Oliver Stone Makes Another ‘Juvenile Fantasy of Bullets, Breasts and Bongs’
Today Universal released Savages, a new Oliver Stone movie in his Natural Born Killers ouevre of nihilistic, Clockwork Orange-wannabes. At least these over-glorified action movies disturb less than Stone’s other cinematic preoccupations — the communist agitprop documentary, conspiracy theory histories, and anti-capitalist polemics.
The premise from the press release:
Laguna Beach entrepreneurs Ben (Johnson), a peaceful and charitable Buddhist, and his closest friend Chon (Kitsch), a former Navy SEAL and ex-mercenary, run a lucrative, homegrown industry-raising some of the best marijuana ever developed. They also share a one-of-a-kind love with the extraordinary beauty Ophelia (Lively). Life is idyllic in their Southern California town…until the Mexican Baja Cartel decides to move in and demands that the trio partners with them. When the merciless head of the BC, Elena (Hayek), and her brutal enforcer, Lado (Del Toro), underestimate the unbreakable bond among these three friends, Ben and Chon-with the reluctant, slippery assistance of a dirty DEA agent (Travolta)-wage a seemingly unwinnable war against the cartel.
So far Savages has collected mediocre reviews. Rotten Tomatoes proclaims only 51% positive, and highlighs Rafer Guzman at Newsday addressing the main problem with Stone’s explorations in the genre of the highbrow, ultraviolent, philosophy major action movie:
“Savages” is a juvenile fantasy of bullets, breasts and bongs — not such a bad thing, if Stone would just admit it and stop staging the film as a profound ethical wrestling match.
A film can be a teenage boy’s exploitation picture with naked women, fun explosions, and elegant action sequences. Or it can be a grown-up movie that deals with evil and humanity’s animal instincts seriously. It can’t be both. The reason why Stanley Kubrick’s film worked so well and has so rarely been duplicated is that it knows to start off as one to hook the adolescents and then shift to the other to make an adult point about reality. But Stone hasn’t made that leap upwards to maturity himself, so how could his films?
PJ Media’s CEO Roger L. Simon wrote about Stone in his memoir Turning Right at Hollywood and Vine and offers an anecdote that puts the celebrated director’s work in a different light:
For me, Stone has always been the classic “Hollywood radical” — his espoused progressive political ideals in near complete opposition to his private behavior. His arrests for drug possession and driving under the influence are well documented, but they are the least of it. They are personal excesses engaged in by many, although perhaps not always to Oliver’s extent. Nor is his drug use in the slightest hypocritical. He was, as many of us were, an avowed experimenter. You can judge that as you will. I take a rather libertarian view of drugs, especially where adults are concerned, and am not convinced that the “war on drugs” is of any use. What I am referring to here is not a psychedelic lifestyle or, for that matter, testing the limits of outré sex with consenting adults. I am talking about how he treated those closest to him — friends, family, and colleagues. Some part of me resisted telling the story that follows, but the play-acting of Hollywood liberalism reveals itself most clearly in this extraordinary divide between the public persona and the private person.
The phone rang one night around ten while Renee and I were lying in bed reading and watching TV. It was Oliver’s wife Elizabeth—a nice, rather naïve Tippy Hedren lookalike—calling from their house. Renee was apparently one of her few friends and she would call once in a while to seek counsel on how to deal with the unpredictable Oliver. Tonight was more than the usual, though. With my ear half-cocked to the one side of the conversation I could hear, I gathered that Elizabeth was hysterical. In fact, I could hear her sobbing. She had discovered Oliver’s diary.
This must have been 1986, because Oliver was in the midst of making Wall Street, released the following year. Renee signaled to me that what she was hearing was incredible. When she hung up, she filled me in. Elizabeth had read her portions of the diary. Oliver repeatedly described leaving the Wall Street set at lunch break for a Chinatown whorehouse where he had unprotected sex with several prostitutes. This was at the height of the AIDS epidemic. He was clearly putting his own wife at tremendous risk. He also had a two-year old son with Elizabeth. No wonder she was beside herself. It was hard for me to have much respect for the man again. That disconnect between the execrable private person and the self-important director who sought to define political morality for us with film portraits of Kennedy, Nixon, Castro, and, more recently, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and George W. Bush, is unbridgeable for me. I could only laugh when I read that his key to the understanding of Bush was reformed alcoholism.
