Sign in with Twitter Sign in with Facebook

Type the topic in any language to check out real time results of Who's Talking on Social Media Sites


Trending Topics: フーゾーーク#ThatsLike#weegieword#ChaySuedeNoVideoShow#grezzaKafireDua MüslümanaBeddua#QuintaDoTeSigoSDVcomValentinoSatılığızDiyemezler BağımsızızDerlerURえりちThe Brownlee#DHLMe#RayRiceSeniÇokSeviyoruz DemetÖzdemir#一番最初に知ったボカロ曲#ThisIsHowWeDoLyricVideoToday#FiftyShadesTrailerBirBayramDaha YusufsuzGeçmesin#た行の後ろに監禁してを付けるとヤンデレドM50 Tons de Cinza#FSOGTrailer#TümTwitterBuTaglaMutluŞahitOLYaRab GazzeninYanındayız#Sınıfa10BinKadroAir Algerie#basınözgürolsaydı#災害でのお・は・しを予測変換#HarryPotterPlagioDoCastelo#SizeTavsiyeEderimMr GreyTruque de Mestreありがとう?#BüyükHedeflereMersinJamie DornanThis Is How We DoAriano SuassunaNew York City FCギノアルジェリアHappy National Tequila DayChristian Greyアメトーク#anaconda#99annGlobo EsporteFrank LampardFrank CaliendoJustin Blackmon残テロ柴崎さん笑笑歌詞さんAimer歌詞太郎さん#triathlon2014雪谷キスブサGold and SilverNational Tequila Day#meganebiikiRay RiceRyan DorseyListeriaSkye McCole BartusiakMiley Cyrus DeadJames GarnerRaymond FrolanderEric GarnerDan BilzerianMalaysia AirlinesNational Ice Cream DayBehati PrinslooDave FrancoAAPLMaria KirilenkoWWERory McIlroyTony DungyToday ShowCarlos Boozer50 Shades of GreyMore

Most recent 20 results returned for keyword: The Dictator (Search this on MAP)

https://plus.google.com/108261761797326818227 natalee torres : Name:Rain Savior Age:17 Gender:Male Hair: Dark Brown with Red Tips(later Blue) Height:6'3 Body Type:Average...
Name:Rain Savior
Age:17
Gender:Male
Hair: Dark Brown with Red Tips(later Blue)
Height:6'3
Body Type:Average but toned
Personality: Misunderstood,Vengeful,Natural leader,Lazy,Straightforward,Intelligent,Conspirator,Sarcastic
Clothes:Beat up and Earth tones but prefers black

A never ending war.Destruction,Despair everywhere you look,not an inch of happiness and you can forget sunshine.It's already dead and gone.No matter where you look there's sadness and death.The world is covered in disdain and blood.It's hard to breathe because the air is filled with gunpowder,asphalt,and smoke.There's constant darkness,so dark you feel like a blind man crossing the street or walking into a pole.It rain's all the time and the atmosphere feels like you're in a dark pit filled with poison gas.The world's been enslaved by the most powerful man alive.This man is beyond comprehension,taking down any and every army that came his way.Weapons weren't even a match for him.In the process of complete dominate power,he enslaved people of all kind and if he didn't enslave them he killed them without any hesitation.All hope was lost.However,there was a man who chose not to give in to the hopelessness.He stood tall and faced this endless despair without fear.He gathered a band of warriors,soldiers,and any person that wanted to fight back.Together they formed a group of Shadders(different gangs or rebel groups;they are people who get initiated into the group gets injected with a specific power)and were on a path to fulfilling their prophecy.This prophecy proclaimed that the world would be at the hands of a mad man,but there would be valiant warriors who would fight back to bring the world back to the light.This man was my father "Asora Savior".He fought bravely.He gave his all to protect this world and the people who lived in it.He was a true hero and a great father,I'll never forget.
It was the day he faced the dictator head on.The final moment to restore peace to this world.That day-it was the last time I saw my father.He defeated and all the brave fighters behind him had died.I'll never forget what I saw.After the battle my father was chained to a wooden X(a wooden X is a symbol of rebellion)and was sent to our home.Me and my mother were startled by the sounds of screaming people and gunshots.We ran to the front of our house there he was chained and beaten.We witnessed this take place as tears dripped down our faces.All I could do was watch.Then a moment after I took a strangled breath,that's when it happened.My father was killed before my eyes.Every inch of my body was frozen by an overwhelming sensation of fear.Desperation took over me and I couldn't move.All of my hope left my body.All that stood there was an empty shell.Mother however took a different approach and ran towards my father's corpse.She was shot and killed before she even met his body.I fell to my knees and all I could do was cry.Fear consumed me,nothing was left.After that everything went dark.When I awoke I was wearing a prison outfit and was in a cell.My body felt weak and heavy.Whenever I tried to move I felt a burning sensation on my chest.I looked to find where the burning was coming from,and what I found was a burnt X mark on my chest.It was scorched and pretty much covered both of my pectorals,from the end of my neck to the end of my chest.I felt so empty and tired.Suddenly,my head was overwhelmed with memories of everything that happened before I was in this cell.I began to shake vigorously.As I shook in misery the sound of a door slamming against the wall startled me.He entered the room.Cold malice and despair which was his aura reeked from his body.Bloodlust filled the room instantly.The very essence of death and the desire to kill surrounded him.This darkness emanating from his body shook me to the core.He called me by name and asked me to come forward.It shocked me that he would even speak to me plus he didn't call me by my name,he called me by the burned X mark on my chest.He told me that my parents were killed and that he was the one to kill them.He then told me that I was to be confined for the rest of my life and that if I disobeyed any command or rebel that I would be killed instantly.My heart sank at the intensity of his words.He then said that I should get some rest.He left the room.I sat cold and alone.I will get revenge and he will know my name,the name my father gave me before he died.My name is "Rain Savior"!
Redirect Notice
Redirect Notice. The previous page is sending you to https://www.fanfiction.net/topic/85480/38256176/Senshi-Knight-Info. If you do not want to visit that page, you can return to the previous page.
3 hours ago - Via Reshared Post - View -
https://plus.google.com/114613722130695653954 The Dictator Full Movie :

Watch the video: The Dictator Full Movie
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/proxy/u2e_hdL4NTKXMUd6PjblnumhaSSVipoVCwDT4To0LfXp6W-H7cv1tuaGeenm5rhp23-02jwYRH3AAMdn5uoh=w506-h379-n
Anyway, I already found the full movie..actually watched it already,so just to help you out guys, I will share it to you. you can Watch The Dictator (2012) in High Quality by click this link: http://gg.gg/TheDictator-yui Simple Instructions: 1. Please Click the link above.. 2. Create or Register your free account 3. Stream And Watch The Dictator (2012) Movie Online, Enjoy Guys! :) -------------------------------------------------------------- The Dictator (2012) Release on Theater : Mei 16, 2012 Runtime : 83 minutes (1' 23") Rate: 5.8 / 551 Budget: US $65000000 Official Site: http://www.dictatorthemovie.com/ Production by : Paramount Pictures Country: United States of America Categories : - Comedy Review: The heroic story of a dictator who risks his life to ensure that democracy would never come to the country he so lovingly oppressed. Keywords Tag: watch The Dictator 2012 full movie, free download The Dictator 2012, The Dictator 2012 trailer review, The Dictator 2012 full movie...
14 hours ago - Via - View -
https://plus.google.com/114683684372450488674 Lars Mejdahl : #MFS2014Q3 My first shave was a sneak with my Fathers Braun machine. I have been around 15, and could...
#MFS2014Q3

My first shave was a sneak with my Fathers Braun machine. I have been around 15, and could easely have waited some years without being more different from the other boys in school, but I was not late to grow hair of puberty, and have always been the currious type. The shave itself resulted in a very acne infected period of my life. That did not incourrage me to take the next steps on the learning ladder.
However - the face hair did not cover the acne, and the facial hair did not make me more pretty, and it was therefore time to take the next step. My Father was a step ahead of me and bought me my own Braun machine for my 16 birthday, which did the job for the next couple of years.
I was very impresssed when I saw an old movie with a scene shot in a barbers saloon. It was Charlie Chaplin in "the Dictator" (1940) where he perform as a barber shaving to the rythm of the music (Hungarian dance No 5, by Brahms). It did not make me go buy a straight razor, but after some time it was one of my big wishes to find a place where it was possible to buy such equipment. It was before the great time of the internet, and the straight shaving bussiness wasnt kinda exploding in Denmark at that time.
After several months of searcing, I found one in a little afro hair shop on Easter Bridge Street in Copenhagen. I think I remember it was called Puma from Solingen, and came in a little green hardbox with golden letters.
There it was, and the first time I tried it was dry bearded and no prep what so ever. It was horrible, and the shave was never completed by the Puma.
I never looked back, and have since then been shaving with machine, Mach diller daller, trimmers and scissors.
To years ago, exactly 200712, my birthday, I bought my second straight razor. It was carefully selected after serious research and earlier bad experience with the Puma. It was a new Thiers Issard from France, and I had saved money for months, since it was a period in my life with very little means, but the fact that my earlier experience was so bad, I had to make sure it was a top quality razor I had in my hand. ( funny I thought it was the old Puma who caused the problems, and not the lack of my experience).
Well - I had saved for months, I did not have any job, and was saving money everywhere I could. Everything was reduced to a minimum, the shaving expences could be cut down, and in two years or so, I could have earned the money for the straight razor home again, in not bought disposable shaving gear.
Ha Ha - yes you read correct - I really thought I would save money ! How stupid can a man get. If I look back....
Well - back to the second straight razor start in my life.
I had been searching, reading, googling and joining several shaving forums before my purchase of the Thiers Issard. The whole subject was turning into a : should I do it - or not. The thing that convinced me was the tough manly feeling I expected to get with a cut throat razor to my throat. Ha Ha - Now I spend more time in front of the bathroom mirror than my wife does. Very Manly...!
However - the first shave was a big succes compared to my first experience, this time I was lucky to get some free samples of Mühle and some after shave creme from the shop that sold me the razor, and that was a very nice experience, the smell, the cream to my skin for the first time. ( I had never used anything before). Thegoodstuffshop it was actually called. The quality of the shave was pour, but I had not cut myself, and was eagger to learn more. I have never liked shaving and have always considered it as a waste of time. But after my experience with the subject, and most of all - all you people who has helped me with the best intentions for a pleasent shave - I will never look back, and not once in the past two years have I been tempted to go back to the machine or Mach.
Thank you for you time, my virtuel shave friends, and thank you for the adwises given to a newbee.

Today - I look forward to my shave. every time...

Lars
16 hours ago - Via Community - View -
https://plus.google.com/110940280349477498981 Tsegezab Gebregergis : The Abduction of Endargachew Tsige, and the Nature and Reality of the Ethiopian and Eritrean Opposition...
The Abduction of Endargachew Tsige, and the Nature and Reality of the Ethiopian and Eritrean Opposition
Drs. Tsegezab Gebregergis, July 6, 2014
 
1. Introduction
 Endargachew Tsige was kidnapped on June 23rd, 2014 at the Sana’a International airport  while on transit to Eritrea by Ethiopian security agents with the active connivance and collaboration of Yemeni intelligence services. After denying his abduction for more than two weeks, on July 9th,, the TPLF gangs were seen to be parading their victim on Ethiopian Television. The freshly tortured and humiliated Endargachew Tsige is seen being displayed on Ethiopian television and desperately telling his torturer; “I am at ease with myself. For me it is a blessing in disguise. I am in no rush. I just want to rest. I am really exhausted. I have no resentment, no anger and no despair. I am totally in control and stable.”
In the end, we see Endargachew shaking hands with his torturer and showing a sardonic smile, while the face of his coward interrogator/torturer remained hidden from  public view. The TPLF gangs ruling Ethiopia today, are well known for savagely and routinely torturing their victims to extract information/confessions, and as a means of humiliating, and inflicting maximum pain on their victims. Torturing political prisoners apart from being cruel and inhuman, is also illegal in all its manifestations under international law. However, the TPLF political gangs can get away with their crude violations of international law and norms because, as allies in the war against terrorism, they are politically and diplomatically shielded by the dictator friendly American and British governments.
2. The purpose
The  purpose of this article is to raise awareness of the kidnapping of Endargachew Tsige, and the nature and reality of the Ethiopian and Eritrean opposition groups. The article raises, among other things, some basic questions of common interest for both Eritreans and Ethiopians engaged in the struggle for justice, democracy and human right. It also discusses how Eritrean democrats should respond to his abduction. It is written from the perspective of an independent Eritrean democrat, engaged in the protracted struggle for democracy, justice and human rights in Eritrea against the rotten dictatorial PFDJ regime.
 
3. Who is Endargachew Tsige; and who entrapped him in Saana?           
Endargachew Tsige is a well known Ethiopian opposition leader and Secretary General of Ginbot 7. Before he joined the opposition, Andargachew was a former member of the ruling party –the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) and had briefly held the position of  Deputy Mayor of Addis Ababa. To be sure, Ginbot 7 is an opposition Ethiopian political party, officially launched in 2008 in the aftermath of Ethiopia’s fraudulent May 2005 national elections. The founders of Ginbot-7 are Berhanu Nega and Endargachew Tsige and other like minded Ethiopians. Its declared political objectives are to overthrow the semi-fascist TPLF regime in Ethiopia and create a democratic government in its place.
In 2011, three years after its birth, Ginbot 7, along with the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF), who are fighting for the Ogaden people’s right to self-determination, and the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), who are also struggling for the right to self-determination for the Oromo people, were declared terrorists by the semi-fascist Tigrian rulers of Ethiopia . It should be remembered here that, in the aftermath of the May 2005 rigged election, more 200 unarmed protesters were murdered in cold blood in broad-day-light by the TPLF security forces. It should also be remembered that in 2009 and 2012, Mr Andergachew Tsige was among those opposition leaders sentenced to death in absentia for allegedly planning to overthrow the tyrannical Woyane regime.
4. The Big Question
The big question is-how did the intelligence agents of Ethiopia and Yemen know in advance the travel itinerary of Endargachew Tsige? In other words, who could have informed them about his travel plans in advance? In my opinion, it could only be either his close comrades, the airline or the travel agency which made the travel arrangements for him,  British intelligence, or an Eritrean double agent operating from his base in Eritrea, with whom Endargachew might have had an active contact who  betrayed him in the end. In any case, these are some of the most important questions which require exploring and scrutinizing by all concerned to determine how his enemies knew about his planned travel via Yemen to Eritrea and kidnapped him.
 
5. Some Questions Requiring Answers
So far, I have stated the basic facts related to the profile and kidnapping of Endargachew. Let me now raise some relevant questions related to what should be the stand of Eritreans on his abduction. The first question which requires an appropriate answer is thus: can the Eritrean opposition groups have a common stand on his abduction? And what does it mean to Eritrean and Ethiopian democrats when opposition groups claiming to be struggling for democracy and the respect of human rights, go and ally themselves with tyrant leaders? I will answer now the questions I have posed here as objectively and honestly as I can.

