I think, not be wrong, when I say, Oliver Stone among the top five still alive and continues to work the most prominent directors of world cinema, living classics.
And it is precisely from this cohort distinguishes it most clearly expressed citizenship. After all, even though the same Steven Spielberg and James Cameron can not be called apolitical people, but his attitude to the different problems they expressed mainly "verbally", in the work of the same give priority to a purely commercial projects (because even "Schindler's List" should be classified as such). I am writing this without any negative, with great reverence before the masterpieces they created, and also noting the anti-imperialist "Avatar", for example.
Still, "Avatar" - it's fantastic, the obvious analogy with our modern US "to business you will not sew" policy, and for many spectators and they did go unnoticed for beautiful special effects. In Stone, almost all the work (and that brought him worldwide fame) directly reflect his citizenship, are acute, often run counter to the dominant discourse in the West.
So, at 1991 , he made the film "John F. Kennedy. Shots in Dallas " (English. JFK), revising the conclusions of the Warren Commission on the assassination of President Kennedy. In the film, an independent investigation displayed, spent Attorney Jim Garrison New Orleans, who claimed, He denied that set out in the commission's report the official version of the "magic bullet" and as a "lone assassin" Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination. Stone goes further and points directly to the interest of corporations and special services, closely connected with the criminal world, in the removal of President Kennedy, which allowed to unleash a full-scale invasion of Vietnam. The film caused a fierce debate in American society.
I can safely say, that his works Oliver Stone "never adjust to the changing world", and said that, he considered necessary, it earned him not only a well-deserved reputation of live cinema classics, but also the high moral authority, It makes a real, as it is now customary to say, scrap (Opinion leaders).
With the beginning of this century, Oliver Stone, working in such obviously far from fiction and not as lucrative field, Hoping kinodokumentalistika. Stone made three documentaries about Fidel Castro: «Comandante» (2003), "Looking for Fidel" (2004) and "Castro in the winter" (2012). AT 2009 year work was completed on a full-length documentary "South of the Border" about the leaders of Latin America. As it draws on interviews with seven presidents Stone: Hugo Chavez (Venezuela), Evo Morales (Bolivia), Rafael Correa (Ecuador), Raul Castro (Cuba), Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner (Argentina), Luloy da Silva (Brazil) Fernando Lugo (Paraguay). Chavez personally accompanied Stone at the premiere of the documentary at the International Venice Film Festival in September 2009 of the year. The film was released on cinema screens in several cities in the US and Europe in the summer 2010 of the year. In March 2014 of the year, on the anniversary of the death of Chavez, Stone released the film Mi Amigo Hugo ("My friend Hugo").
Stone also directed "persona non grata" - a documentary about the Israeli-Palestinian relations, which included an interview with several well-known Israeli figures, including Ehud Barak, Benjamin Netanyahu and Shimon Peres, as well as the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Yasser Arafat,.
AT 2012 Showtime, the channel showed a documentary series "The Untold Story of the United States, Oliver Stone's", where Stone acted as one of the writers, as well as a director, producer and narrator. The series touches "the causes of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the decision of US President Harry Truman to drop an atomic bomb on Japan, and changes in America's global role since the fall of communism».
Stone, as a director and storyteller in all ten episodes, He noted, what "From the very beginning, I was looking at this project as an inheritance to your children, and thus, to let them know, than I have lived. I hope, that it can contribute to a more global understanding of our American history». Stone also described the project as "the most ambitious thing, that I ever did. Of course, documented and, perhaps, in art, special, form». Stone himself put 1 a million dollars of his own money in the budget of the series.
But after the events 2014 year, Ukraine was the center of attention of director ("Distracted" it is only in the film "Snowden", tells about an employee of the CIA Edward Snowden, Submitted to press the secret files of the NSA, and then fled to Russia) Ukrainian same topics were dedicated documentaries "Ukraine in the fire" (2016), largely "Interview with Putin" (2017) and days appeared in the widely available "in the fight for Ukraine".
The value of these works can not be overestimated. After all, the Western media is formally different orientations (conservative, liberal, Social-democratic) interpret events in Ukraine almost in the same vein,: Ukrainian people for centuries fought for independence from the oppressive Russian, and then the USSR, but with independence in 1991 year in power found themselves corrupt pro-Russian regimes, for the overthrow of the Ukrainian who "the people" had twice to go to the Maidan. As has happened so, the regimes, acting against the "aspirations of the people" in a democratic country, regularly came to power, and without any "Maidan", naturally, It is a "figure of silence".