Stone’s fascination with leaders, totalitarian and otherwise, is no doubt an outgrowth of his own narcissistic personality, but that makes him far from unique in Hollywood.
Stone’s ugliness aside, the film does have Salma Hayek as an ultracool Mexican mob boss. Doesn’t that fact alone make it required viewing when it’s on Netflix in 6 months or HBO in a year? The advantage of skipping paying $12 for a theatre ticket: at home I can just fast-forward though Stone’s cruelest sequences.
Oliver who? Stone? Sorry, name doesn’t ring a bell.
He co-wrote Conan the Barbarian (the 1982 version). A few other minor projects since then, but little of note.
He is like an old Michael Moore, he tries to re-write history so you BELIEVE him and not FACTS & TRUTH
Rather than Netflix or HBO, I’ll just wait until it hits the History Channels Stone Movie Marathon…
Oliver Stoned.
Almost what I’ve been calling him: GULLIBLE Stoned.
Well I don’t know about this Stone fellow but I know where William Devane hides his gold. It’s behind a painting of a frozen stream in a cheap looking wall safe. I just sayin
I’m surprised that the antagonist wasn’t some evil Pharmaceutical company that had decided that the Federal Government would decide that marijuana we be legalized, given Obama’s stoner past. Then they would try to corner the market with pot that is laced with evil, more addictive stuff, like nicotine or Mountain Dew. The protagonists would try to avoid making a deal with the devil, so to speak. After a valiant struggle, they would contact the New York Times to blow the cover off the story, causing the evil company to go bankrupt, the evil owners of the company to go to a supermax jail. the closing scene would be at the Oliver Stone elementary school, where free doobies are passed out hand in hand with the free condoms during the required “Homosexuality is good” training sessions. Everyone would live happily ever after.
Given the nature of the film’s plot, I guess it could be seen as saying that if weed were legal the film never would’ve happened. Kidnapping, violence, cartels.
However much can be forgiven if a screenplay is a good one. Stone wrote/co-wrote three outstanding ones with Salvador, Wall Street and Platoon but hasn’t been able to live up to those since. From a distance, not having seen the film, it seems like a boring mish-mash of hackneyed stereotypes. However Wall Street could’ve seemed like “boring movie of the decade” from a distance and was quite wonderful.
I don’t have high hopes that Stone will break out of his slump. Those 3 successes I mentioned thrived on great performances; given the cast of this film, I’ll invoke Billy Packer and ask where are the points going to come from? Hayek in a silly wig?
Platoon was melodramatic and predictable. BEYOND overrated. I have nothing to say about any other Stone film, as I’ve avoided them.
I agree “Platoon” was preachy and manipulative but it caught the ambiance of grunt life like nobody’s business. It is by far the most accurate portrayal of the Viet Nam war in cinema. Other than that Stone seems a world class a**hole.
’84 Charlie MoPic’ and ‘Hamburger Hill’ did a much better job of capturing the ground level view of Viet Nam. For that matter so did ‘The Boys In Company C’.
For my money PLT. ain’t even in the running.
z (usmc 65-72, rvn 66-67)
I actually like your treatment better. Just one slight quibble: not even Liberals read the Times anymore. It’d have to be something like Politico to keep it real.
Now that is a fine plot, sir. The chthonic allusions to the metahemeral underbelly of Nethermania have never been so finely reticuated.
– “B”s, but you forgot Bush!
Stone has not made a decent — and more to the point, particularly profitable — film for 13 years.
I wonder when the Hollywood backers say “enough is enough”.
One thing everyone seems to have missed out on here is that this isn’t Oliver Stone’s story. Don Winslow wrote this as a novel, first. Winslow has a serious rep as a cerebral mystery author, and this book was a pretty big departure for him. I’ve only read 3-4 of his books (enjoyed them all) and this was one of them. It does have a nihilistic tone to the whole thing, so it sounds as if the criticism of Stone should be directed, perhaps, towards the fact that he chose this project.
Winslow was going to get a movie made of one or another of his books. I’ve heard that DeNiro has optioned another one, “The Winter of Frankie Machine”, and wants to star in it himself. It’s about a retired Mob hitman from San Diego (yeah I know, Mafiosos in SD? Who knew?) who gets drawn back into the mobster life when some old acquaintances try to kill him. It was in my mind a better book. The thing is, the buzz around him (from what I hear from the far periphery) is similar to that which surrounded Dennis Lehane a decade ago, though Winslow’s been writing a few years longer, I think.