To begin with, the answer to the question can the Eritrean opposition groups have a common stand on the abduction of Endargachew is a definite no! Why? Because Eritreans today are sharply divided between those on the one hand ,who support and entertain the Eritrean dictator and his oppressive government, , and those on the other that oppose the Eritrean regime supported by the TPLF oppressive government of Ethiopia,. But this is not all. For Eritreans are also sharply divided between the opposition groups based in Ethiopia and those operating in the diaspora. For the Eritrean groups based in Ethiopia consider and propagate that the TPLF led government of Ethiopia is democratic and are the strategic friend of Eritrea and its people. Much to their discredit, these groups do not even have the political will to demand their TPLF paymasters vacate the illegally occupied Eritrean territories and  stop its crude interference in Eritrean internal affairs. There are therefore qualitative differences between the opposition groups nurtured and supported by the TPLF government of Ethiopia, and those independent Eritrean groups and individuals uncompromisingly opposed both to the semi-fascist PFDJ regime and the expansionist and anti-democratic TPLF led government of Ethiopia. Thus, unlike the puppet Eritrean groups based in Ethiopia, these independent Eritrean political groups and individuals portray the TPLF led government of Ethiopia as the strategic enemy of the Eritrean and Ethiopian people and consistently struggles and call for the overthrow of both the PFDJ led government of Eritrea and the TPLF led government of Ethiopia. In other words, these Eritrean opposition groups believe genuine peace, stability and the collective economic emancipation of the oppressed people of both countries will be realized only if we succeed in overthrowing the two oppressive governments in both Eritrea and Ethiopia through the joint struggle of Eritrean and Ethiopian democrats.
Having explained the existing division and qualitative differences within the Eritrean opposition groups based in Ethiopia and those operating in the diaspora, let me now pose the question: how do the independent Eritrean democrats opposed both to the PFDJ and TPLF regime view the abduction of Endargachew Tsige?
Before I answer the question , there are several other questions which beg for an appropriate answer. These are the following revealing questions: Are  Endargachew Tsige and his party a friend of the Eritrean people or a committed friend of the Eritrean dictator? Could a leader of a party allied with a demonic dictator, such as Issayas Afeworki, be trusted to be a friend of the Eritrean people? What is more, could he also be trusted to establish an accountable and democratic state based on the rule of law in Ethiopia itself? I will now attempt to answer my own questions by way of an example.
Some years back, I participated in a seminar conducted by Endargachew Tsige for Ethiopians living in London. The seminar was attended by Ethiopians opposed to TPLF rule of Ethiopia and by some invited PFDJ cadres. During the question and answer session, I asked Endargachew the following questions. How do you explain that your party – the party which has the declared political objectives to topple the oppressive Woyane regime and institute a democratic and accountable government on its ruins in Ethiopia- is allying itself with the tyrannical Eritrean regime tormenting the Eritrean people? Don’t you understand that Eritrean democrats are also struggling to overthrow the demonic PFDJ regime- just like Ethiopian democrats opposed to the TPLF government are busy doing - in order to construct a democratic regime based on the rule of law in Eritrea?
The following is the reply Endargachew gave to my question. “We are in Eritrea not by choice as such, but because Ethiopian freedom fighters cannot effectively fight and successfully defeat the Woyanne dictatorship without a base in Eritrea, and the cooperation of the PFDJ led government of Eritrea. For this concrete reason, we are in Eritrea to conduct effective operations against the TPLF dictatorship.”
Having heard his response, then I tend to believe that Ginbot 7 and its political leadership were operating from Eritrea for reasons dictated by the prevailing historical circumstances and the geopolitics of the region. However, in 2013 in an interview with the diaspora based Ethiopian Satellite television, I heard Engargachew praising lavishly and unambiguously, and lionizing the Eritrean dictator, defending the PFDJ government and its policies. He indeed spoke unapologetically and at great length as if he was a senior PFDJ cadre in charge of propaganda, and not as an Ethiopian who is in Eritrea dictated by unyielding historical necessity.
Similarly, as if it was meant to be an insult to the intelligence of Eritrean democrats opposed to the PFDJ regime, Elias Kifle, the editor of Ethiopian Review and an ally of Ginbot 7, and a regular visitor to the Eritrean Dictator, has gone to the extent of  selecting the Eritrean dictator, Issayas Afeworki, as the Man-of-the-Year in 2008. It is therefore crystal clear that Ginbot 7 and its political leadership are working hand in glove with the cruel and semi-fascist dictatorial PFDJ regime and its dictatorial leader Issayas Afeworki- the man who has transformed Eritrea into a giant prison. Ginbot-7 and its political leadership are therefore the friends and allies of the Eritrean Dictator.
There are therefore obvious similarities between the different Ethiopian opposition groups operating from their bases in Eritrea and the Eritrean opposition groups based in Ethiopia. In other words, the different Ethiopian opposition groups are operating from their base in Eritrea under the firm control of PFDJ officials, just like the various servile Eritrean opposition groups based in Addis Ababa operate  under the firm control of the TPLF rulers of Ethiopia. The Eritrean opposition political groups in particular are groups who do not and cannot even dare to say a word of protest when more than 200 innocent Ethiopian demonstrators were gunned down in front of their eyes in Addis Ababa. On the contrary, these Eritrean puppet groups who wine and dine with the Ethiopian government officials are defending and praising the Woyane regime unashamedly as the best government Ethiopia has ever had, and portray the vicious regime as the strategic friend of Eritrea and its people.
As matters are today, the Ethiopian opposition groups based in Eritrea have put their lot and trust on the Eritrean Dictator; just as the different Eritrean opposition groups based in Ethiopia have put their faith and hope in the treacherous TPLF junta. However, in my opinion, and seen from angles of realpolitik, it is a tragic mistake to put trust and ally with Dictators. I think to entertain or expect to get genuine help from the despotic Eritrean leader, as Ginbot 7 and the leaders of other Ethiopian political groups based in Eritrea do, is a serious and a foolish political blunder and a pipe dream. 
As far as I am concerned, the Ethiopian opposition groups based in Eritrea know just as much as informed Eritreans do that Issayas Afeworki is a leader who has an open contempt for democracy and people’s power. They know perfectly well that Issayas Afeworki has systematically robbed and denied Eritreans their birth right to be free and enjoy the fruit of their labor. Thus, as far as Eritrean democrats are concerned by allying themselves with the present repressive and most hated PFDJ government of Eritrea, the Ethiopian political groups based in Eritrea are jeopardizing and forfeiting any future relationship with a democratic Eritrean government that will emerge in the aftermath of the overthrow of the tyrannical PFDJ regime.
I therefore believe that it is high time now that the political leadership of Ginbot 7 and other Ethiopian political groups opposed to  TPLF rule in Ethiopia, critically and urgently reassess their overall strategy, especially so their ill-advised political alliance with the repressive PFDJ led Eritrean regime. Indeed, in my humble opinion, the abduction of Endargachew Tsige by the terrorist TPLF regime is a wake-up call to all the Ethiopian political groups based in Eritrea and their supporters, to mend their ways before they become politically irrelevant in Ethiopian politics, or are devoured by their Eritrean political hosts. The same goes to the Eritrean political groups based in Ethiopia and allied with the treacherous TPLF government of Ethiopia.
6. The Reality of the Eritrean and Ethiopian Opposition
As is the case, both the Eritrean and Ethiopian opposition groups loudly claim that they are democrats and they are struggling to bring democratic change in their respective countries. Paradoxically, however, the leaders of the Eritrean opposition groups based in Ethiopia are politically allied with the murderous  TPLF government of Ethiopia, while the Ethiopian opposition political groups based in Eritrea have  also allied themselves with the despotic PFDJ government of Eritrea. In other words, much to the dismay of  independent Eritrean democrats, the Ethiopian political groups opposed to the Woyane regime are unashamedly and openly fraternizing and collaborating with the most repressive and predatory PFDJ regimes in Eritrea, while the Eritrean opposition groups based in Ethiopia are also actively collaborating with, and operating under the control and direction of the Woyane rulers of Ethiopia.
Although the Eritrean and Ethiopian opposition political groups may not have yet realized, the hard truth  that their chosen path is the path of self-destruction. For no political group, be it Eritrean or Ethiopian, allied with a dictatorship and repressive government, could ever conduct an effective and meaningful struggle for democratic change in its respective area. Indeed, such submissive political groups- groups that fraternize and uncritically collaborates with a murderous dictatorial government end up being used as a tool of the foreign policy objectives of the beleaguered rival dictatorial governments. Besides, historical experience shows that only groups that are organized within their own territory on the basis of the philosophy of self-reliance, and with a direct and organic link with the oppressed people can and do conduct effective and meaningful struggle for a democratic and societal change, and are eventually crowned with victory.
7. Conclusion:  What Should Be The Stand of Democrats?
After all is said and done, the question which still requires an  appropriate answer is this: what should be the correct stand of democrats on the abduction of Endargachew? First and foremost, it is very important that democrats clearly understand that his terrorist style abduction by the rogue TPLF government of Ethiopia is not a political question as such. It is rather a question of sheer and crude breach of international law and violation of human rights. Seen therefore from a noble human rights perspective and the sanctity of international law, and considering the fact Andargachew Tsige is a dedicated, active and engaged participant in the struggle to topple the terrorist TPLF regime, and bearing also in mind that his abductors are also the strategic dead enemies of Eritrea and its people, the independent Eritrean democrats must stand firmly on the side of justice, and on the side of all the Ethiopian diaspora based freedom activists demanding the immediate and unconditional release of Endargachew Tsege.
Crucially,, Andergachew Tsige is a British citizen, and a family man with a permanent residence in London. Hence, his abduction demands urgent attention.  Likewise, the most effective intervention on his behalf could come from, and be initiated by the British government. Because the British government is the major donor, and political backer of the tyrannical Woyane regime in Ethiopia, it has  massive leverage and influence to secure his immediate release from his TPLF abductors. It seems, however, the British government is keeping a diplomatic silence on Andargachew’s abduction . What could be the reason for this  guarded silence? Could it  be because Andargachew Tsige is opposed to a regime allied with the British and American governments in the war on terrorism? Would the British government have reacted in the  disinterested way it has done if Andargachew was a white British man kidnapped in Yemen while on transit to another country? I don’t believe so. For the record shows whenever British citizens are arrested overseas, even on drug charges, the British government had intervened on their behalf and demanded immediate access to its citizens and their immediate release. The action of the British government in the case of the four British nationals who entered the sovereign Eritrean territory illegally and who were arrested in 2011 armed with sophisticated spying equipment and a cache of sniper weapons fitted with silencers, telescopes, and distance-monitoring equipment is a good example in this instance. In any case, the British government has a duty and an obligation to both demand a stay of execution (if required) and to firmly insist  that he be immediately released.
It should be clearly understood that the abduction of Endargachew while on transit to Eritrea is against international law and a terrorist act to be condemned by all law-abiding governments and democrats. Henceforth, the Eritreans in the diaspora, especially so the independent Eritrean democrats opposed to the murderous TPLF and PFDJ regimes, must condemn the criminal act, and join the worldwide demonstrations being organized by Ethiopians to protest the abduction of Endargachew Tsige and demand  his immediate release.
Finally, I like to remind my fellow Eritreans in general, and the politically conscious Eritrean democrats in particular, to bear in mind that in the era of globalization, democrats and human rights activists must operate and extend their activities beyond the narrow horizons of nationalism and parochial sentiments. They need to show active solidarity to people in distress in the Horn of Africa in general, and with the oppressed Ethiopian people in particular. Indeed, the independent minded Eritrean democrats should never lose sight of the fact that, seen from strategic, economic and political perspectives, Eritrea and Ethiopia are like the Siamese twins. Thus, active solidarity and cooperation between the oppressed people of these two countries should be energetically promoted and strengthened.
On their part, the Ethiopian democrats must be courageous enough to kill big nation chauvinism and expansionist sentiments in all its manifestations, understand unambiguously and unconditionally accept that Eritrean independence is irreversible and that the colonial boundaries between Eritrea and Ethiopia are non-negotiable and unalterable and thus educate their own people accordingly.
______________
P.S: Reader views and comments are welcome. Email: Gtsegezab@yahoo.co.uk
 
 
18 hours ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/107860381336457800445 Pradip Biswas : OLIVER STONE’S MANIFESTO LOOKING FOR FIDEL BY PRADIP BISWAS, THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, INDIA JURY...
OLIVER STONE’S MANIFESTO LOOKING FOR FIDEL
BY PRADIP BISWAS, THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, INDIA
JURY MEMBER INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL OF INDIA AND FRIBOURG INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL, SWISS



 

Fidel

(Oliver Stone, the intrepid filmmaker of America with a left bent, visited MAMI (Mumbai Academy of Moving Images) in 2010. This ideologue critic was with Stone and had snatched a fruitful session with Stone on his anti-American stand on many global issues. His Looking For Fidel is a watershed documentary on Cuba, though very controversial for those right-wingers).
 


