageous criticism. There are libraries chockfull of books already to present the same side of the picture and promote American achievements. So, there is a need to employ another medium, one which is effective and attractive, to present the truth and raise awareness in the public. People need to be familiarized with the other side of the picture too, one which is dark and ignored, and film is an ideal way to achieve this noble purpose. The aim of typical American historians is to expose the Americans to history only while attending colleges, while film is a perfect way to introduce important facts about history to people in other areas of society too. Film is not considered an effective medium simply because some bigoted people cannot relate to how objectively things are shown in it. Conclusion: In conclusion, the above discussion suggests that historical films end up leaving a vast population of enthusiastic viewers astonishingly impressed which is more than can be said for historical books. It is not about who wins against whom as both books and films are important media for portrayal of history and the importance of books can never be denied. But if things are analyzed from the perspective of which one of the two media holds the potential to reach out to a larger population and generating more excitement, then film definitively has a competitive edge. Works cited: Boserio, Gail. Oliver Stone: Americas brutality started the day we dropped the bomb. abc.net.au, 01 Jul. 2013. Web. 26 Nov. 2013. Ebert, Roger. HEAVEN AND EARTH. Rogerebert.com, 24 Dec. 1993. Web. 26 Nov. 2013. Farber, David. The Age of Great Dreams: America in the 1960s. 1st ed. Hill and Wang, 1994. Print. Gosztola, Kevin. Why One Known Historian Is Disgusted by Oliver Stone & Peter Kuznick’s ‘Untold History’. The Dissenter, 03 Feb. 2013. Web. 26 Nov. 2013. Grierson, Tim. JFK: How Oliver Stone Got the Facts Wrong but Americas Mood Right. Playboy, 20 Nov. 2013. Web. 26 Nov. 2013. Rendall, Benjamin. An Analysis – Storytelling In Oliver Stone’s “JFK”. Macguffin-spotlight, 12 Jun. 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2013. Stone, Oliver, and Kuznick, Peter. The Untold History of the United States. Gallery Books, 2012. Print. Tunzelmann, Alex V. Nixon: Oliver Stones Tricky Dicky flick is far from unimpeachable. The Guardian, 03 Jun. 2010. Web. 26 Nov. 2013. Vineyard, Jennifer. Oliver Stone: Theres nothing in JFK I would go back on. CNN, 22 Nov. 2013. Web. 26 Nov. 2013. Read More