I still wonder why and when Oliver Stone started to suck. Maybe it was when he started believing he was as brilliant as film critics said, or when he decided doing straight films was below his talent and started filming everything as through a cloud of drugs.
It's hard to say, really. It would take me some time and some research I'm not sure it's worth the time or the effort. And it's sad, because you can tell, even from fiascos like "Alexander", that the man has talent. You can love or hate the man, but he's a person who doesn't mind taking risks, and that's something I have deep respect for. It's his sense of humility what seems to be lost forever.
Maybe that's the reason why "Platoon" still works so well. I re-watched again this afternoon, and it's a tight, comapct and focused piece of film that still has most of its charm intact, if only because all the film is set from the perspective of someone (Taylor, well played by Charlie Sheen) who has little time to think about events of situations. Most of the time, all he can do is watch, or simply survive. Probably it was this, together wit the great cast and the shoestring budget, what kept Stone from unnecesary rambling. We wouldn't be that lucky in the following years.
Here, however, we get to feel the suffocating atmosphere of the Vietnam jungles, share the fear and claustrophobia of the American soldiers (the first shot showing a Vietcong is genuinely terrifying). We understand the anguish that slowly erodes Taylor when he is unable to prevent situations where his morality hurts like an exposed nerve, and we finally accept his belief that, whatever he does, there's no way his soul is gonna end unscathed.
"Platoon" is a terrific film.
I hated PLATOON the first time I saw it, and I've hated every time since. I've always thought it was an overblown bunch of tripe, which makes it pretty typical for an Oliver Stone fantasy-fest.
PLATOON took every bad aspect of the Vietnam War and condensed it all into one man's tour of duty, in a sense normalizing those events. Fragging DID happen, but it was not typical. Burning innocent villages DID happen (and those responsible went to jail, btw), but it was not typical. Nothing depicted as typical or normal in that movie was really typical or normal.
I think a MUCH better depiction of the war was done in HAMBURGER HILL. It had some historical basis and captured much on the timbre of James Del Vecchio's excellent book "The Thirteenth Valley."
If you read a lot of the real history of the Vietnam War ("The Elephant and the Tiger" is an excellent account), PLATOON is a laughable joke.
I agree in that "Hamburger hill" is probably a far more accurate Vietnam movie, but I just keep on thinking "Platoon" is a far superior film. Not that I don't think what you say is reasonable, it's just that in my book "more accurate" doesn't equal "better".
For instance, one of my favourite movies is "Apocalypse Now". It's such a great film film that none of the other war movies (or even regular movies) can nearly touch it. However, I'm pretty sure nothing that ever took place.
"Better" will to some degree be opinion, but I will say that PART of my problem with PLATOON is that soooo many people seem to take it as a documentary rather than just a story. Or at least they seemed to at the time it was released (and before some other depictions were released). I think I just sort of rebelled against that reaction to it.
Even with you take the events it depicts with a pinch of salt (I guess it's easier for me since I'm not American), the emotions Taylor (Charlie Sheen, Stone's alter ego in the movie) goes through during the movie seem sincere, that's why I said I think it's a terrific film.
About the events themselves, well, it's a work of fiction, and the fact that Stone has not ended up in a militar prison seems to support that theory.
I have to go with Ulthar on this one. I'm afraid Stone let's his political leanings ruin any chance of him making a good film. I saw him on a PBS special a couple of weeks ago dissing John Ford (a truly great director) over the way he portrayed the military in WWII. I wondered why they even had him in the program commenting.
Platoon is a movie a particularly hate for the very reasons Ulthar sited. He made the atrocities look like everyday occurences.
He is one guy whose movies I make a point of missing.
LOL Does anyone in the board want to say anything in Oliver Stone's defense?
BTW, although the guy seems to belief himself a left wing, many European critics disagree. Certainly from this side of the ocean his portrayal of hippies in "The Doors" or the eye for an eye logic that can be noticed in "Platoon" itself didn't speak in his favour.
"Burning innocent villages DID happen (and those responsible went to jail, btw), but it was not typical. Nothing depicted as typical or normal in that movie was really typical or normal. "
Some did, some didn't. If memory serves, a couple hundred soldiers ended up doing time for war crimes commited in Vietnam. There are a number of cases of incidents being buried, or that were attempted to be buried. My Lai, for instance, was a failed attempt at a burial - and Calley, the leader who ordered the killings, ended up getting a slap on the wrist (at best), when he should have ended up dead himself.
I dunno, the impression I've gotten from what I have read and vets I have known is that deliberate murder was rare, but due to the nature of the war, many innocents were accidentally killed. There were people who apparently were very vicious and more or less went unpunished though, the Tiger Force for example. Considering the number of soldiers and the numbers of believable reports, these suggest they were relatively rare. But, we'll never really have a full picture.