 
“Fidel Castro is a moral, selfless and wise man”.
Oliver Stone
Fidel Castro, Cuba’s monolithic figurehead, is claimed to be responsible for ushering armed-struggled revolutions among small countries in South America, subjugated under glacial oppression for 500 hundred odd years. His only genuine associate in the battle for social change from imperial rulings is Che Guevara who overlooked Castro in many a way. When Oliver Stone decided to confront his own Govt. by announcing a massive biopic/ a political documentary on Fidel Castro, the bash had raised million red eyes in USA. Flacks were heaped on him for being supportive to Latin American countries. Not only that the White House tripped over the alarming news that their Oliver Stone is bent upon taking up Fidel in the explosive visual medium. As long as the cautionary warnings continued in the land, Oliver Stone landed with his documentary Looking for Fidel, he first of its kind in the world cinema that stays with time and history.
He was in the news as often as they have been about the news. JFK, Stone’s daring and divisive drama about a conspiracy to murder President John F. Kennedy, is still hotly debated and rightly so. It is said only in recent year, on a television special commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination, ABC News’s Peter Jennings noted that a significant number of Americans remain convinced of a conspiracy based entirely on Stone’s movie. Amazingly Stone has created indelible stories about Richard Nixon (in Nixon) and Jim Morrison (in The Doors) and tackled the American culture of violence in Natural Born Killers. His films about the Vietnam war—Heaven & Earth, Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July—are inextricably tied to the nation’s collective memory of the conflict and the 1960s antiwar movement. These documentaries are just palimpsest for the posterity to pursue. 
Almost no one is indifferent to Stone. He has die-hard fans, and film critics have lauded many of his movies/filmswith human zeal. Critic Leonard Maltin called JFK “a masterful cinematic achievement.” Norman Mailer called Nixon “a major work by a major artist.” That Stone is not a push-over came as a caveat to American super Rulers. This is why Stone’ rabid detractors are equally impassioned and don’t hide emotions, mainly on the surface. It is true some bovine carpers dismiss him as a paranoid nutcase; Time magazine dubbed him Mr. Conspiracy. After Stone described the September 11 terrorist attack on America as “a rebellion against globalization, against the American way,” journalist Christopher Hitchens called Stone “a moral and intellectual idiot.” But despite such binge of cruel attacks, Stone does not tilt and counter them with Euclidean wisdom. Inner reading of art of the film is mysterious and the critics like Hitchens and his clan coil back in the face of proud majority appreciations. Stone’s virulence thus seems to have dwarfed his bovine pack of detractors.  
Now let us know about his genealogy and upcoming of the turbid director. In formative years, Stone first enrolled at New York University to study filmmaking; with the end of tenure he wrote and directed his first movie, Seizure, in 1974. He gleefully won his first Oscar, in 1979, for his screenplay for Midnight Express. A decade after writing Platoon, he finally made the film, which was released in 1986. It won the Academy Award for best picture, and Stone won the best director award against heavy odds. He was also nominated that year for a best screen-writing Oscar for Salvador. Screenwriting nominations for JFK and Nixon followed, and he picked another best director statue for Born on the Fourth of July, made on scars of Vietnam. But among the lot Salvador is treated most angry and explosive because it made a polemical dive into political dialectics of Salvador, the cock-pit of power struggle.
On the making of Alexander the Great he seems to have pitched Greek mythology into  mystical attitudes of Greek people with élan. This time he was in college. H’d always wondered why his story had never been dramatized. His curiosity made him run for Alice In Wonderland, a piece of abandon wonders. According to him it’s one of the most extraordinary stories in history. His wonder remains..why hadn’t Shakespeare tried? Why hadn’t other great playwrights or screenwriters remained cold and passive?  Finally Stone blurted out: “I think he scares people off because he was so fucking successful. There’s an inherent dislike or fear or distrust of somebody who is that much bigger than life. It seemed too much for a story—the decadent politics, the outrageous ambition, the decadent lifestyle. So I struggled with how to make the movie that has eluded everyone. I loved the character, but I never thought I would get to do him.” No doubt, such was his mental possession and alien dreams struggling to be born!!! Making big projects needs bigger angels. He did not get financed in Hollywood. He was rejected there. Finally, they got to manage the film financed in Europe only, and it didn’t help to have Dino De Laurentiis telling his friends in various countries, “Don’t buy that movie.” This is avenging gesture and heinous. Without foreign sales you’re dead in the water. There were a lot of shenanigans, and there was a lot of ugliness. Stone is called names. He has tried to stay out of it. Says he: “I’m not going to be left with bad karma on my set. I just stuck to the work, and we eventually pulled people together and got the movie made.” He is of quaint caliber. His association with America is skewed and ludic one. Says he: “I’m not sure, but he’s what America wants. I’m not surprised by the then governor in calling shots. He’s got an amazing face. He’s got a great smile. He has great willpower. The guy pulls off amazing things with his charisma. Unless he really fucks up, he can go right to the White House.”
While reading him, this scribe forms a unique contour about Stone. Stone was in MAMI festival, Mumbai where this critic had long sessions on cinema and its dialectical leap; Stone, in a way, is scary one. He looks like a tiny little chamber of commerce guy. Such is the odd impression of many. Incidentally, in the 1950s he would have been considered distasteful. He’s worse than Nixon in his vulgarity. He looks like he shops at Wal-Mart. That’s not what a president is supposed to be. He has admitted it frankly. He has no intellectual curiosity and is proud of it. He says his wife does the book thing. He’s a liar, hiding behind a shallow and dangerous patriotism. In ridicule he peels off: “We’re number one. The American way.” He retorts: It’s a Superman comic book idea of the world. It covers up the complicated realities, and it’s very dangerous fallouts.”
It is said when Christopher Hitchens called Stone an idiot, Stone, not in anger but in pity called him “A moral and intellectual idiot, to be exact.” In the 1980s he admired Hitchens. He was strongly pro-Nicaragua and right about it. He seemed very intelligent. Since then he has gotten into an extremist groove. He has become an ideologue. He thought it behooved us to understand how America’s unilateralism, arrogance and history of pushing around the rest of the world enrages people. Since Iraq, the outrage is worse than ever.
Stone as a film ideologue has had mind-boggling ideas both political and sociological. His fears about regime of the Republicans are known to us. Says he: “I worry that the Republicans will do anything to win. For a long time I’ve worried that Bush will start another war before the election to get people fearful. Voters are nervous about changing leadership in the middle of a war. He bills himself as Mr. Security, which of course he’s not. He’s Mr. Insecurity. Every decision he has made has led to a worse military conclusion and a less secure nation. He has generated enormous hatred, and hatred begets violence. He shovels up the worst kind of patriotic crap. Thirty or 40 years ago, even in the 1920s, they would have run him out of town. Patriotic stuff works occasionally, as it did during Joe McCarthy’s time, but Bush is overdoing it.”
Stone is a man of open feelings and human warmth. What he hates, he hates. There is no compromise point. Talking about his film Alexander, he says: “I’m talking about hypocrisy. Our puritanism allows boys to kill and be killed but not humanity. It’s ludicrous. Once again we pretend things are one way. Alexander lived in a more honest time. We go into his bisexuality. It may offend some people, but sexuality in those days was a different thing. Pre-Christian morality. Young boys were with boys when they wanted to be. Sometimes it was physical and sometimes platonic. Nonetheless, a man was expected to marry. They didn’t know how heirs were made. At the time, many thought sperm itself contained the whole thing and that the vagina was merely the receptacle. It led them to view women as second-class citizens, as baggage carriers. Sexuality wasn’t necessarily tied to procreation and morality, and men were allowed to have a homosexual side as well as a heterosexual side.” However these are Stone’s personal ideas and thinking about Alexander to which we may not stumble to or chime with.
On cinema project Stone is specific to say: “I follow whatever motivates me, whatever puts the wind in my sails at the moment. I have to be zealous about a project, because it requires years. You have to be consumed by it. Whether it’s Alexander or U Turn, you give it your all. I’ve always changed genres. I’ll do a film noir and then a sports drama like Any Given Sunday. This is the first time I’ve done a historical epic. Ideas come to me, some people say too fast. Perhaps they’re right and I have to learn to slow down, but age takes care of that anyway. I just have to keep going. When I have been shut down, I’ve found a new way. I’m misunderstood and I keep going. I was accused of promoting violence. Anyone who knows me understands that I promote peace.”
On JFK, a project of awe and wonder, Stone had to say a lot of things: “Let’s look at JFK. JFK doesn’t say the things some people say it does. It’s very much a hypothesis. It’s a philosophical inquiry into what is truth, what is reality. If you look closely at the film, it’s written precisely with conditional tenses, what-ifs. It’s a timeworn method of drama. And we put out an entire book with footnotes to explain our sources. We made every effort to be honest, and we were raked over the coals. I was in Europe, thank God, but Peter Jennings took me apart on ABC on the 40th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination.”
Stone is believed to ne conspiracy-minded? Says Stone: “In Europe everyone is conspiracy-minded. They assume that things happen behind the scenes in government and business. They aren’t naive enough to believe the evening news and the soundbites from politicians. Americans want to believe the evening news. They want to believe the press conference. Don’t people realize that they’ve been lying to us for years? So they attack Michael Moore. They attack me.”
Now Fidel Castro, the political architect of people’s voice for over five decades, has caught Stone’s active imagination and self. No doubt for this he has been accused of pandering to Castro. In reality such cut makes no dent on Stone as he is too stoical to taradiddle. For Stone it was more than a epic adventure. His deep association and genuine camaraderie seem to have grown to the peak. Fidel instantly agreed to be lined by Stone. Knowing fully well that Stone is a maverick and could raise pro-Americab issues without dialectical knowledge. But during the 69 minute documentary no unpleasant questions have been asked or raised by Stone as is expected. It is because Stone profoundly believes America’s imperial role in Latin America since the beginning of 20th century. 
We need to know that oak-strong Stone stood by Castro and Cuba in its provocation of American interest. Says he: “ I saw great value in a deep look into a man who has had an enormous impact on history. I was never a journalist, grilling him on his human rights record. That wasn’t my purpose. I wanted to get inside his head. I did, too. I was accused of humanizing him, but what does that mean? I suggest that it’s useful to understand world leaders on the deepest possible level. Once again, though, people want a black-and-white story—Castro, Cuba, communist. What more is there to be said?” As a matter of fact, Stone  didn’t go in with much of an impression at all. He admired him because he’d done something extraordinary with his life. Through the interviews, he came to respect him. What other world leader would talk so straight to you, with the camera rolling and without a PR assistant? Let him be heard, for Christ’s sake. The American people have a right to hear the guy who lives 90 miles away on a hostile little island. The result: he was criticized for humanizing him, but if he had demonized him, they would have loved it.
Stone amazingly has expressed that you find other kinds of beauty. Moments can be deadly, so moments can be beautiful. You must find the beauty. So get on with it. If one door is blocked, move to another door. Adapt. If they try to stop you, find a way to persevere. Yes, if you call attention to yourself, you’ll get nailed. Stone only humanly tried to shake it up, and sometimes he has suffered for it. But he won’t stop. For it’s his ideological duty and moral too.
Janet Tamaro out of his own perceptive counting has maintained Oliver Stone plays the equal time game in Looking for Fidel, posing all the tough questions to Castro he somehow forgot to ask the first time around in his buddy-buddy act Comandante. Fortunately, HBO Inch asked Stone to return for a follow-up interview with the Maximum Leader after the March 2003 executions of three hijackers and arrest of more than 75 Cuban political dissidents; such framed up questions have failed to bother Stone for he is here to uphold truth and not otherwise. As a result Comandante has been criticized as too soft on the world’s longest-running communist  power-holder politician after its January Sundance premiere. Ironically, Looking for Fidel, designed as a corrective to its predecessor, emerges for “the moment as the only view of its subject on the pay cabler, the original having been yanked from its initial spring 2003 air dates and never reskedded.” 
Stone’s comradely, confidential tone with Castro in Comandante sliced both ways, cutting the dictator a lot of slack on the one hand but serving to relax and open him up on the other. Once you accepted that the interrogator was never going to nail his subject with too many probing queries, result could be appreciated for its prolonged, wide-ranging portrait of an unavoidably important figure in 20th century politics. This time around, Stone is all business; so to-the-point is his manner that it’s easy to pick up a subtext suggesting that the filmmaker couldn’t wait to get this obligatory assignment over with so he could move on to his epic project laying in wait, “Alexander.”
Sitting down across from Castro in very Mike Wallace fashion, Stone immediately confronts his host with the outrage of the international community over the brutality of Cuban justice in the cases of the hijackers and political opponents. Defending his actions as a proper response to “terrorism” and insisting he’d handle things just the same way if he had it to do all over again, Castro then indulges in a long-practiced habit of turning the negative spotlight away from his country and onto the United States, as he underlines the due process denied to the 800-odd prisoners held on his own island at Guantanamo Bay.
Stone is not disillusioned over the mega biopic. It is within his ken that the U.S. remains Castro’s obsession and bete noire, the oppositional force that has fed his revolutionary fervor for nearly 45 years. But at this point, from an American point of view, Castro looks like yesterday’s enemy. A rare remnant of the collapsed Soviet empire, Castro can fulminate all he wants about alleged and real Yank belligerence, hypocrisy and so on, but the loquacious old rebel now reps a faded side show to the main event on the world stage and must know it.
Stone has gently acknowledged his hidden passion for Fidel which he is “Looking for”. How else to explain his willingness, first, to sit down once again with Stone, aware that he’ll be getting nothing but high and hard fastballs and, second, to participate in a genuinely weird hearing-cum-news confabulations at which eight subsequent hijackers, who are about to be tried, air their grievances and propose what sentences they think they deserve. After weighing in from time to time and looking like he’s trying to contain intense exasperation, Castro tells the defense attorneys that it’s their job to argue for short sentences, after which we learn that the accused were all put away for 30 years to life.
Compared to the 99-minute Comandante, the frightened and tight, under-an-hour format of Looking for Fidel offers modest opportunity for casual or oblique insights, but it nonetheless yields a few. After a doctor performs a checkup and announces that the 77-year-old leader has the heart of a 32-year-old, Castro gets up and says, “I declare myself healthy” (truth be told, he looks paler and seems somewhat less sharp than he did in Comandante); confronted with Amnesty Intl.’s extensive criticisms of his regime, Castro states, “Cubans do not believe in Amnesty Intl.,” brands the org’s accusations “lies” and blithely dismisses all domestic dissidents as being in the employ of the U.S.
Stone puts particular energy into pressing Castro on the issue of his succession and even urges him to retire in favor of new blood, but naturally the gray fox will have none of it. “I think I will die with my boots on,” Castro confides, while disingenuously insisting that he’s had no time to think about the issue of who or what will come after him, other than to egotistically imagine that, after death, “My influence would grow.”
As always, Castro leads Stone out onto the street to show the gargantuan public support he still claims to enjoy among “the people,” against manipulated pic features snippets from opponents who tell a different story proving cipher. Camera angles and editing are sometimes febrile and very smart and eccentric for their own good, creating a borderline slapdash impression, and score verges on the uproarious singing of joy including non-decadent Internationale of brotherhood.

END
The Oliver Stone Experience | The Official Oliver Stone website | www.oliverstone.com
Official Oliver Stone site with the latest news and blog posts, as well as biography, detailed filmography, articles, books and screenplays.
1 day ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/107860381336457800445 Pradip Biswas : OLIVER STONE’S MANIFESTO LOOKING FOR FIDEL BY PRADIP BISWAS, THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, INDIA JURY...
OLIVER STONE’S MANIFESTO LOOKING FOR FIDEL
BY PRADIP BISWAS, THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, INDIA
JURY MEMBER INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL OF INDIA AND FRIBOURG INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL, SWISS



 

Fidel

(Oliver Stone, the intrepid filmmaker of America with a left bent, visited MAMI (Mumbai Academy of Moving Images) in 2010. This ideologue critic was with Stone and had snatched a fruitful session with Stone on his anti-American stand on many global issues. His Looking For Fidel is a watershed documentary on Cuba, though very controversial for those right-wingers).
 


 
“Fidel Castro is a moral, selfless and wise man”.
Oliver Stone
Fidel Castro, Cuba’s monolithic figurehead, is claimed to be responsible for ushering armed-struggled revolutions among small countries in South America, subjugated under glacial oppression for 500 hundred odd years. His only genuine associate in the battle for social change from imperial rulings is Che Guevara who overlooked Castro in many a way. When Oliver Stone decided to confront his own Govt. by announcing a massive biopic/ a political documentary on Fidel Castro, the bash had raised million red eyes in USA. Flacks were heaped on him for being supportive to Latin American countries. Not only that the White House tripped over the alarming news that their Oliver Stone is bent upon taking up Fidel in the explosive visual medium. As long as the cautionary warnings continued in the land, Oliver Stone landed with his documentary Looking for Fidel, he first of its kind in the world cinema that stays with time and history.
He was in the news as often as they have been about the news. JFK, Stone’s daring and divisive drama about a conspiracy to murder President John F. Kennedy, is still hotly debated and rightly so. It is said only in recent year, on a television special commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination, ABC News’s Peter Jennings noted that a significant number of Americans remain convinced of a conspiracy based entirely on Stone’s movie. Amazingly Stone has created indelible stories about Richard Nixon (in Nixon) and Jim Morrison (in The Doors) and tackled the American culture of violence in Natural Born Killers. His films about the Vietnam war—Heaven & Earth, Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July—are inextricably tied to the nation’s collective memory of the conflict and the 1960s antiwar movement. These documentaries are just palimpsest for the posterity to pursue. 
Almost no one is indifferent to Stone. He has die-hard fans, and film critics have lauded many of his movies/filmswith human zeal. Critic Leonard Maltin called JFK “a masterful cinematic achievement.” Norman Mailer called Nixon “a major work by a major artist.” That Stone is not a push-over came as a caveat to American super Rulers. This is why Stone’ rabid detractors are equally impassioned and don’t hide emotions, mainly on the surface. It is true some bovine carpers dismiss him as a paranoid nutcase; Time magazine dubbed him Mr. Conspiracy. After Stone described the September 11 terrorist attack on America as “a rebellion against globalization, against the American way,” journalist Christopher Hitchens called Stone “a moral and intellectual idiot.” But despite such binge of cruel attacks, Stone does not tilt and counter them with Euclidean wisdom. Inner reading of art of the film is mysterious and the critics like Hitchens and his clan coil back in the face of proud majority appreciations. Stone’s virulence thus seems to have dwarfed his bovine pack of detractors.  
Now let us know about his genealogy and upcoming of the turbid director. In formative years, Stone first enrolled at New York University to study filmmaking; with the end of tenure he wrote and directed his first movie, Seizure, in 1974. He gleefully won his first Oscar, in 1979, for his screenplay for Midnight Express. A decade after writing Platoon, he finally made the film, which was released in 1986. It won the Academy Award for best picture, and Stone won the best director award against heavy odds. He was also nominated that year for a best screen-writing Oscar for Salvador. Screenwriting nominations for JFK and Nixon followed, and he picked another best director statue for Born on the Fourth of July, made on scars of Vietnam. But among the lot Salvador is treated most angry and explosive because it made a polemical dive into political dialectics of Salvador, the cock-pit of power struggle.
On the making of Alexander the Great he seems to have pitched Greek mythology into  mystical attitudes of Greek people with élan. This time he was in college. H’d always wondered why his story had never been dramatized. His curiosity made him run for Alice In Wonderland, a piece of abandon wonders. According to him it’s one of the most extraordinary stories in history. His wonder remains..why hadn’t Shakespeare tried? Why hadn’t other great playwrights or screenwriters remained cold and passive?  Finally Stone blurted out: “I think he scares people off because he was so fucking successful. There’s an inherent dislike or fear or distrust of somebody who is that much bigger than life. It seemed too much for a story—the decadent politics, the outrageous ambition, the decadent lifestyle. So I struggled with how to make the movie that has eluded everyone. I loved the character, but I never thought I would get to do him.” No doubt, such was his mental possession and alien dreams struggling to be born!!! Making big projects needs bigger angels. He did not get financed in Hollywood. He was rejected there. Finally, they got to manage the film financed in Europe only, and it didn’t help to have Dino De Laurentiis telling his friends in various countries, “Don’t buy that movie.” This is avenging gesture and heinous. Without foreign sales you’re dead in the water. There were a lot of shenanigans, and there was a lot of ugliness. Stone is called names. He has tried to stay out of it. Says he: “I’m not going to be left with bad karma on my set. I just stuck to the work, and we eventually pulled people together and got the movie made.” He is of quaint caliber. His association with America is skewed and ludic one. Says he: “I’m not sure, but he’s what America wants. I’m not surprised by the then governor in calling shots. He’s got an amazing face. He’s got a great smile. He has great willpower. The guy pulls off amazing things with his charisma. Unless he really fucks up, he can go right to the White House.”
While reading him, this scribe forms a unique contour about Stone. Stone was in MAMI festival, Mumbai where this critic had long sessions on cinema and its dialectical leap; Stone, in a way, is scary one. He looks like a tiny little chamber of commerce guy. Such is the odd impression of many. Incidentally, in the 1950s he would have been considered distasteful. He’s worse than Nixon in his vulgarity. He looks like he shops at Wal-Mart. That’s not what a president is supposed to be. He has admitted it frankly. He has no intellectual curiosity and is proud of it. He says his wife does the book thing. He’s a liar, hiding behind a shallow and dangerous patriotism. In ridicule he peels off: “We’re number one. The American way.” He retorts: It’s a Superman comic book idea of the world. It covers up the complicated realities, and it’s very dangerous fallouts.”
It is said when Christopher Hitchens called Stone an idiot, Stone, not in anger but in pity called him “A moral and intellectual idiot, to be exact.” In the 1980s he admired Hitchens. He was strongly pro-Nicaragua and right about it. He seemed very intelligent. Since then he has gotten into an extremist groove. He has become an ideologue. He thought it behooved us to understand how America’s unilateralism, arrogance and history of pushing around the rest of the world enrages people. Since Iraq, the outrage is worse than ever.
Stone as a film ideologue has had mind-boggling ideas both political and sociological. His fears about regime of the Republicans are known to us. Says he: “I worry that the Republicans will do anything to win. For a long time I’ve worried that Bush will start another war before the election to get people fearful. Voters are nervous about changing leadership in the middle of a war. He bills himself as Mr. Security, which of course he’s not. He’s Mr. Insecurity. Every decision he has made has led to a worse military conclusion and a less secure nation. He has generated enormous hatred, and hatred begets violence. He shovels up the worst kind of patriotic crap. Thirty or 40 years ago, even in the 1920s, they would have run him out of town. Patriotic stuff works occasionally, as it did during Joe McCarthy’s time, but Bush is overdoing it.”
Stone is a man of open feelings and human warmth. What he hates, he hates. There is no compromise point. Talking about his film Alexander, he says: “I’m talking about hypocrisy. Our puritanism allows boys to kill and be killed but not humanity. It’s ludicrous. Once again we pretend things are one way. Alexander lived in a more honest time. We go into his bisexuality. It may offend some people, but sexuality in those days was a different thing. Pre-Christian morality. Young boys were with boys when they wanted to be. Sometimes it was physical and sometimes platonic. Nonetheless, a man was expected to marry. They didn’t know how heirs were made. At the time, many thought sperm itself contained the whole thing and that the vagina was merely the receptacle. It led them to view women as second-class citizens, as baggage carriers. Sexuality wasn’t necessarily tied to procreation and morality, and men were allowed to have a homosexual side as well as a heterosexual side.” However these are Stone’s personal ideas and thinking about Alexander to which we may not stumble to or chime with.
On cinema project Stone is specific to say: “I follow whatever motivates me, whatever puts the wind in my sails at the moment. I have to be zealous about a project, because it requires years. You have to be consumed by it. Whether it’s Alexander or U Turn, you give it your all. I’ve always changed genres. I’ll do a film noir and then a sports drama like Any Given Sunday. This is the first time I’ve done a historical epic. Ideas come to me, some people say too fast. Perhaps they’re right and I have to learn to slow down, but age takes care of that anyway. I just have to keep going. When I have been shut down, I’ve found a new way. I’m misunderstood and I keep going. I was accused of promoting violence. Anyone who knows me understands that I promote peace.”
On JFK, a project of awe and wonder, Stone had to say a lot of things: “Let’s look at JFK. JFK doesn’t say the things some people say it does. It’s very much a hypothesis. It’s a philosophical inquiry into what is truth, what is reality. If you look closely at the film, it’s written precisely with conditional tenses, what-ifs. It’s a timeworn method of drama. And we put out an entire book with footnotes to explain our sources. We made every effort to be honest, and we were raked over the coals. I was in Europe, thank God, but Peter Jennings took me apart on ABC on the 40th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination.”
Stone is believed to ne conspiracy-minded? Says Stone: “In Europe everyone is conspiracy-minded. They assume that things happen behind the scenes in government and business. They aren’t naive enough to believe the evening news and the soundbites from politicians. Americans want to believe the evening news. They want to believe the press conference. Don’t people realize that they’ve been lying to us for years? So they attack Michael Moore. They attack me.”
Now Fidel Castro, the political architect of people’s voice for over five decades, has caught Stone’s active imagination and self. No doubt for this he has been accused of pandering to Castro. In reality such cut makes no dent on Stone as he is too stoical to taradiddle. For Stone it was more than a epic adventure. His deep association and genuine camaraderie seem to have grown to the peak. Fidel instantly agreed to be lined by Stone. Knowing fully well that Stone is a maverick and could raise pro-Americab issues without dialectical knowledge. But during the 69 minute documentary no unpleasant questions have been asked or raised by Stone as is expected. It is because Stone profoundly believes America’s imperial role in Latin America since the beginning of 20th century. 
We need to know that oak-strong Stone stood by Castro and Cuba in its provocation of American interest. Says he: “ I saw great value in a deep look into a man who has had an enormous impact on history. I was never a journalist, grilling him on his human rights record. That wasn’t my purpose. I wanted to get inside his head. I did, too. I was accused of humanizing him, but what does that mean? I suggest that it’s useful to understand world leaders on the deepest possible level. Once again, though, people want a black-and-white story—Castro, Cuba, communist. What more is there to be said?” As a matter of fact, Stone  didn’t go in with much of an impression at all. He admired him because he’d done something extraordinary with his life. Through the interviews, he came to respect him. What other world leader would talk so straight to you, with the camera rolling and without a PR assistant? Let him be heard, for Christ’s sake. The American people have a right to hear the guy who lives 90 miles away on a hostile little island. The result: he was criticized for humanizing him, but if he had demonized him, they would have loved it.
Stone amazingly has expressed that you find other kinds of beauty. Moments can be deadly, so moments can be beautiful. You must find the beauty. So get on with it. If one door is blocked, move to another door. Adapt. If they try to stop you, find a way to persevere. Yes, if you call attention to yourself, you’ll get nailed. Stone only humanly tried to shake it up, and sometimes he has suffered for it. But he won’t stop. For it’s his ideological duty and moral too.
Janet Tamaro out of his own perceptive counting has maintained Oliver Stone plays the equal time game in Looking for Fidel, posing all the tough questions to Castro he somehow forgot to ask the first time around in his buddy-buddy act Comandante. Fortunately, HBO Inch asked Stone to return for a follow-up interview with the Maximum Leader after the March 2003 executions of three hijackers and arrest of more than 75 Cuban political dissidents; such framed up questions have failed to bother Stone for he is here to uphold truth and not otherwise. As a result Comandante has been criticized as too soft on the world’s longest-running communist  power-holder politician after its January Sundance premiere. Ironically, Looking for Fidel, designed as a corrective to its predecessor, emerges for “the moment as the only view of its subject on the pay cabler, the original having been yanked from its initial spring 2003 air dates and never reskedded.” 
Stone’s comradely, confidential tone with Castro in Comandante sliced both ways, cutting the dictator a lot of slack on the one hand but serving to relax and open him up on the other. Once you accepted that the interrogator was never going to nail his subject with too many probing queries, result could be appreciated for its prolonged, wide-ranging portrait of an unavoidably important figure in 20th century politics. This time around, Stone is all business; so to-the-point is his manner that it’s easy to pick up a subtext suggesting that the filmmaker couldn’t wait to get this obligatory assignment over with so he could move on to his epic project laying in wait, “Alexander.”
Sitting down across from Castro in very Mike Wallace fashion, Stone immediately confronts his host with the outrage of the international community over the brutality of Cuban justice in the cases of the hijackers and political opponents. Defending his actions as a proper response to “terrorism” and insisting he’d handle things just the same way if he had it to do all over again, Castro then indulges in a long-practiced habit of turning the negative spotlight away from his country and onto the United States, as he underlines the due process denied to the 800-odd prisoners held on his own island at Guantanamo Bay.
Stone is not disillusioned over the mega biopic. It is within his ken that the U.S. remains Castro’s obsession and bete noire, the oppositional force that has fed his revolutionary fervor for nearly 45 years. But at this point, from an American point of view, Castro looks like yesterday’s enemy. A rare remnant of the collapsed Soviet empire, Castro can fulminate all he wants about alleged and real Yank belligerence, hypocrisy and so on, but the loquacious old rebel now reps a faded side show to the main event on the world stage and must know it.
Stone has gently acknowledged his hidden passion for Fidel which he is “Looking for”. How else to explain his willingness, first, to sit down once again with Stone, aware that he’ll be getting nothing but high and hard fastballs and, second, to participate in a genuinely weird hearing-cum-news confabulations at which eight subsequent hijackers, who are about to be tried, air their grievances and propose what sentences they think they deserve. After weighing in from time to time and looking like he’s trying to contain intense exasperation, Castro tells the defense attorneys that it’s their job to argue for short sentences, after which we learn that the accused were all put away for 30 years to life.
Compared to the 99-minute Comandante, the frightened and tight, under-an-hour format of Looking for Fidel offers modest opportunity for casual or oblique insights, but it nonetheless yields a few. After a doctor performs a checkup and announces that the 77-year-old leader has the heart of a 32-year-old, Castro gets up and says, “I declare myself healthy” (truth be told, he looks paler and seems somewhat less sharp than he did in Comandante); confronted with Amnesty Intl.’s extensive criticisms of his regime, Castro states, “Cubans do not believe in Amnesty Intl.,” brands the org’s accusations “lies” and blithely dismisses all domestic dissidents as being in the employ of the U.S.
Stone puts particular energy into pressing Castro on the issue of his succession and even urges him to retire in favor of new blood, but naturally the gray fox will have none of it. “I think I will die with my boots on,” Castro confides, while disingenuously insisting that he’s had no time to think about the issue of who or what will come after him, other than to egotistically imagine that, after death, “My influence would grow.”
As always, Castro leads Stone out onto the street to show the gargantuan public support he still claims to enjoy among “the people,” against manipulated pic features snippets from opponents who tell a different story proving cipher. Camera angles and editing are sometimes febrile and very smart and eccentric for their own good, creating a borderline slapdash impression, and score verges on the uproarious singing of joy including non-decadent Internationale of brotherhood.