On the last day, the people went Maidan, protecting their desire to get out from under Russia's influence, "Going to Europe", in the bosom of Western civilization, with all its modern "values", what Russia said the annexation of the Crimea and aggression in Donbas.
I remember a comment under the article on the Ukrainian theme in the "New York Times": «But the "Financial Times" and "The Guardian" (leading British newspaper the conservative and left-liberal. - Ed.) write one of Ukraine is practically the same!»Ie, in the opinion of the reader (very typical), time edition of "opposite" orientations converge in treatments, this, certainly, evidence of their truth.
And such an authoritative source (if you want - a brand), Oliver Stone, It is a very different and, the main thing, reasoned position. Of his films the audience learns the complex and controversial history of Ukraine from ancient times to the present day, it is very different, It consists of regions with different histories, with a different mentality of the population, different dominant language, and especially the, it has always been an arena of rivalry between the different powers.
And if the first film, "Ukraine in the fire" is greater in the narrative tone, in the second, "In the struggle for Ukraine", accents more clearly. West viewer sees the ugly role of the Western powers, initially counted on the maximum gap developed over centuries the most diverse relations of Ukraine and Russia.
I think, shocking is to produce information on, Evromaydane that played a key role not supporters of liberal values, and the far-right, often openly neo-Nazi groups. And of course, This fragment of an interview with their leader Oleg Tyahnybok and Ruslan Ruslan Koshulynskyi, who told them, Just as the Western representatives said leaders euromaidan, that 5-10 killed in clashes with protesters by police officers is not enough, to the Western powers openly opposed President Yanukovych, We need at least 100.
And then there was the shooting of "heavenly hundred", and the film is an investigation of Professor of Political Science Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa Ivan Kachanovsky, clearly demonstrated, that shot of the buildings, were under the control of rebels, Furthermore, future victims specifically brought in a perfect shooting sector.
Well, of course, many only know from the movie Stone, how far postmaydannaya Ukraine from the democratic state according to Western standards. About, that the region is dominated by politics and public life (Galicia), which it is home to only about 10% population, very different from the rest of its part of the language, religion, history, mentality (about the last, comprising the cult of Nazi criminals Bandera and Shukhevych, as accurately, but it is said), what happens violent imposition of this mentality the rest of the country, announced that virtually outlawed language, It is spoken by half the population of Ukraine. And the "cherry on the cake" was unthinkable in a democratic country history, how unconditionally the most popular TV host country was a victim of the ban on the profession because of her husband - an opposition politician.
finally, although the Western media, and recognize, that an economic breakthrough euromaidan not led, for many will be a revelation of the scale of the economic and humanitarian disaster, which was plunged Ukraine: grew up in 10 times the price of gas because of the absurd "reverse scheme", the loss of entire industries, especially high-tech, 8 millions of Ukrainians, forced to seek income abroad. The main reason for this - breaking ties with Russia.
Of course, every one of us after watching the new film by Oliver Stone, I thought about, that he wanted to tell his film. I, for example, I thought it would be necessary to highlight in detail the history of New Russia as the edge, formerly wild steppe, conquered, settlement and development of the Russian Empire, end, where the main economic potential of Ukraine.
Viktor Medvedchuk same, has become the protagonist of the film, could you tell us, how he had prepared in June 2014 of the year (Only when the war raged) in the course of difficult negotiations and agreed with the parties to the conflict in Donbas settlement plan at the last moment was rejected by President-elect Poroshenko straight Washington Recommendations. A timing IOP, devoted to the topic of Ukrainian intervention in American elections in favor of Hillary Clinton, I would podsokratit. However, everyone has their own vision, let alone such a maitre, Oliver Stone, know better, that the most interesting and sensitive to Western audience.
certainly, do not wait, that after the release of "In the struggle for Ukraine," public opinion in the West radically change their view on what is happening in Ukraine and around it. Feature documentaries generally not designed for "adrift" mass audience, it is for the "minority", which seeks the truth, compares and makes its conclusions based on different sources of information.
But then, provided that such source, - a huge step in overcoming the information blockade around what is happening in Ukraine. And the above mentioned active "minority" capable, even if not immediately, influence the perception and "passive" majority, especially since the latter are less disposed to believe the media "mainstream", even if the "Financial Times" and "The Guardian" wrote virtually the same ".
Dmitry Slavskii