Anyway, I read “Savages” and from what I’ve seen of the trailer for the movie, the Travolta character is added, or was minor in the book. Other than that, the Mexican mob boss is a gorgeous female version of DeNiro’s Capone in “The Untouchables”, she has a sidekick who’s murderous but can’t seem to handle Chon, and Chon’s partner is a biology nerd who grows the best pot ever. The girl wasn’t called Ophelia in the book, she hates that: her friends call her O. Other than that, this sounds like the Winslow novel, pretty close. It’s written in a stuttering, almost poetic style, very impressionistic and memorable. Not particularly enjoyable (for me anyway) but very artistic and avant garde.
That’s really an insightful observation regarding Clockwork Orange. Great film. It never occurred to me to think of it as an exploitation splatter film from the start as an audience hook.
Thanks. I might be giving Kubrick too much credit though. I don’t know if he intentionally planned it that way or if it actually works that way for most people or is even effective. But that’s the effect it seems to have. That it hooks the people it needs to address (the amoral, destructive teenage male) by speaking in his language and in fact providing him with a new one. But then it transitions into delivering some serious ideas about human evil.
I think Goodfellas is another example of one that’s the same way.
Goodfellas follows Hill’s book like a train follows a track. I don’t think the insanely narcissistic Hill was presenting us with a morality play. Hill was a wiseguy who preyed on society which is viewed as a zoo full of chumps.
A Clockwork Orange is an interesting film to watch because it is so eccentric with some funny granny in vinyl mini-skirts satire but as SF or film art it was dated before it was released. It’s a higher-class artistic expression of something like Logan’s Run, both apparently designed by hair dressers determined the ’70s should never end. It’s so tightly controlled it can’t even breathe.
The main point of “A Clockwork Orange” was the debate between the psychological theories of Free Will and Operant Conditioning.
You do know that A Clockwork Orange is based on a novel, don’t you?
It was written by Anthony Burgess.
As a bit of “trivia”, the rape scene from the book (and movie) was based on the rape of Burgess’ wife.
More to the point, the primary differences between the book and the movie are the age of the protagonist – Alex is barely a teenager in the book, which has a considerable impact on the various crimes he commits, and which also affects the age of the two girls he brings back to his apartment; the other is that it is based on the early American editions of the book, which omit Burgess’ final chapter, which completely changes the message as a result of the ending.
So all the elements that Kubrick presented of youthful violence and rebellion are in fact Burgess’, which he captured quite nicely. He just left it there, with the surface consideration as to free will versus conditioning, rather than go the extra step Burgess did of presenting the question of said youthful rebellion versus eventual maturity and the taking on of adult responsibilities, and the continuing of the cycle.
While Kubrick should receive credit for what he did, he should also be noted for his refusal to finish the author’s actual story, and being satisfied with a paen to violence and political manipulation, however entertaining it may be. (And I do happen to think it is exceptionally entertaining, it just isn’t the entire story.)
Elizabeth Stone may have been very upset that night, but she got over it – she stayed married to Oliver for another seven years and a second child.
Elizabeth should have known what she was getting into. She was after all wife #2.
the problem lies in the source material, Winslow provides kind of a Hunter Thompson type Noir perspective, although with a little more humor,
Sounds like “Breaking Bad.”
Stone kept a diary, in which he entered things like his lunchtime Chinatown whorehouse exploits? Truly a narcissistic personality. A junior high kid with money.
Does he videotape himself m*sturbating, so he can relive the masculine thrill of it later? Yes, the image of that is utterly absurd, but somehow, I wouldn’t be surprised.
Didn’t read the article. No offense. It’s just not a movie I’d be interested in seeing. I just wanted to comment on that Travolta guy. Man, he ain’t aging…. he’s mutating! Spooky dude!
The fact that the movie has two best friends blissfully zooming the same girl is an incredible departure from reality.
In reality it would be pretty tough for a two man commando squad to get anywhere near the head of a cartel. Cartels have lots of monney that buys lots of gunsels and smart guys.
I will see this movie as an admittedly guilty pleasure.
Hollywood must go through a lot of Viagra.
Two guys and one hot chick non-believable? Nonsense. Polyamory is the cutting edge thing now that gay marriage is mainstream. All the cool kids are doing it. Trust me. It is coming as sure as might follows day.
Why would anyone interested in rescuing and restoring the USA expend any time or money on anything to do with Stone or the many others of his ilk. Funding them just ensures that they continue to produce more of their trash. They are a cancer to our society that must be excised.