END
The Oliver Stone Experience | The Official Oliver Stone website | www.oliverstone.com
Official Oliver Stone site with the latest news and blog posts, as well as biography, detailed filmography, articles, books and screenplays.
1 day ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/107860381336457800445 Pradip Biswas : OLIVER STONE’S MANIFESTO LOOKING FOR FIDEL BY PRADIP BISWAS, THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, INDIA JURY...
OLIVER STONE’S MANIFESTO LOOKING FOR FIDEL
BY PRADIP BISWAS, THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, INDIA
JURY MEMBER INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL OF INDIA AND FRIBOURG INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL, SWISS



 

Fidel

(Oliver Stone, the intrepid filmmaker of America with a left bent, visited MAMI (Mumbai Academy of Moving Images) in 2010. This ideologue critic was with Stone and had snatched a fruitful session with Stone on his anti-American stand on many global issues. His Looking For Fidel is a watershed documentary on Cuba, though very controversial for those right-wingers).
 


 
“Fidel Castro is a moral, selfless and wise man”.
Oliver Stone
Fidel Castro, Cuba’s monolithic figurehead, is claimed to be responsible for ushering armed-struggled revolutions among small countries in South America, subjugated under glacial oppression for 500 hundred odd years. His only genuine associate in the battle for social change from imperial rulings is Che Guevara who overlooked Castro in many a way. When Oliver Stone decided to confront his own Govt. by announcing a massive biopic/ a political documentary on Fidel Castro, the bash had raised million red eyes in USA. Flacks were heaped on him for being supportive to Latin American countries. Not only that the White House tripped over the alarming news that their Oliver Stone is bent upon taking up Fidel in the explosive visual medium. As long as the cautionary warnings continued in the land, Oliver Stone landed with his documentary Looking for Fidel, he first of its kind in the world cinema that stays with time and history.
He was in the news as often as they have been about the news. JFK, Stone’s daring and divisive drama about a conspiracy to murder President John F. Kennedy, is still hotly debated and rightly so. It is said only in recent year, on a television special commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination, ABC News’s Peter Jennings noted that a significant number of Americans remain convinced of a conspiracy based entirely on Stone’s movie. Amazingly Stone has created indelible stories about Richard Nixon (in Nixon) and Jim Morrison (in The Doors) and tackled the American culture of violence in Natural Born Killers. His films about the Vietnam war—Heaven & Earth, Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July—are inextricably tied to the nation’s collective memory of the conflict and the 1960s antiwar movement. These documentaries are just palimpsest for the posterity to pursue. 
Almost no one is indifferent to Stone. He has die-hard fans, and film critics have lauded many of his movies/filmswith human zeal. Critic Leonard Maltin called JFK “a masterful cinematic achievement.” Norman Mailer called Nixon “a major work by a major artist.” That Stone is not a push-over came as a caveat to American super Rulers. This is why Stone’ rabid detractors are equally impassioned and don’t hide emotions, mainly on the surface. It is true some bovine carpers dismiss him as a paranoid nutcase; Time magazine dubbed him Mr. Conspiracy. After Stone described the September 11 terrorist attack on America as “a rebellion against globalization, against the American way,” journalist Christopher Hitchens called Stone “a moral and intellectual idiot.” But despite such binge of cruel attacks, Stone does not tilt and counter them with Euclidean wisdom. Inner reading of art of the film is mysterious and the critics like Hitchens and his clan coil back in the face of proud majority appreciations. Stone’s virulence thus seems to have dwarfed his bovine pack of detractors.  
Now let us know about his genealogy and upcoming of the turbid director. In formative years, Stone first enrolled at New York University to study filmmaking; with the end of tenure he wrote and directed his first movie, Seizure, in 1974. He gleefully won his first Oscar, in 1979, for his screenplay for Midnight Express. A decade after writing Platoon, he finally made the film, which was released in 1986. It won the Academy Award for best picture, and Stone won the best director award against heavy odds. He was also nominated that year for a best screen-writing Oscar for Salvador. Screenwriting nominations for JFK and Nixon followed, and he picked another best director statue for Born on the Fourth of July, made on scars of Vietnam. But among the lot Salvador is treated most angry and explosive because it made a polemical dive into political dialectics of Salvador, the cock-pit of power struggle.
On the making of Alexander the Great he seems to have pitched Greek mythology into  mystical attitudes of Greek people with élan. This time he was in college. H’d always wondered why his story had never been dramatized. His curiosity made him run for Alice In Wonderland, a piece of abandon wonders. According to him it’s one of the most extraordinary stories in history. His wonder remains..why hadn’t Shakespeare tried? Why hadn’t other great playwrights or screenwriters remained cold and passive?  Finally Stone blurted out: “I think he scares people off because he was so fucking successful. There’s an inherent dislike or fear or distrust of somebody who is that much bigger than life. It seemed too much for a story—the decadent politics, the outrageous ambition, the decadent lifestyle. So I struggled with how to make the movie that has eluded everyone. I loved the character, but I never thought I would get to do him.” No doubt, such was his mental possession and alien dreams struggling to be born!!! Making big projects needs bigger angels. He did not get financed in Hollywood. He was rejected there. Finally, they got to manage the film financed in Europe only, and it didn’t help to have Dino De Laurentiis telling his friends in various countries, “Don’t buy that movie.” This is avenging gesture and heinous. Without foreign sales you’re dead in the water. There were a lot of shenanigans, and there was a lot of ugliness. Stone is called names. He has tried to stay out of it. Says he: “I’m not going to be left with bad karma on my set. I just stuck to the work, and we eventually pulled people together and got the movie made.” He is of quaint caliber. His association with America is skewed and ludic one. Says he: “I’m not sure, but he’s what America wants. I’m not surprised by the then governor in calling shots. He’s got an amazing face. He’s got a great smile. He has great willpower. The guy pulls off amazing things with his charisma. Unless he really fucks up, he can go right to the White House.”
While reading him, this scribe forms a unique contour about Stone. Stone was in MAMI festival, Mumbai where this critic had long sessions on cinema and its dialectical leap; Stone, in a way, is scary one. He looks like a tiny little chamber of commerce guy. Such is the odd impression of many. Incidentally, in the 1950s he would have been considered distasteful. He’s worse than Nixon in his vulgarity. He looks like he shops at Wal-Mart. That’s not what a president is supposed to be. He has admitted it frankly. He has no intellectual curiosity and is proud of it. He says his wife does the book thing. He’s a liar, hiding behind a shallow and dangerous patriotism. In ridicule he peels off: “We’re number one. The American way.” He retorts: It’s a Superman comic book idea of the world. It covers up the complicated realities, and it’s very dangerous fallouts.”
It is said when Christopher Hitchens called Stone an idiot, Stone, not in anger but in pity called him “A moral and intellectual idiot, to be exact.” In the 1980s he admired Hitchens. He was strongly pro-Nicaragua and right about it. He seemed very intelligent. Since then he has gotten into an extremist groove. He has become an ideologue. He thought it behooved us to understand how America’s unilateralism, arrogance and history of pushing around the rest of the world enrages people. Since Iraq, the outrage is worse than ever.
Stone as a film ideologue has had mind-boggling ideas both political and sociological. His fears about regime of the Republicans are known to us. Says he: “I worry that the Republicans will do anything to win. For a long time I’ve worried that Bush will start another war before the election to get people fearful. Voters are nervous about changing leadership in the middle of a war. He bills himself as Mr. Security, which of course he’s not. He’s Mr. Insecurity. Every decision he has made has led to a worse military conclusion and a less secure nation. He has generated enormous hatred, and hatred begets violence. He shovels up the worst kind of patriotic crap. Thirty or 40 years ago, even in the 1920s, they would have run him out of town. Patriotic stuff works occasionally, as it did during Joe McCarthy’s time, but Bush is overdoing it.”
Stone is a man of open feelings and human warmth. What he hates, he hates. There is no compromise point. Talking about his film Alexander, he says: “I’m talking about hypocrisy. Our puritanism allows boys to kill and be killed but not humanity. It’s ludicrous. Once again we pretend things are one way. Alexander lived in a more honest time. We go into his bisexuality. It may offend some people, but sexuality in those days was a different thing. Pre-Christian morality. Young boys were with boys when they wanted to be. Sometimes it was physical and sometimes platonic. Nonetheless, a man was expected to marry. They didn’t know how heirs were made. At the time, many thought sperm itself contained the whole thing and that the vagina was merely the receptacle. It led them to view women as second-class citizens, as baggage carriers. Sexuality wasn’t necessarily tied to procreation and morality, and men were allowed to have a homosexual side as well as a heterosexual side.” However these are Stone’s personal ideas and thinking about Alexander to which we may not stumble to or chime with.
On cinema project Stone is specific to say: “I follow whatever motivates me, whatever puts the wind in my sails at the moment. I have to be zealous about a project, because it requires years. You have to be consumed by it. Whether it’s Alexander or U Turn, you give it your all. I’ve always changed genres. I’ll do a film noir and then a sports drama like Any Given Sunday. This is the first time I’ve done a historical epic. Ideas come to me, some people say too fast. Perhaps they’re right and I have to learn to slow down, but age takes care of that anyway. I just have to keep going. When I have been shut down, I’ve found a new way. I’m misunderstood and I keep going. I was accused of promoting violence. Anyone who knows me understands that I promote peace.”
On JFK, a project of awe and wonder, Stone had to say a lot of things: “Let’s look at JFK. JFK doesn’t say the things some people say it does. It’s very much a hypothesis. It’s a philosophical inquiry into what is truth, what is reality. If you look closely at the film, it’s written precisely with conditional tenses, what-ifs. It’s a timeworn method of drama. And we put out an entire book with footnotes to explain our sources. We made every effort to be honest, and we were raked over the coals. I was in Europe, thank God, but Peter Jennings took me apart on ABC on the 40th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination.”
Stone is believed to ne conspiracy-minded? Says Stone: “In Europe everyone is conspiracy-minded. They assume that things happen behind the scenes in government and business. They aren’t naive enough to believe the evening news and the soundbites from politicians. Americans want to believe the evening news. They want to believe the press conference. Don’t people realize that they’ve been lying to us for years? So they attack Michael Moore. They attack me.”
Now Fidel Castro, the political architect of people’s voice for over five decades, has caught Stone’s active imagination and self. No doubt for this he has been accused of pandering to Castro. In reality such cut makes no dent on Stone as he is too stoical to taradiddle. For Stone it was more than a epic adventure. His deep association and genuine camaraderie seem to have grown to the peak. Fidel instantly agreed to be lined by Stone. Knowing fully well that Stone is a maverick and could raise pro-Americab issues without dialectical knowledge. But during the 69 minute documentary no unpleasant questions have been asked or raised by Stone as is expected. It is because Stone profoundly believes America’s imperial role in Latin America since the beginning of 20th century. 
We need to know that oak-strong Stone stood by Castro and Cuba in its provocation of American interest. Says he: “ I saw great value in a deep look into a man who has had an enormous impact on history. I was never a journalist, grilling him on his human rights record. That wasn’t my purpose. I wanted to get inside his head. I did, too. I was accused of humanizing him, but what does that mean? I suggest that it’s useful to understand world leaders on the deepest possible level. Once again, though, people want a black-and-white story—Castro, Cuba, communist. What more is there to be said?” As a matter of fact, Stone  didn’t go in with much of an impression at all. He admired him because he’d done something extraordinary with his life. Through the interviews, he came to respect him. What other world leader would talk so straight to you, with the camera rolling and without a PR assistant? Let him be heard, for Christ’s sake. The American people have a right to hear the guy who lives 90 miles away on a hostile little island. The result: he was criticized for humanizing him, but if he had demonized him, they would have loved it.
Stone amazingly has expressed that you find other kinds of beauty. Moments can be deadly, so moments can be beautiful. You must find the beauty. So get on with it. If one door is blocked, move to another door. Adapt. If they try to stop you, find a way to persevere. Yes, if you call attention to yourself, you’ll get nailed. Stone only humanly tried to shake it up, and sometimes he has suffered for it. But he won’t stop. For it’s his ideological duty and moral too.
Janet Tamaro out of his own perceptive counting has maintained Oliver Stone plays the equal time game in Looking for Fidel, posing all the tough questions to Castro he somehow forgot to ask the first time around in his buddy-buddy act Comandante. Fortunately, HBO Inch asked Stone to return for a follow-up interview with the Maximum Leader after the March 2003 executions of three hijackers and arrest of more than 75 Cuban political dissidents; such framed up questions have failed to bother Stone for he is here to uphold truth and not otherwise. As a result Comandante has been criticized as too soft on the world’s longest-running communist  power-holder politician after its January Sundance premiere. Ironically, Looking for Fidel, designed as a corrective to its predecessor, emerges for “the moment as the only view of its subject on the pay cabler, the original having been yanked from its initial spring 2003 air dates and never reskedded.” 
Stone’s comradely, confidential tone with Castro in Comandante sliced both ways, cutting the dictator a lot of slack on the one hand but serving to relax and open him up on the other. Once you accepted that the interrogator was never going to nail his subject with too many probing queries, result could be appreciated for its prolonged, wide-ranging portrait of an unavoidably important figure in 20th century politics. This time around, Stone is all business; so to-the-point is his manner that it’s easy to pick up a subtext suggesting that the filmmaker couldn’t wait to get this obligatory assignment over with so he could move on to his epic project laying in wait, “Alexander.”
Sitting down across from Castro in very Mike Wallace fashion, Stone immediately confronts his host with the outrage of the international community over the brutality of Cuban justice in the cases of the hijackers and political opponents. Defending his actions as a proper response to “terrorism” and insisting he’d handle things just the same way if he had it to do all over again, Castro then indulges in a long-practiced habit of turning the negative spotlight away from his country and onto the United States, as he underlines the due process denied to the 800-odd prisoners held on his own island at Guantanamo Bay.
Stone is not disillusioned over the mega biopic. It is within his ken that the U.S. remains Castro’s obsession and bete noire, the oppositional force that has fed his revolutionary fervor for nearly 45 years. But at this point, from an American point of view, Castro looks like yesterday’s enemy. A rare remnant of the collapsed Soviet empire, Castro can fulminate all he wants about alleged and real Yank belligerence, hypocrisy and so on, but the loquacious old rebel now reps a faded side show to the main event on the world stage and must know it.
Stone has gently acknowledged his hidden passion for Fidel which he is “Looking for”. How else to explain his willingness, first, to sit down once again with Stone, aware that he’ll be getting nothing but high and hard fastballs and, second, to participate in a genuinely weird hearing-cum-news confabulations at which eight subsequent hijackers, who are about to be tried, air their grievances and propose what sentences they think they deserve. After weighing in from time to time and looking like he’s trying to contain intense exasperation, Castro tells the defense attorneys that it’s their job to argue for short sentences, after which we learn that the accused were all put away for 30 years to life.
Compared to the 99-minute Comandante, the frightened and tight, under-an-hour format of Looking for Fidel offers modest opportunity for casual or oblique insights, but it nonetheless yields a few. After a doctor performs a checkup and announces that the 77-year-old leader has the heart of a 32-year-old, Castro gets up and says, “I declare myself healthy” (truth be told, he looks paler and seems somewhat less sharp than he did in Comandante); confronted with Amnesty Intl.’s extensive criticisms of his regime, Castro states, “Cubans do not believe in Amnesty Intl.,” brands the org’s accusations “lies” and blithely dismisses all domestic dissidents as being in the employ of the U.S.
Stone puts particular energy into pressing Castro on the issue of his succession and even urges him to retire in favor of new blood, but naturally the gray fox will have none of it. “I think I will die with my boots on,” Castro confides, while disingenuously insisting that he’s had no time to think about the issue of who or what will come after him, other than to egotistically imagine that, after death, “My influence would grow.”
As always, Castro leads Stone out onto the street to show the gargantuan public support he still claims to enjoy among “the people,” against manipulated pic features snippets from opponents who tell a different story proving cipher. Camera angles and editing are sometimes febrile and very smart and eccentric for their own good, creating a borderline slapdash impression, and score verges on the uproarious singing of joy including non-decadent Internationale of brotherhood.