I do feel it is worth mentioning Oliver Stone is a Vietnam vet himself, who saw combat and was wounded twice, getting himself a Purple Heart, as well as a Bronze Star. According to him, the film is loosely based on his own experiences in Vietnam.
That aside... I have mixed feelings about Platoon. I feel it is effective in many of its war scenes, but that its drama is not particularly effecting... For such a bloody, violent movie, the film had remarkably little impact in most of its scenes. It has been a bit too long since I last saw it for me to be overly detailed, so I'll just say the movie is merely OK.
Jim H Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> According to him, the film
> is loosely based on his own experiences in
> Vietnam.
>
Okay, so should we take this as a confession that he participated in the murder of innocent villagers? Or fragged an NCO? Or was witness to one NCO murdering another?
My point is that I don't think he personally experienced all the bad stuff depicted in PLATOON. I think he took the bad stuff, and crammed all of it into his movie to ugly-up the war (as if purposeful uglying up was necessary...or possible). As Neville said, that he is not in prison speaks to the fiction, so what, exactly, was his experience? The psychological changes in Chris Taylor during his tour? The helplessness? The psychotic whirlwind of being thrust into a war zone? He could have done that without the My Lai rip and the fragging and stuff. It was just too much.
If he had picked one atrocity and focused on it, I believe it could have been a very, very powerful movie. As it is, I think it was pandering.
I neither like nor dislike Oliver Stone. Indeed, the only film of his I have seen his "Nixon," which I must admit, I liked, but he may be back to the level of "Platoon" with his next film, "World Trade Center," which should be out sometime later this year.
Apparently, he played a rough cut version of it at Cannes for a jaded audience of American newsreporters, and rumour has it, at the end of the film, he had almost everybody in the audience bawling their eyes out. People who have seen it, said, with this film, he is now the odds on favorite to take home the Oscar for Best Director at next year's Academy Awards.
From what I've heard, he only showed 20 minutes of footage. That eveybody liked it is great news, but even "Alexander" had 20 good minutes... we'll have to wait and see.
I don't like the guy, I find he's too full of himself and that he considers himself to important for regular, "unimportant" movies. Which doesn't mean I don't appreciate his work. I like "Platoon", as stated, but also some of his other films like "Natural Born Killers", "Nixon" or "U-turn".
Natural Born Killers is possibly the most hodge podge movie I've seen outside of Hong Kong film. At times it approached brilliance (Rodney Dangerfield - talk about effective use of unexpected casting, dialogue, lighting and a laughtrack of all things), and at other times it just seemed stupid, and bordering on pointless (the two main characters occasional sentimentality, etc), to me.
And I have to say, its alternate ending is a vast improvement.
So I guess I've got mixed feelings on Oliver Stone. He is definetly a very talented director, but it often seems like he doesn't use his talent in ways that work for me.
I agree the use of Rodney in NBK was inspired.
My personal favourite Vietnam film is Full Metal Jacket. I don't expect it, or Platoon or Hamburger Hill to be accurate. I expect them to be entertaining. Whether Stone used Platoon to confess without confessing is irrelevant. I think he is a good director. Brilliant? No. Talented? Yes.
Do I consider an actor/director or writer's politics when I decide whether I want to see a movie or not? No. That kind of narrow minded thinking belongs buried with a sad little man named McCarthy....
Neville Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I don't like the guy, I find he's too full of
> himself and that he considers himself to important
> for regular, "unimportant" movies.
Have you ever met him in person?
How do you know if you don't like him?
He could be a really nice guy.
I prefer the political points in a movie be subtle, instead of being so obviously preached at by a man who appears to be totally delusional.
McCarthy stifled free speech, something that not going to see a movie because you don't like the director is actually supportive of. I have the right to dislike whoever I damn well please. I watch a lot of stuff with actors and directors I surely don't agree with politically, I just don't like Oliver Stone or his work because I believe he's a total wack-job.
I've never met the guy, but there's this Quentin Tarantino bio I read, and Stone makes some statements on the same vein (that he only makes "important" movies). His films, that often touch big issues, and his grandiloquent style seem to confirm it.
Oliver Stone fails George Carlin's test for the three types of a***oles. He's reasonably intelligent, but he's full of s**t.
I felt the same way about Frank Miller after reading that new DARK KNIGHT book.
In my ASL class this Spring semester, a friend of my instuctor who is an ASL interpreter, talked about interpreting for Stone for some big speech he was giving at UC Davis I think it was. She said he was a really nice guy.