Actually when Oliver Stone said that the economy of Mexico would collapse without illegal drug money, he meant it not as a slap to the US but a bit of reality. Too bad there are too many little Cass Sunstein wannabes running around here saying ‘shut up Commie!’ to have us dare question the war on drugs. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And Wall Street 2 got it right when it said privatize the profits, socialize the losses is a scheme as old as the pyramids.
I’ll say this: Oliver Stone’s movies are never boring. The problem is once you’re older than say 23 or so you see thru them and realized they’re all overdone. I think I gave up when he decided it was his job to try to re-write history with movies like JFK and Nixon. He even f’ed up the Doors movie and he’s a legitimate fan of that band. I recall a college friend of mine (early 90′s in Low Angeles) who met him and he outright propositioned her and didn’t even try to hide it from others present. He’s always been a legend in his own mind.
Bullets, breasts, bongs, Selma Hayek, and John Revolting. Plus three people taking on a drug cartel with only marginally less firepower than Hamas.
It sounds more like something Quentin Tarantino would do. Of course, he’d have his tongue stuck firmly in his cheek in doing so (as with Kill Bill), and the audience would go in knowing it.
I’m wondering if Stone is trying a career pivot in the hope of actually getting enough of an audience in to convince the studios to keep bankrolling him. The enfant terrible making films of Crashing Social Importance act only lasts so long, and afterward you have to show some legs (and not in the Betty Grable sense, either).
If this is in fact what he’s up to, look for his next movie to feature Samuel L. Jackson and/or Bruce Willis getting medieval on somebody’s… posterior.
cheers
eon
Given his subject matter, political ideology and view of the U.S. in general, if Oiliver would just lighten up a bit — or put a CGI talking stuffed bear in his movie — he does have potential to be the next Seth McFarland.
Oliver Stone is just plain annoying. I can’t say that I care to see anything he does anymore. It’s not as if I would miss out on anything. As to the women in this one, Blake Lively is gorgeous, but Salma Hayek is, herself, annoying these days and while she has a nice body it’s not enough to overcome her annoying nature and idiotic leftist drivel. There are tons of beautiful women out there. Hayek is just one short one. She’s easily replaceable and should be.
But, what can I say? I still don’t understand this fascination people have with Clockwork Orange. I’ve seen it a few times (I had to force myself to watch the whole thing) trying to figure out what people think is so interesting or intellectual about it. It still escapes me. To my mind, Clockwork was little more than depravity on film with some hokey pseudo-science thrown in to give it the facade of something deeper. I never understood what others saw in it. I found it repulsive and sick.
But, that’s just my opinion of it. I don’t like that sort of sickness on the screen – not even to “prove a point” (giving the benefit of the doubt to the movie on that one, which I don’t really think it deserves).
“Intellectual pornography” is the best description of the Stone oeuvre that I’ve heard.
Alexander and W. are his masterpieces.
Went to see Spiderman and walked into this screening before leaving. Theater was half empty and while the film was somewhat enjoyable, other friends were left with the mess of too much violence. And some very unbelievable characters, and with an ending straight out of a committee.
If bluenose Swindle hates it, people will love it.
I remember when Platoon came out. I was in the Infantry Officers Basic Course with 400 other officers.
One of the generals spoke to our class, and he said that he saw the movie. Then he commented in the most wry way: “I spent 4 years in Viet Nam. We knew there were drug problems, atrocities that occurred, and abuse of the VN citizens. But I never expected to see then in one small unit over a 30 minute period.”
I realized then just how over the top Stone is as a director.
What kind of drug cartel is going to get into a “war” with a tiny little 3-person marijuana operation!? And, please, don’t repeat that lame excuse that it’s “the best pot evah” mmmkay?
Most of know the difference between an actor’s “real” persona and his roles, or a director’s personal life and his movies.
What does slinging mud around about a director’s personal life have to do with whether or not we enjoy his movies?
It’s called personal life because it’s, well, personal.
Does having the goods on Rock Hudson’s, Veronica Lake’s, or Charlie Chaplin’s personal lives diminish your enjoyment of their performances? Or does it make criticism more or less valid?
Stone as a person is a creep and and a bogus commie. As a director, the character of the director in True Romance is probably the best take on him.
Swindle should be careful; I hear his wife’s diaries tell all, and I mean ALL, even that part, you know, THAT part. Hush-hush, on the QT and very, very confidential.