END
The Oliver Stone Experience | The Official Oliver Stone website | www.oliverstone.com
Official Oliver Stone site with the latest news and blog posts, as well as biography, detailed filmography, articles, books and screenplays.
1 day ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/107860381336457800445 Pradip Biswas : OLIVER STONE’S MANIFESTO LOOKING FOR FIDEL BY PRADIP BISWAS, THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, INDIA JURY...
OLIVER STONE’S MANIFESTO LOOKING FOR FIDEL
BY PRADIP BISWAS, THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, INDIA
JURY MEMBER INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL OF INDIA AND FRIBOURG INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL, SWISS



 

Fidel

(Oliver Stone, the intrepid filmmaker of America with a left bent, visited MAMI (Mumbai Academy of Moving Images) in 2010. This ideologue critic was with Stone and had snatched a fruitful session with Stone on his anti-American stand on many global issues. His Looking For Fidel is a watershed documentary on Cuba, though very controversial for those right-wingers).
 


 
“Fidel Castro is a moral, selfless and wise man”.
Oliver Stone
Fidel Castro, Cuba’s monolithic figurehead, is claimed to be responsible for ushering armed-struggled revolutions among small countries in South America, subjugated under glacial oppression for 500 hundred odd years. His only genuine associate in the battle for social change from imperial rulings is Che Guevara who overlooked Castro in many a way. When Oliver Stone decided to confront his own Govt. by announcing a massive biopic/ a political documentary on Fidel Castro, the bash had raised million red eyes in USA. Flacks were heaped on him for being supportive to Latin American countries. Not only that the White House tripped over the alarming news that their Oliver Stone is bent upon taking up Fidel in the explosive visual medium. As long as the cautionary warnings continued in the land, Oliver Stone landed with his documentary Looking for Fidel, he first of its kind in the world cinema that stays with time and history.
He was in the news as often as they have been about the news. JFK, Stone’s daring and divisive drama about a conspiracy to murder President John F. Kennedy, is still hotly debated and rightly so. It is said only in recent year, on a television special commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination, ABC News’s Peter Jennings noted that a significant number of Americans remain convinced of a conspiracy based entirely on Stone’s movie. Amazingly Stone has created indelible stories about Richard Nixon (in Nixon) and Jim Morrison (in The Doors) and tackled the American culture of violence in Natural Born Killers. His films about the Vietnam war—Heaven & Earth, Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July—are inextricably tied to the nation’s collective memory of the conflict and the 1960s antiwar movement. These documentaries are just palimpsest for the posterity to pursue. 
Almost no one is indifferent to Stone. He has die-hard fans, and film critics have lauded many of his movies/filmswith human zeal. Critic Leonard Maltin called JFK “a masterful cinematic achievement.” Norman Mailer called Nixon “a major work by a major artist.” That Stone is not a push-over came as a caveat to American super Rulers. This is why Stone’ rabid detractors are equally impassioned and don’t hide emotions, mainly on the surface. It is true some bovine carpers dismiss him as a paranoid nutcase; Time magazine dubbed him Mr. Conspiracy. After Stone described the September 11 terrorist attack on America as “a rebellion against globalization, against the American way,” journalist Christopher Hitchens called Stone “a moral and intellectual idiot.” But despite such binge of cruel attacks, Stone does not tilt and counter them with Euclidean wisdom. Inner reading of art of the film is mysterious and the critics like Hitchens and his clan coil back in the face of proud majority appreciations. Stone’s virulence thus seems to have dwarfed his bovine pack of detractors.  
Now let us know about his genealogy and upcoming of the turbid director. In formative years, Stone first enrolled at New York University to study filmmaking; with the end of tenure he wrote and directed his first movie, Seizure, in 1974. He gleefully won his first Oscar, in 1979, for his screenplay for Midnight Express. A decade after writing Platoon, he finally made the film, which was released in 1986. It won the Academy Award for best picture, and Stone won the best director award against heavy odds. He was also nominated that year for a best screen-writing Oscar for Salvador. Screenwriting nominations for JFK and Nixon followed, and he picked another best director statue for Born on the Fourth of July, made on scars of Vietnam. But among the lot Salvador is treated most angry and explosive because it made a polemical dive into political dialectics of Salvador, the cock-pit of power struggle.
On the making of Alexander the Great he seems to have pitched Greek mythology into  mystical attitudes of Greek people with élan. This time he was in college. H’d always wondered why his story had never been dramatized. His curiosity made him run for Alice In Wonderland, a piece of abandon wonders. According to him it’s one of the most extraordinary stories in history. His wonder remains..why hadn’t Shakespeare tried? Why hadn’t other great playwrights or screenwriters remained cold and passive?  Finally Stone blurted out: “I think he scares people off because he was so fucking successful. There’s an inherent dislike or fear or distrust of somebody who is that much bigger than life. It seemed too much for a story—the decadent politics, the outrageous ambition, the decadent lifestyle. So I struggled with how to make the movie that has eluded everyone. I loved the character, but I never thought I would get to do him.” No doubt, such was his mental possession and alien dreams struggling to be born!!! Making big projects needs bigger angels. He did not get financed in Hollywood. He was rejected there. Finally, they got to manage the film financed in Europe only, and it didn’t help to have Dino De Laurentiis telling his friends in various countries, “Don’t buy that movie.” This is avenging gesture and heinous. Without foreign sales you’re dead in the water. There were a lot of shenanigans, and there was a lot of ugliness. Stone is called names. He has tried to stay out of it. Says he: “I’m not going to be left with bad karma on my set. I just stuck to the work, and we eventually pulled people together and got the movie made.” He is of quaint caliber. His association with America is skewed and ludic one. Says he: “I’m not sure, but he’s what America wants. I’m not surprised by the then governor in calling shots. He’s got an amazing face. He’s got a great smile. He has great willpower. The guy pulls off amazing things with his charisma. Unless he really fucks up, he can go right to the White House.”
While reading him, this scribe forms a unique contour about Stone. Stone was in MAMI festival, Mumbai where this critic had long sessions on cinema and its dialectical leap; Stone, in a way, is scary one. He looks like a tiny little chamber of commerce guy. Such is the odd impression of many. Incidentally, in the 1950s he would have been considered distasteful. He’s worse than Nixon in his vulgarity. He looks like he shops at Wal-Mart. That’s not what a president is supposed to be. He has admitted it frankly. He has no intellectual curiosity and is proud of it. He says his wife does the book thing. He’s a liar, hiding behind a shallow and dangerous patriotism. In ridicule he peels off: “We’re number one. The American way.” He retorts: It’s a Superman comic book idea of the world. It covers up the complicated realities, and it’s very dangerous fallouts.”
It is said when Christopher Hitchens called Stone an idiot, Stone, not in anger but in pity called him “A moral and intellectual idiot, to be exact.” In the 1980s he admired Hitchens. He was strongly pro-Nicaragua and right about it. He seemed very intelligent. Since then he has gotten into an extremist groove. He has become an ideologue. He thought it behooved us to understand how America’s unilateralism, arrogance and history of pushing around the rest of the world enrages people. Since Iraq, the outrage is worse than ever.
Stone as a film ideologue has had mind-boggling ideas both political and sociological. His fears about regime of the Republicans are known to us. Says he: “I worry that the Republicans will do anything to win. For a long time I’ve worried that Bush will start another war before the election to get people fearful. Voters are nervous about changing leadership in the middle of a war. He bills himself as Mr. Security, which of course he’s not. He’s Mr. Insecurity. Every decision he has made has led to a worse military conclusion and a less secure nation. He has generated enormous hatred, and hatred begets violence. He shovels up the worst kind of patriotic crap. Thirty or 40 years ago, even in the 1920s, they would have run him out of town. Patriotic stuff works occasionally, as it did during Joe McCarthy’s time, but Bush is overdoing it.”
Stone is a man of open feelings and human warmth. What he hates, he hates. There is no compromise point. Talking about his film Alexander, he says: “I’m talking about hypocrisy. Our puritanism allows boys to kill and be killed but not humanity. It’s ludicrous. Once again we pretend things are one way. Alexander lived in a more honest time. We go into his bisexuality. It may offend some people, but sexuality in those days was a different thing. Pre-Christian morality. Young boys were with boys when they wanted to be. Sometimes it was physical and sometimes platonic. Nonetheless, a man was expected to marry. They didn’t know how heirs were made. At the time, many thought sperm itself contained the whole thing and that the vagina was merely the receptacle. It led them to view women as second-class citizens, as baggage carriers. Sexuality wasn’t necessarily tied to procreation and morality, and men were allowed to have a homosexual side as well as a heterosexual side.” However these are Stone’s personal ideas and thinking about Alexander to which we may not stumble to or chime with.
On cinema project Stone is specific to say: “I follow whatever motivates me, whatever puts the wind in my sails at the moment. I have to be zealous about a project, because it requires years. You have to be consumed by it. Whether it’s Alexander or U Turn, you give it your all. I’ve always changed genres. I’ll do a film noir and then a sports drama like Any Given Sunday. This is the first time I’ve done a historical epic. Ideas come to me, some people say too fast. Perhaps they’re right and I have to learn to slow down, but age takes care of that anyway. I just have to keep going. When I have been shut down, I’ve found a new way. I’m misunderstood and I keep going. I was accused of promoting violence. Anyone who knows me understands that I promote peace.”
On JFK, a project of awe and wonder, Stone had to say a lot of things: “Let’s look at JFK. JFK doesn’t say the things some people say it does. It’s very much a hypothesis. It’s a philosophical inquiry into what is truth, what is reality. If you look closely at the film, it’s written precisely with conditional tenses, what-ifs. It’s a timeworn method of drama. And we put out an entire book with footnotes to explain our sources. We made every effort to be honest, and we were raked over the coals. I was in Europe, thank God, but Peter Jennings took me apart on ABC on the 40th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination.”
Stone is believed to ne conspiracy-minded? Says Stone: “In Europe everyone is conspiracy-minded. They assume that things happen behind the scenes in government and business. They aren’t naive enough to believe the evening news and the soundbites from politicians. Americans want to believe the evening news. They want to believe the press conference. Don’t people realize that they’ve been lying to us for years? So they attack Michael Moore. They attack me.”
Now Fidel Castro, the political architect of people’s voice for over five decades, has caught Stone’s active imagination and self. No doubt for this he has been accused of pandering to Castro. In reality such cut makes no dent on Stone as he is too stoical to taradiddle. For Stone it was more than a epic adventure. His deep association and genuine camaraderie seem to have grown to the peak. Fidel instantly agreed to be lined by Stone. Knowing fully well that Stone is a maverick and could raise pro-Americab issues without dialectical knowledge. But during the 69 minute documentary no unpleasant questions have been asked or raised by Stone as is expected. It is because Stone profoundly believes America’s imperial role in Latin America since the beginning of 20th century. 
We need to know that oak-strong Stone stood by Castro and Cuba in its provocation of American interest. Says he: “ I saw great value in a deep look into a man who has had an enormous impact on history. I was never a journalist, grilling him on his human rights record. That wasn’t my purpose. I wanted to get inside his head. I did, too. I was accused of humanizing him, but what does that mean? I suggest that it’s useful to understand world leaders on the deepest possible level. Once again, though, people want a black-and-white story—Castro, Cuba, communist. What more is there to be said?” As a matter of fact, Stone  didn’t go in with much of an impression at all. He admired him because he’d done something extraordinary with his life. Through the interviews, he came to respect him. What other world leader would talk so straight to you, with the camera rolling and without a PR assistant? Let him be heard, for Christ’s sake. The American people have a right to hear the guy who lives 90 miles away on a hostile little island. The result: he was criticized for humanizing him, but if he had demonized him, they would have loved it.
Stone amazingly has expressed that you find other kinds of beauty. Moments can be deadly, so moments can be beautiful. You must find the beauty. So get on with it. If one door is blocked, move to another door. Adapt. If they try to stop you, find a way to persevere. Yes, if you call attention to yourself, you’ll get nailed. Stone only humanly tried to shake it up, and sometimes he has suffered for it. But he won’t stop. For it’s his ideological duty and moral too.
Janet Tamaro out of his own perceptive counting has maintained Oliver Stone plays the equal time game in Looking for Fidel, posing all the tough questions to Castro he somehow forgot to ask the first time around in his buddy-buddy act Comandante. Fortunately, HBO Inch asked Stone to return for a follow-up interview with the Maximum Leader after the March 2003 executions of three hijackers and arrest of more than 75 Cuban political dissidents; such framed up questions have failed to bother Stone for he is here to uphold truth and not otherwise. As a result Comandante has been criticized as too soft on the world’s longest-running communist  power-holder politician after its January Sundance premiere. Ironically, Looking for Fidel, designed as a corrective to its predecessor, emerges for “the moment as the only view of its subject on the pay cabler, the original having been yanked from its initial spring 2003 air dates and never reskedded.” 
Stone’s comradely, confidential tone with Castro in Comandante sliced both ways, cutting the dictator a lot of slack on the one hand but serving to relax and open him up on the other. Once you accepted that the interrogator was never going to nail his subject with too many probing queries, result could be appreciated for its prolonged, wide-ranging portrait of an unavoidably important figure in 20th century politics. This time around, Stone is all business; so to-the-point is his manner that it’s easy to pick up a subtext suggesting that the filmmaker couldn’t wait to get this obligatory assignment over with so he could move on to his epic project laying in wait, “Alexander.”
Sitting down across from Castro in very Mike Wallace fashion, Stone immediately confronts his host with the outrage of the international community over the brutality of Cuban justice in the cases of the hijackers and political opponents. Defending his actions as a proper response to “terrorism” and insisting he’d handle things just the same way if he had it to do all over again, Castro then indulges in a long-practiced habit of turning the negative spotlight away from his country and onto the United States, as he underlines the due process denied to the 800-odd prisoners held on his own island at Guantanamo Bay.
Stone is not disillusioned over the mega biopic. It is within his ken that the U.S. remains Castro’s obsession and bete noire, the oppositional force that has fed his revolutionary fervor for nearly 45 years. But at this point, from an American point of view, Castro looks like yesterday’s enemy. A rare remnant of the collapsed Soviet empire, Castro can fulminate all he wants about alleged and real Yank belligerence, hypocrisy and so on, but the loquacious old rebel now reps a faded side show to the main event on the world stage and must know it.
Stone has gently acknowledged his hidden passion for Fidel which he is “Looking for”. How else to explain his willingness, first, to sit down once again with Stone, aware that he’ll be getting nothing but high and hard fastballs and, second, to participate in a genuinely weird hearing-cum-news confabulations at which eight subsequent hijackers, who are about to be tried, air their grievances and propose what sentences they think they deserve. After weighing in from time to time and looking like he’s trying to contain intense exasperation, Castro tells the defense attorneys that it’s their job to argue for short sentences, after which we learn that the accused were all put away for 30 years to life.
Compared to the 99-minute Comandante, the frightened and tight, under-an-hour format of Looking for Fidel offers modest opportunity for casual or oblique insights, but it nonetheless yields a few. After a doctor performs a checkup and announces that the 77-year-old leader has the heart of a 32-year-old, Castro gets up and says, “I declare myself healthy” (truth be told, he looks paler and seems somewhat less sharp than he did in Comandante); confronted with Amnesty Intl.’s extensive criticisms of his regime, Castro states, “Cubans do not believe in Amnesty Intl.,” brands the org’s accusations “lies” and blithely dismisses all domestic dissidents as being in the employ of the U.S.
Stone puts particular energy into pressing Castro on the issue of his succession and even urges him to retire in favor of new blood, but naturally the gray fox will have none of it. “I think I will die with my boots on,” Castro confides, while disingenuously insisting that he’s had no time to think about the issue of who or what will come after him, other than to egotistically imagine that, after death, “My influence would grow.”
As always, Castro leads Stone out onto the street to show the gargantuan public support he still claims to enjoy among “the people,” against manipulated pic features snippets from opponents who tell a different story proving cipher. Camera angles and editing are sometimes febrile and very smart and eccentric for their own good, creating a borderline slapdash impression, and score verges on the uproarious singing of joy including non-decadent Internationale of brotherhood.

END
The Oliver Stone Experience | The Official Oliver Stone website | www.oliverstone.com
Official Oliver Stone site with the latest news and blog posts, as well as biography, detailed filmography, articles, books and screenplays.
1 day ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/107860381336457800445 Pradip Biswas : OLIVER STONE’S MANIFESTO LOOKING FOR FIDEL BY PRADIP BISWAS, THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, INDIA JURY...
OLIVER STONE’S MANIFESTO LOOKING FOR FIDEL
BY PRADIP BISWAS, THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, INDIA
JURY MEMBER INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL OF INDIA AND FRIBOURG INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL, SWISS



 

Fidel

(Oliver Stone, the intrepid filmmaker of America with a left bent, visited MAMI (Mumbai Academy of Moving Images) in 2010. This ideologue critic was with Stone and had snatched a fruitful session with Stone on his anti-American stand on many global issues. His Looking For Fidel is a watershed documentary on Cuba, though very controversial for those right-wingers).
 


 
“Fidel Castro is a moral, selfless and wise man”.
Oliver Stone
Fidel Castro, Cuba’s monolithic figurehead, is claimed to be responsible for ushering armed-struggled revolutions among small countries in South America, subjugated under glacial oppression for 500 hundred odd years. His only genuine associate in the battle for social change from imperial rulings is Che Guevara who overlooked Castro in many a way. When Oliver Stone decided to confront his own Govt. by announcing a massive biopic/ a political documentary on Fidel Castro, the bash had raised million red eyes in USA. Flacks were heaped on him for being supportive to Latin American countries. Not only that the White House tripped over the alarming news that their Oliver Stone is bent upon taking up Fidel in the explosive visual medium. As long as the cautionary warnings continued in the land, Oliver Stone landed with his documentary Looking for Fidel, he first of its kind in the world cinema that stays with time and history.
He was in the news as often as they have been about the news. JFK, Stone’s daring and divisive drama about a conspiracy to murder President John F. Kennedy, is still hotly debated and rightly so. It is said only in recent year, on a television special commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination, ABC News’s Peter Jennings noted that a significant number of Americans remain convinced of a conspiracy based entirely on Stone’s movie. Amazingly Stone has created indelible stories about Richard Nixon (in Nixon) and Jim Morrison (in The Doors) and tackled the American culture of violence in Natural Born Killers. His films about the Vietnam war—Heaven & Earth, Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July—are inextricably tied to the nation’s collective memory of the conflict and the 1960s antiwar movement. These documentaries are just palimpsest for the posterity to pursue. 
Almost no one is indifferent to Stone. He has die-hard fans, and film critics have lauded many of his movies/filmswith human zeal. Critic Leonard Maltin called JFK “a masterful cinematic achievement.” Norman Mailer called Nixon “a major work by a major artist.” That Stone is not a push-over came as a caveat to American super Rulers. This is why Stone’ rabid detractors are equally impassioned and don’t hide emotions, mainly on the surface. It is true some bovine carpers dismiss him as a paranoid nutcase; Time magazine dubbed him Mr. Conspiracy. After Stone described the September 11 terrorist attack on America as “a rebellion against globalization, against the American way,” journalist Christopher Hitchens called Stone “a moral and intellectual idiot.” But despite such binge of cruel attacks, Stone does not tilt and counter them with Euclidean wisdom. Inner reading of art of the film is mysterious and the critics like Hitchens and his clan coil back in the face of proud majority appreciations. Stone’s virulence thus seems to have dwarfed his bovine pack of detractors.  
Now let us know about his genealogy and upcoming of the turbid director. In formative years, Stone first enrolled at New York University to study filmmaking; with the end of tenure he wrote and directed his first movie, Seizure, in 1974. He gleefully won his first Oscar, in 1979, for his screenplay for Midnight Express. A decade after writing Platoon, he finally made the film, which was released in 1986. It won the Academy Award for best picture, and Stone won the best director award against heavy odds. He was also nominated that year for a best screen-writing Oscar for Salvador. Screenwriting nominations for JFK and Nixon followed, and he picked another best director statue for Born on the Fourth of July, made on scars of Vietnam. But among the lot Salvador is treated most angry and explosive because it made a polemical dive into political dialectics of Salvador, the cock-pit of power struggle.
On the making of Alexander the Great he seems to have pitched Greek mythology into  mystical attitudes of Greek people with élan. This time he was in college. H’d always wondered why his story had never been dramatized. His curiosity made him run for Alice In Wonderland, a piece of abandon wonders. According to him it’s one of the most extraordinary stories in history. His wonder remains..why hadn’t Shakespeare tried? Why hadn’t other great playwrights or screenwriters remained cold and passive?  Finally Stone blurted out: “I think he scares people off because he was so fucking successful. There’s an inherent dislike or fear or distrust of somebody who is that much bigger than life. It seemed too much for a story—the decadent politics, the outrageous ambition, the decadent lifestyle. So I struggled with how to make the movie that has eluded everyone. I loved the character, but I never thought I would get to do him.” No doubt, such was his mental possession and alien dreams struggling to be born!!! Making big projects needs bigger angels. He did not get financed in Hollywood. He was rejected there. Finally, they got to manage the film financed in Europe only, and it didn’t help to have Dino De Laurentiis telling his friends in various countries, “Don’t buy that movie.” This is avenging gesture and heinous. Without foreign sales you’re dead in the water. There were a lot of shenanigans, and there was a lot of ugliness. Stone is called names. He has tried to stay out of it. Says he: “I’m not going to be left with bad karma on my set. I just stuck to the work, and we eventually pulled people together and got the movie made.” He is of quaint caliber. His association with America is skewed and ludic one. Says he: “I’m not sure, but he’s what America wants. I’m not surprised by the then governor in calling shots. He’s got an amazing face. He’s got a great smile. He has great willpower. The guy pulls off amazing things with his charisma. Unless he really fucks up, he can go right to the White House.”
While reading him, this scribe forms a unique contour about Stone. Stone was in MAMI festival, Mumbai where this critic had long sessions on cinema and its dialectical leap; Stone, in a way, is scary one. He looks like a tiny little chamber of commerce guy. Such is the odd impression of many. Incidentally, in the 1950s he would have been considered distasteful. He’s worse than Nixon in his vulgarity. He looks like he shops at Wal-Mart. That’s not what a president is supposed to be. He has admitted it frankly. He has no intellectual curiosity and is proud of it. He says his wife does the book thing. He’s a liar, hiding behind a shallow and dangerous patriotism. In ridicule he peels off: “We’re number one. The American way.” He retorts: It’s a Superman comic book idea of the world. It covers up the complicated realities, and it’s very dangerous fallouts.”
It is said when Christopher Hitchens called Stone an idiot, Stone, not in anger but in pity called him “A moral and intellectual idiot, to be exact.” In the 1980s he admired Hitchens. He was strongly pro-Nicaragua and right about it. He seemed very intelligent. Since then he has gotten into an extremist groove. He has become an ideologue. He thought it behooved us to understand how America’s unilateralism, arrogance and history of pushing around the rest of the world enrages people. Since Iraq, the outrage is worse than ever.
Stone as a film ideologue has had mind-boggling ideas both political and sociological. His fears about regime of the Republicans are known to us. Says he: “I worry that the Republicans will do anything to win. For a long time I’ve worried that Bush will start another war before the election to get people fearful. Voters are nervous about changing leadership in the middle of a war. He bills himself as Mr. Security, which of course he’s not. He’s Mr. Insecurity. Every decision he has made has led to a worse military conclusion and a less secure nation. He has generated enormous hatred, and hatred begets violence. He shovels up the worst kind of patriotic crap. Thirty or 40 years ago, even in the 1920s, they would have run him out of town. Patriotic stuff works occasionally, as it did during Joe McCarthy’s time, but Bush is overdoing it.”
Stone is a man of open feelings and human warmth. What he hates, he hates. There is no compromise point. Talking about his film Alexander, he says: “I’m talking about hypocrisy. Our puritanism allows boys to kill and be killed but not humanity. It’s ludicrous. Once again we pretend things are one way. Alexander lived in a more honest time. We go into his bisexuality. It may offend some people, but sexuality in those days was a different thing. Pre-Christian morality. Young boys were with boys when they wanted to be. Sometimes it was physical and sometimes platonic. Nonetheless, a man was expected to marry. They didn’t know how heirs were made. At the time, many thought sperm itself contained the whole thing and that the vagina was merely the receptacle. It led them to view women as second-class citizens, as baggage carriers. Sexuality wasn’t necessarily tied to procreation and morality, and men were allowed to have a homosexual side as well as a heterosexual side.” However these are Stone’s personal ideas and thinking about Alexander to which we may not stumble to or chime with.
On cinema project Stone is specific to say: “I follow whatever motivates me, whatever puts the wind in my sails at the moment. I have to be zealous about a project, because it requires years. You have to be consumed by it. Whether it’s Alexander or U Turn, you give it your all. I’ve always changed genres. I’ll do a film noir and then a sports drama like Any Given Sunday. This is the first time I’ve done a historical epic. Ideas come to me, some people say too fast. Perhaps they’re right and I have to learn to slow down, but age takes care of that anyway. I just have to keep going. When I have been shut down, I’ve found a new way. I’m misunderstood and I keep going. I was accused of promoting violence. Anyone who knows me understands that I promote peace.”
On JFK, a project of awe and wonder, Stone had to say a lot of things: “Let’s look at JFK. JFK doesn’t say the things some people say it does. It’s very much a hypothesis. It’s a philosophical inquiry into what is truth, what is reality. If you look closely at the film, it’s written precisely with conditional tenses, what-ifs. It’s a timeworn method of drama. And we put out an entire book with footnotes to explain our sources. We made every effort to be honest, and we were raked over the coals. I was in Europe, thank God, but Peter Jennings took me apart on ABC on the 40th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination.”
Stone is believed to ne conspiracy-minded? Says Stone: “In Europe everyone is conspiracy-minded. They assume that things happen behind the scenes in government and business. They aren’t naive enough to believe the evening news and the soundbites from politicians. Americans want to believe the evening news. They want to believe the press conference. Don’t people realize that they’ve been lying to us for years? So they attack Michael Moore. They attack me.”
Now Fidel Castro, the political architect of people’s voice for over five decades, has caught Stone’s active imagination and self. No doubt for this he has been accused of pandering to Castro. In reality such cut makes no dent on Stone as he is too stoical to taradiddle. For Stone it was more than a epic adventure. His deep association and genuine camaraderie seem to have grown to the peak. Fidel instantly agreed to be lined by Stone. Knowing fully well that Stone is a maverick and could raise pro-Americab issues without dialectical knowledge. But during the 69 minute documentary no unpleasant questions have been asked or raised by Stone as is expected. It is because Stone profoundly believes America’s imperial role in Latin America since the beginning of 20th century. 
We need to know that oak-strong Stone stood by Castro and Cuba in its provocation of American interest. Says he: “ I saw great value in a deep look into a man who has had an enormous impact on history. I was never a journalist, grilling him on his human rights record. That wasn’t my purpose. I wanted to get inside his head. I did, too. I was accused of humanizing him, but what does that mean? I suggest that it’s useful to understand world leaders on the deepest possible level. Once again, though, people want a black-and-white story—Castro, Cuba, communist. What more is there to be said?” As a matter of fact, Stone  didn’t go in with much of an impression at all. He admired him because he’d done something extraordinary with his life. Through the interviews, he came to respect him. What other world leader would talk so straight to you, with the camera rolling and without a PR assistant? Let him be heard, for Christ’s sake. The American people have a right to hear the guy who lives 90 miles away on a hostile little island. The result: he was criticized for humanizing him, but if he had demonized him, they would have loved it.
Stone amazingly has expressed that you find other kinds of beauty. Moments can be deadly, so moments can be beautiful. You must find the beauty. So get on with it. If one door is blocked, move to another door. Adapt. If they try to stop you, find a way to persevere. Yes, if you call attention to yourself, you’ll get nailed. Stone only humanly tried to shake it up, and sometimes he has suffered for it. But he won’t stop. For it’s his ideological duty and moral too.
Janet Tamaro out of his own perceptive counting has maintained Oliver Stone plays the equal time game in Looking for Fidel, posing all the tough questions to Castro he somehow forgot to ask the first time around in his buddy-buddy act Comandante. Fortunately, HBO Inch asked Stone to return for a follow-up interview with the Maximum Leader after the March 2003 executions of three hijackers and arrest of more than 75 Cuban political dissidents; such framed up questions have failed to bother Stone for he is here to uphold truth and not otherwise. As a result Comandante has been criticized as too soft on the world’s longest-running communist  power-holder politician after its January Sundance premiere. Ironically, Looking for Fidel, designed as a corrective to its predecessor, emerges for “the moment as the only view of its subject on the pay cabler, the original having been yanked from its initial spring 2003 air dates and never reskedded.” 
Stone’s comradely, confidential tone with Castro in Comandante sliced both ways, cutting the dictator a lot of slack on the one hand but serving to relax and open him up on the other. Once you accepted that the interrogator was never going to nail his subject with too many probing queries, result could be appreciated for its prolonged, wide-ranging portrait of an unavoidably important figure in 20th century politics. This time around, Stone is all business; so to-the-point is his manner that it’s easy to pick up a subtext suggesting that the filmmaker couldn’t wait to get this obligatory assignment over with so he could move on to his epic project laying in wait, “Alexander.”
Sitting down across from Castro in very Mike Wallace fashion, Stone immediately confronts his host with the outrage of the international community over the brutality of Cuban justice in the cases of the hijackers and political opponents. Defending his actions as a proper response to “terrorism” and insisting he’d handle things just the same way if he had it to do all over again, Castro then indulges in a long-practiced habit of turning the negative spotlight away from his country and onto the United States, as he underlines the due process denied to the 800-odd prisoners held on his own island at Guantanamo Bay.
Stone is not disillusioned over the mega biopic. It is within his ken that the U.S. remains Castro’s obsession and bete noire, the oppositional force that has fed his revolutionary fervor for nearly 45 years. But at this point, from an American point of view, Castro looks like yesterday’s enemy. A rare remnant of the collapsed Soviet empire, Castro can fulminate all he wants about alleged and real Yank belligerence, hypocrisy and so on, but the loquacious old rebel now reps a faded side show to the main event on the world stage and must know it.
Stone has gently acknowledged his hidden passion for Fidel which he is “Looking for”. How else to explain his willingness, first, to sit down once again with Stone, aware that he’ll be getting nothing but high and hard fastballs and, second, to participate in a genuinely weird hearing-cum-news confabulations at which eight subsequent hijackers, who are about to be tried, air their grievances and propose what sentences they think they deserve. After weighing in from time to time and looking like he’s trying to contain intense exasperation, Castro tells the defense attorneys that it’s their job to argue for short sentences, after which we learn that the accused were all put away for 30 years to life.
Compared to the 99-minute Comandante, the frightened and tight, under-an-hour format of Looking for Fidel offers modest opportunity for casual or oblique insights, but it nonetheless yields a few. After a doctor performs a checkup and announces that the 77-year-old leader has the heart of a 32-year-old, Castro gets up and says, “I declare myself healthy” (truth be told, he looks paler and seems somewhat less sharp than he did in Comandante); confronted with Amnesty Intl.’s extensive criticisms of his regime, Castro states, “Cubans do not believe in Amnesty Intl.,” brands the org’s accusations “lies” and blithely dismisses all domestic dissidents as being in the employ of the U.S.
Stone puts particular energy into pressing Castro on the issue of his succession and even urges him to retire in favor of new blood, but naturally the gray fox will have none of it. “I think I will die with my boots on,” Castro confides, while disingenuously insisting that he’s had no time to think about the issue of who or what will come after him, other than to egotistically imagine that, after death, “My influence would grow.”
As always, Castro leads Stone out onto the street to show the gargantuan public support he still claims to enjoy among “the people,” against manipulated pic features snippets from opponents who tell a different story proving cipher. Camera angles and editing are sometimes febrile and very smart and eccentric for their own good, creating a borderline slapdash impression, and score verges on the uproarious singing of joy including non-decadent Internationale of brotherhood.

END
The Oliver Stone Experience | The Official Oliver Stone website | www.oliverstone.com
Official Oliver Stone site with the latest news and blog posts, as well as biography, detailed filmography, articles, books and screenplays.
1 day ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/107860381336457800445 Pradip Biswas : OLIVER STONE’S MANIFESTO LOOKING FOR FIDEL BY PRADIP BISWAS, THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, INDIA JURY...
OLIVER STONE’S MANIFESTO LOOKING FOR FIDEL
BY PRADIP BISWAS, THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, INDIA
JURY MEMBER INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL OF INDIA AND FRIBOURG INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL, SWISS



 

Fidel

(Oliver Stone, the intrepid filmmaker of America with a left bent, visited MAMI (Mumbai Academy of Moving Images) in 2010. This ideologue critic was with Stone and had snatched a fruitful session with Stone on his anti-American stand on many global issues. His Looking For Fidel is a watershed documentary on Cuba, though very controversial for those right-wingers).
 


 
“Fidel Castro is a moral, selfless and wise man”.
Oliver Stone
Fidel Castro, Cuba’s monolithic figurehead, is claimed to be responsible for ushering armed-struggled revolutions among small countries in South America, subjugated under glacial oppression for 500 hundred odd years. His only genuine associate in the battle for social change from imperial rulings is Che Guevara who overlooked Castro in many a way. When Oliver Stone decided to confront his own Govt. by announcing a massive biopic/ a political documentary on Fidel Castro, the bash had raised million red eyes in USA. Flacks were heaped on him for being supportive to Latin American countries. Not only that the White House tripped over the alarming news that their Oliver Stone is bent upon taking up Fidel in the explosive visual medium. As long as the cautionary warnings continued in the land, Oliver Stone landed with his documentary Looking for Fidel, he first of its kind in the world cinema that stays with time and history.
He was in the news as often as they have been about the news. JFK, Stone’s daring and divisive drama about a conspiracy to murder President John F. Kennedy, is still hotly debated and rightly so. It is said only in recent year, on a television special commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination, ABC News’s Peter Jennings noted that a significant number of Americans remain convinced of a conspiracy based entirely on Stone’s movie. Amazingly Stone has created indelible stories about Richard Nixon (in Nixon) and Jim Morrison (in The Doors) and tackled the American culture of violence in Natural Born Killers. His films about the Vietnam war—Heaven & Earth, Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July—are inextricably tied to the nation’s collective memory of the conflict and the 1960s antiwar movement. These documentaries are just palimpsest for the posterity to pursue. 
Almost no one is indifferent to Stone. He has die-hard fans, and film critics have lauded many of his movies/filmswith human zeal. Critic Leonard Maltin called JFK “a masterful cinematic achievement.” Norman Mailer called Nixon “a major work by a major artist.” That Stone is not a push-over came as a caveat to American super Rulers. This is why Stone’ rabid detractors are equally impassioned and don’t hide emotions, mainly on the surface. It is true some bovine carpers dismiss him as a paranoid nutcase; Time magazine dubbed him Mr. Conspiracy. After Stone described the September 11 terrorist attack on America as “a rebellion against globalization, against the American way,” journalist Christopher Hitchens called Stone “a moral and intellectual idiot.” But despite such binge of cruel attacks, Stone does not tilt and counter them with Euclidean wisdom. Inner reading of art of the film is mysterious and the critics like Hitchens and his clan coil back in the face of proud majority appreciations. Stone’s virulence thus seems to have dwarfed his bovine pack of detractors.  
Now let us know about his genealogy and upcoming of the turbid director. In formative years, Stone first enrolled at New York University to study filmmaking; with the end of tenure he wrote and directed his first movie, Seizure, in 1974. He gleefully won his first Oscar, in 1979, for his screenplay for Midnight Express. A decade after writing Platoon, he finally made the film, which was released in 1986. It won the Academy Award for best picture, and Stone won the best director award against heavy odds. He was also nominated that year for a best screen-writing Oscar for Salvador. Screenwriting nominations for JFK and Nixon followed, and he picked another best director statue for Born on the Fourth of July, made on scars of Vietnam. But among the lot Salvador is treated most angry and explosive because it made a polemical dive into political dialectics of Salvador, the cock-pit of power struggle.
On the making of Alexander the Great he seems to have pitched Greek mythology into  mystical attitudes of Greek people with élan. This time he was in college. H’d always wondered why his story had never been dramatized. His curiosity made him run for Alice In Wonderland, a piece of abandon wonders. According to him it’s one of the most extraordinary stories in history. His wonder remains..why hadn’t Shakespeare tried? Why hadn’t other great playwrights or screenwriters remained cold and passive?  Finally Stone blurted out: “I think he scares people off because he was so fucking successful. There’s an inherent dislike or fear or distrust of somebody who is that much bigger than life. It seemed too much for a story—the decadent politics, the outrageous ambition, the decadent lifestyle. So I struggled with how to make the movie that has eluded everyone. I loved the character, but I never thought I would get to do him.” No doubt, such was his mental possession and alien dreams struggling to be born!!! Making big projects needs bigger angels. He did not get financed in Hollywood. He was rejected there. Finally, they got to manage the film financed in Europe only, and it didn’t help to have Dino De Laurentiis telling his friends in various countries, “Don’t buy that movie.” This is avenging gesture and heinous. Without foreign sales you’re dead in the water. There were a lot of shenanigans, and there was a lot of ugliness. Stone is called names. He has tried to stay out of it. Says he: “I’m not going to be left with bad karma on my set. I just stuck to the work, and we eventually pulled people together and got the movie made.” He is of quaint caliber. His association with America is skewed and ludic one. Says he: “I’m not sure, but he’s what America wants. I’m not surprised by the then governor in calling shots. He’s got an amazing face. He’s got a great smile. He has great willpower. The guy pulls off amazing things with his charisma. Unless he really fucks up, he can go right to the White House.”
While reading him, this scribe forms a unique contour about Stone. Stone was in MAMI festival, Mumbai where this critic had long sessions on cinema and its dialectical leap; Stone, in a way, is scary one. He looks like a tiny little chamber of commerce guy. Such is the odd impression of many. Incidentally, in the 1950s he would have been considered distasteful. He’s worse than Nixon in his vulgarity. He looks like he shops at Wal-Mart. That’s not what a president is supposed to be. He has admitted it frankly. He has no intellectual curiosity and is proud of it. He says his wife does the book thing. He’s a liar, hiding behind a shallow and dangerous patriotism. In ridicule he peels off: “We’re number one. The American way.” He retorts: It’s a Superman comic book idea of the world. It covers up the complicated realities, and it’s very dangerous fallouts.”
It is said when Christopher Hitchens called Stone an idiot, Stone, not in anger but in pity called him “A moral and intellectual idiot, to be exact.” In the 1980s he admired Hitchens. He was strongly pro-Nicaragua and right about it. He seemed very intelligent. Since then he has gotten into an extremist groove. He has become an ideologue. He thought it behooved us to understand how America’s unilateralism, arrogance and history of pushing around the rest of the world enrages people. Since Iraq, the outrage is worse than ever.
Stone as a film ideologue has had mind-boggling ideas both political and sociological. His fears about regime of the Republicans are known to us. Says he: “I worry that the Republicans will do anything to win. For a long time I’ve worried that Bush will start another war before the election to get people fearful. Voters are nervous about changing leadership in the middle of a war. He bills himself as Mr. Security, which of course he’s not. He’s Mr. Insecurity. Every decision he has made has led to a worse military conclusion and a less secure nation. He has generated enormous hatred, and hatred begets violence. He shovels up the worst kind of patriotic crap. Thirty or 40 years ago, even in the 1920s, they would have run him out of town. Patriotic stuff works occasionally, as it did during Joe McCarthy’s time, but Bush is overdoing it.”
Stone is a man of open feelings and human warmth. What he hates, he hates. There is no compromise point. Talking about his film Alexander, he says: “I’m talking about hypocrisy. Our puritanism allows boys to kill and be killed but not humanity. It’s ludicrous. Once again we pretend things are one way. Alexander lived in a more honest time. We go into his bisexuality. It may offend some people, but sexuality in those days was a different thing. Pre-Christian morality. Young boys were with boys when they wanted to be. Sometimes it was physical and sometimes platonic. Nonetheless, a man was expected to marry. They didn’t know how heirs were made. At the time, many thought sperm itself contained the whole thing and that the vagina was merely the receptacle. It led them to view women as second-class citizens, as baggage carriers. Sexuality wasn’t necessarily tied to procreation and morality, and men were allowed to have a homosexual side as well as a heterosexual side.” However these are Stone’s personal ideas and thinking about Alexander to which we may not stumble to or chime with.
On cinema project Stone is specific to say: “I follow whatever motivates me, whatever puts the wind in my sails at the moment. I have to be zealous about a project, because it requires years. You have to be consumed by it. Whether it’s Alexander or U Turn, you give it your all. I’ve always changed genres. I’ll do a film noir and then a sports drama like Any Given Sunday. This is the first time I’ve done a historical epic. Ideas come to me, some people say too fast. Perhaps they’re right and I have to learn to slow down, but age takes care of that anyway. I just have to keep going. When I have been shut down, I’ve found a new way. I’m misunderstood and I keep going. I was accused of promoting violence. Anyone who knows me understands that I promote peace.”
On JFK, a project of awe and wonder, Stone had to say a lot of things: “Let’s look at JFK. JFK doesn’t say the things some people say it does. It’s very much a hypothesis. It’s a philosophical inquiry into what is truth, what is reality. If you look closely at the film, it’s written precisely with conditional tenses, what-ifs. It’s a timeworn method of drama. And we put out an entire book with footnotes to explain our sources. We made every effort to be honest, and we were raked over the coals. I was in Europe, thank God, but Peter Jennings took me apart on ABC on the 40th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination.”
Stone is believed to ne conspiracy-minded? Says Stone: “In Europe everyone is conspiracy-minded. They assume that things happen behind the scenes in government and business. They aren’t naive enough to believe the evening news and the soundbites from politicians. Americans want to believe the evening news. They want to believe the press conference. Don’t people realize that they’ve been lying to us for years? So they attack Michael Moore. They attack me.”
Now Fidel Castro, the political architect of people’s voice for over five decades, has caught Stone’s active imagination and self. No doubt for this he has been accused of pandering to Castro. In reality such cut makes no dent on Stone as he is too stoical to taradiddle. For Stone it was more than a epic adventure. His deep association and genuine camaraderie seem to have grown to the peak. Fidel instantly agreed to be lined by Stone. Knowing fully well that Stone is a maverick and could raise pro-Americab issues without dialectical knowledge. But during the 69 minute documentary no unpleasant questions have been asked or raised by Stone as is expected. It is because Stone profoundly believes America’s imperial role in Latin America since the beginning of 20th century. 
We need to know that oak-strong Stone stood by Castro and Cuba in its provocation of American interest. Says he: “ I saw great value in a deep look into a man who has had an enormous impact on history. I was never a journalist, grilling him on his human rights record. That wasn’t my purpose. I wanted to get inside his head. I did, too. I was accused of humanizing him, but what does that mean? I suggest that it’s useful to understand world leaders on the deepest possible level. Once again, though, people want a black-and-white story—Castro, Cuba, communist. What more is there to be said?” As a matter of fact, Stone  didn’t go in with much of an impression at all. He admired him because he’d done something extraordinary with his life. Through the interviews, he came to respect him. What other world leader would talk so straight to you, with the camera rolling and without a PR assistant? Let him be heard, for Christ’s sake. The American people have a right to hear the guy who lives 90 miles away on a hostile little island. The result: he was criticized for humanizing him, but if he had demonized him, they would have loved it.
Stone amazingly has expressed that you find other kinds of beauty. Moments can be deadly, so moments can be beautiful. You must find the beauty. So get on with it. If one door is blocked, move to another door. Adapt. If they try to stop you, find a way to persevere. Yes, if you call attention to yourself, you’ll get nailed. Stone only humanly tried to shake it up, and sometimes he has suffered for it. But he won’t stop. For it’s his ideological duty and moral too.
Janet Tamaro out of his own perceptive counting has maintained Oliver Stone plays the equal time game in Looking for Fidel, posing all the tough questions to Castro he somehow forgot to ask the first time around in his buddy-buddy act Comandante. Fortunately, HBO Inch asked Stone to return for a follow-up interview with the Maximum Leader after the March 2003 executions of three hijackers and arrest of more than 75 Cuban political dissidents; such framed up questions have failed to bother Stone for he is here to uphold truth and not otherwise. As a result Comandante has been criticized as too soft on the world’s longest-running communist  power-holder politician after its January Sundance premiere. Ironically, Looking for Fidel, designed as a corrective to its predecessor, emerges for “the moment as the only view of its subject on the pay cabler, the original having been yanked from its initial spring 2003 air dates and never reskedded.” 
Stone’s comradely, confidential tone with Castro in Comandante sliced both ways, cutting the dictator a lot of slack on the one hand but serving to relax and open him up on the other. Once you accepted that the interrogator was never going to nail his subject with too many probing queries, result could be appreciated for its prolonged, wide-ranging portrait of an unavoidably important figure in 20th century politics. This time around, Stone is all business; so to-the-point is his manner that it’s easy to pick up a subtext suggesting that the filmmaker couldn’t wait to get this obligatory assignment over with so he could move on to his epic project laying in wait, “Alexander.”
Sitting down across from Castro in very Mike Wallace fashion, Stone immediately confronts his host with the outrage of the international community over the brutality of Cuban justice in the cases of the hijackers and political opponents. Defending his actions as a proper response to “terrorism” and insisting he’d handle things just the same way if he had it to do all over again, Castro then indulges in a long-practiced habit of turning the negative spotlight away from his country and onto the United States, as he underlines the due process denied to the 800-odd prisoners held on his own island at Guantanamo Bay.
Stone is not disillusioned over the mega biopic. It is within his ken that the U.S. remains Castro’s obsession and bete noire, the oppositional force that has fed his revolutionary fervor for nearly 45 years. But at this point, from an American point of view, Castro looks like yesterday’s enemy. A rare remnant of the collapsed Soviet empire, Castro can fulminate all he wants about alleged and real Yank belligerence, hypocrisy and so on, but the loquacious old rebel now reps a faded side show to the main event on the world stage and must know it.
Stone has gently acknowledged his hidden passion for Fidel which he is “Looking for”. How else to explain his willingness, first, to sit down once again with Stone, aware that he’ll be getting nothing but high and hard fastballs and, second, to participate in a genuinely weird hearing-cum-news confabulations at which eight subsequent hijackers, who are about to be tried, air their grievances and propose what sentences they think they deserve. After weighing in from time to time and looking like he’s trying to contain intense exasperation, Castro tells the defense attorneys that it’s their job to argue for short sentences, after which we learn that the accused were all put away for 30 years to life.
Compared to the 99-minute Comandante, the frightened and tight, under-an-hour format of Looking for Fidel offers modest opportunity for casual or oblique insights, but it nonetheless yields a few. After a doctor performs a checkup and announces that the 77-year-old leader has the heart of a 32-year-old, Castro gets up and says, “I declare myself healthy” (truth be told, he looks paler and seems somewhat less sharp than he did in Comandante); confronted with Amnesty Intl.’s extensive criticisms of his regime, Castro states, “Cubans do not believe in Amnesty Intl.,” brands the org’s accusations “lies” and blithely dismisses all domestic dissidents as being in the employ of the U.S.
Stone puts particular energy into pressing Castro on the issue of his succession and even urges him to retire in favor of new blood, but naturally the gray fox will have none of it. “I think I will die with my boots on,” Castro confides, while disingenuously insisting that he’s had no time to think about the issue of who or what will come after him, other than to egotistically imagine that, after death, “My influence would grow.”
As always, Castro leads Stone out onto the street to show the gargantuan public support he still claims to enjoy among “the people,” against manipulated pic features snippets from opponents who tell a different story proving cipher. Camera angles and editing are sometimes febrile and very smart and eccentric for their own good, creating a borderline slapdash impression, and score verges on the uproarious singing of joy including non-decadent Internationale of brotherhood.

END
The Oliver Stone Experience | The Official Oliver Stone website | www.oliverstone.com
Official Oliver Stone site with the latest news and blog posts, as well as biography, detailed filmography, articles, books and screenplays.
1 day ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/107860381336457800445 Pradip Biswas : OLIVER STONE’S MANIFESTO LOOKING FOR FIDEL BY PRADIP BISWAS, THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, INDIA JURY...
OLIVER STONE’S MANIFESTO LOOKING FOR FIDEL
BY PRADIP BISWAS, THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, INDIA
JURY MEMBER INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL OF INDIA AND FRIBOURG INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL, SWISS



 

Fidel

(Oliver Stone, the intrepid filmmaker of America with a left bent, visited MAMI (Mumbai Academy of Moving Images) in 2010. This ideologue critic was with Stone and had snatched a fruitful session with Stone on his anti-American stand on many global issues. His Looking For Fidel is a watershed documentary on Cuba, though very controversial for those right-wingers).
 


 
“Fidel Castro is a moral, selfless and wise man”.
Oliver Stone
Fidel Castro, Cuba’s monolithic figurehead, is claimed to be responsible for ushering armed-struggled revolutions among small countries in South America, subjugated under glacial oppression for 500 hundred odd years. His only genuine associate in the battle for social change from imperial rulings is Che Guevara who overlooked Castro in many a way. When Oliver Stone decided to confront his own Govt. by announcing a massive biopic/ a political documentary on Fidel Castro, the bash had raised million red eyes in USA. Flacks were heaped on him for being supportive to Latin American countries. Not only that the White House tripped over the alarming news that their Oliver Stone is bent upon taking up Fidel in the explosive visual medium. As long as the cautionary warnings continued in the land, Oliver Stone landed with his documentary Looking for Fidel, he first of its kind in the world cinema that stays with time and history.
He was in the news as often as they have been about the news. JFK, Stone’s daring and divisive drama about a conspiracy to murder President John F. Kennedy, is still hotly debated and rightly so. It is said only in recent year, on a television special commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination, ABC News’s Peter Jennings noted that a significant number of Americans remain convinced of a conspiracy based entirely on Stone’s movie. Amazingly Stone has created indelible stories about Richard Nixon (in Nixon) and Jim Morrison (in The Doors) and tackled the American culture of violence in Natural Born Killers. His films about the Vietnam war—Heaven & Earth, Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July—are inextricably tied to the nation’s collective memory of the conflict and the 1960s antiwar movement. These documentaries are just palimpsest for the posterity to pursue. 
Almost no one is indifferent to Stone. He has die-hard fans, and film critics have lauded many of his movies/filmswith human zeal. Critic Leonard Maltin called JFK “a masterful cinematic achievement.” Norman Mailer called Nixon “a major work by a major artist.” That Stone is not a push-over came as a caveat to American super Rulers. This is why Stone’ rabid detractors are equally impassioned and don’t hide emotions, mainly on the surface. It is true some bovine carpers dismiss him as a paranoid nutcase; Time magazine dubbed him Mr. Conspiracy. After Stone described the September 11 terrorist attack on America as “a rebellion against globalization, against the American way,” journalist Christopher Hitchens called Stone “a moral and intellectual idiot.” But despite such binge of cruel attacks, Stone does not tilt and counter them with Euclidean wisdom. Inner reading of art of the film is mysterious and the critics like Hitchens and his clan coil back in the face of proud majority appreciations. Stone’s virulence thus seems to have dwarfed his bovine pack of detractors.  
Now let us know about his genealogy and upcoming of the turbid director. In formative years, Stone first enrolled at New York University to study filmmaking; with the end of tenure he wrote and directed his first movie, Seizure, in 1974. He gleefully won his first Oscar, in 1979, for his screenplay for Midnight Express. A decade after writing Platoon, he finally made the film, which was released in 1986. It won the Academy Award for best picture, and Stone won the best director award against heavy odds. He was also nominated that year for a best screen-writing Oscar for Salvador. Screenwriting nominations for JFK and Nixon followed, and he picked another best director statue for Born on the Fourth of July, made on scars of Vietnam. But among the lot Salvador is treated most angry and explosive because it made a polemical dive into political dialectics of Salvador, the cock-pit of power struggle.
On the making of Alexander the Great he seems to have pitched Greek mythology into  mystical attitudes of Greek people with élan. This time he was in college. H’d always wondered why his story had never been dramatized. His curiosity made him run for Alice In Wonderland, a piece of abandon wonders. According to him it’s one of the most extraordinary stories in history. His wonder remains..why hadn’t Shakespeare tried? Why hadn’t other great playwrights or screenwriters remained cold and passive?  Finally Stone blurted out: “I think he scares people off because he was so fucking successful. There’s an inherent dislike or fear or distrust of somebody who is that much bigger than life. It seemed too much for a story—the decadent politics, the outrageous ambition, the decadent lifestyle. So I struggled with how to make the movie that has eluded everyone. I loved the character, but I never thought I would get to do him.” No doubt, such was his mental possession and alien dreams struggling to be born!!! Making big projects needs bigger angels. He did not get financed in Hollywood. He was rejected there. Finally, they got to manage the film financed in Europe only, and it didn’t help to have Dino De Laurentiis telling his friends in various countries, “Don’t buy that movie.” This is avenging gesture and heinous. Without foreign sales you’re dead in the water. There were a lot of shenanigans, and there was a lot of ugliness. Stone is called names. He has tried to stay out of it. Says he: “I’m not going to be left with bad karma on my set. I just stuck to the work, and we eventually pulled people together and got the movie made.” He is of quaint caliber. His association with America is skewed and ludic one. Says he: “I’m not sure, but he’s what America wants. I’m not surprised by the then governor in calling shots. He’s got an amazing face. He’s got a great smile. He has great willpower. The guy pulls off amazing things with his charisma. Unless he really fucks up, he can go right to the White House.”
While reading him, this scribe forms a unique contour about Stone. Stone was in MAMI festival, Mumbai where this critic had long sessions on cinema and its dialectical leap; Stone, in a way, is scary one. He looks like a tiny little chamber of commerce guy. Such is the odd impression of many. Incidentally, in the 1950s he would have been considered distasteful. He’s worse than Nixon in his vulgarity. He looks like he shops at Wal-Mart. That’s not what a president is supposed to be. He has admitted it frankly. He has no intellectual curiosity and is proud of it. He says his wife does the book thing. He’s a liar, hiding behind a shallow and dangerous patriotism. In ridicule he peels off: “We’re number one. The American way.” He retorts: It’s a Superman comic book idea of the world. It covers up the complicated realities, and it’s very dangerous fallouts.”
It is said when Christopher Hitchens called Stone an idiot, Stone, not in anger but in pity called him “A moral and intellectual idiot, to be exact.” In the 1980s he admired Hitchens. He was strongly pro-Nicaragua and right about it. He seemed very intelligent. Since then he has gotten into an extremist groove. He has become an ideologue. He thought it behooved us to understand how America’s unilateralism, arrogance and history of pushing around the rest of the world enrages people. Since Iraq, the outrage is worse than ever.
Stone as a film ideologue has had mind-boggling ideas both political and sociological. His fears about regime of the Republicans are known to us. Says he: “I worry that the Republicans will do anything to win. For a long time I’ve worried that Bush will start another war before the election to get people fearful. Voters are nervous about changing leadership in the middle of a war. He bills himself as Mr. Security, which of course he’s not. He’s Mr. Insecurity. Every decision he has made has led to a worse military conclusion and a less secure nation. He has generated enormous hatred, and hatred begets violence. He shovels up the worst kind of patriotic crap. Thirty or 40 years ago, even in the 1920s, they would have run him out of town. Patriotic stuff works occasionally, as it did during Joe McCarthy’s time, but Bush is overdoing it.”
Stone is a man of open feelings and human warmth. What he hates, he hates. There is no compromise point. Talking about his film Alexander, he says: “I’m talking about hypocrisy. Our puritanism allows boys to kill and be killed but not humanity. It’s ludicrous. Once again we pretend things are one way. Alexander lived in a more honest time. We go into his bisexuality. It may offend some people, but sexuality in those days was a different thing. Pre-Christian morality. Young boys were with boys when they wanted to be. Sometimes it was physical and sometimes platonic. Nonetheless, a man was expected to marry. They didn’t know how heirs were made. At the time, many thought sperm itself contained the whole thing and that the vagina was merely the receptacle. It led them to view women as second-class citizens, as baggage carriers. Sexuality wasn’t necessarily tied to procreation and morality, and men were allowed to have a homosexual side as well as a heterosexual side.” However these are Stone’s personal ideas and thinking about Alexander to which we may not stumble to or chime with.
On cinema project Stone is specific to say: “I follow whatever motivates me, whatever puts the wind in my sails at the moment. I have to be zealous about a project, because it requires years. You have to be consumed by it. Whether it’s Alexander or U Turn, you give it your all. I’ve always changed genres. I’ll do a film noir and then a sports drama like Any Given Sunday. This is the first time I’ve done a historical epic. Ideas come to me, some people say too fast. Perhaps they’re right and I have to learn to slow down, but age takes care of that anyway. I just have to keep going. When I have been shut down, I’ve found a new way. I’m misunderstood and I keep going. I was accused of promoting violence. Anyone who knows me understands that I promote peace.”
On JFK, a project of awe and wonder, Stone had to say a lot of things: “Let’s look at JFK. JFK doesn’t say the things some people say it does. It’s very much a hypothesis. It’s a philosophical inquiry into what is truth, what is reality. If you look closely at the film, it’s written precisely with conditional tenses, what-ifs. It’s a timeworn method of drama. And we put out an entire book with footnotes to explain our sources. We made every effort to be honest, and we were raked over the coals. I was in Europe, thank God, but Peter Jennings took me apart on ABC on the 40th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination.”
Stone is believed to ne conspiracy-minded? Says Stone: “In Europe everyone is conspiracy-minded. They assume that things happen behind the scenes in government and business. They aren’t naive enough to believe the evening news and the soundbites from politicians. Americans want to believe the evening news. They want to believe the press conference. Don’t people realize that they’ve been lying to us for years? So they attack Michael Moore. They attack me.”
Now Fidel Castro, the political architect of people’s voice for over five decades, has caught Stone’s active imagination and self. No doubt for this he has been accused of pandering to Castro. In reality such cut makes no dent on Stone as he is too stoical to taradiddle. For Stone it was more than a epic adventure. His deep association and genuine camaraderie seem to have grown to the peak. Fidel instantly agreed to be lined by Stone. Knowing fully well that Stone is a maverick and could raise pro-Americab issues without dialectical knowledge. But during the 69 minute documentary no unpleasant questions have been asked or raised by Stone as is expected. It is because Stone profoundly believes America’s imperial role in Latin America since the beginning of 20th century. 
We need to know that oak-strong Stone stood by Castro and Cuba in its provocation of American interest. Says he: “ I saw great value in a deep look into a man who has had an enormous impact on history. I was never a journalist, grilling him on his human rights record. That wasn’t my purpose. I wanted to get inside his head. I did, too. I was accused of humanizing him, but what does that mean? I suggest that it’s useful to understand world leaders on the deepest possible level. Once again, though, people want a black-and-white story—Castro, Cuba, communist. What more is there to be said?” As a matter of fact, Stone  didn’t go in with much of an impression at all. He admired him because he’d done something extraordinary with his life. Through the interviews, he came to respect him. What other world leader would talk so straight to you, with the camera rolling and without a PR assistant? Let him be heard, for Christ’s sake. The American people have a right to hear the guy who lives 90 miles away on a hostile little island. The result: he was criticized for humanizing him, but if he had demonized him, they would have loved it.
Stone amazingly has expressed that you find other kinds of beauty. Moments can be deadly, so moments can be beautiful. You must find the beauty. So get on with it. If one door is blocked, move to another door. Adapt. If they try to stop you, find a way to persevere. Yes, if you call attention to yourself, you’ll get nailed. Stone only humanly tried to shake it up, and sometimes he has suffered for it. But he won’t stop. For it’s his ideological duty and moral too.
Janet Tamaro out of his own perceptive counting has maintained Oliver Stone plays the equal time game in Looking for Fidel, posing all the tough questions to Castro he somehow forgot to ask the first time around in his buddy-buddy act Comandante. Fortunately, HBO Inch asked Stone to return for a follow-up interview with the Maximum Leader after the March 2003 executions of three hijackers and arrest of more than 75 Cuban political dissidents; such framed up questions have failed to bother Stone for he is here to uphold truth and not otherwise. As a result Comandante has been criticized as too soft on the world’s longest-running communist  power-holder politician after its January Sundance premiere. Ironically, Looking for Fidel, designed as a corrective to its predecessor, emerges for “the moment as the only view of its subject on the pay cabler, the original having been yanked from its initial spring 2003 air dates and never reskedded.” 
Stone’s comradely, confidential tone with Castro in Comandante sliced both ways, cutting the dictator a lot of slack on the one hand but serving to relax and open him up on the other. Once you accepted that the interrogator was never going to nail his subject with too many probing queries, result could be appreciated for its prolonged, wide-ranging portrait of an unavoidably important figure in 20th century politics. This time around, Stone is all business; so to-the-point is his manner that it’s easy to pick up a subtext suggesting that the filmmaker couldn’t wait to get this obligatory assignment over with so he could move on to his epic project laying in wait, “Alexander.”
Sitting down across from Castro in very Mike Wallace fashion, Stone immediately confronts his host with the outrage of the international community over the brutality of Cuban justice in the cases of the hijackers and political opponents. Defending his actions as a proper response to “terrorism” and insisting he’d handle things just the same way if he had it to do all over again, Castro then indulges in a long-practiced habit of turning the negative spotlight away from his country and onto the United States, as he underlines the due process denied to the 800-odd prisoners held on his own island at Guantanamo Bay.
Stone is not disillusioned over the mega biopic. It is within his ken that the U.S. remains Castro’s obsession and bete noire, the oppositional force that has fed his revolutionary fervor for nearly 45 years. But at this point, from an American point of view, Castro looks like yesterday’s enemy. A rare remnant of the collapsed Soviet empire, Castro can fulminate all he wants about alleged and real Yank belligerence, hypocrisy and so on, but the loquacious old rebel now reps a faded side show to the main event on the world stage and must know it.
Stone has gently acknowledged his hidden passion for Fidel which he is “Looking for”. How else to explain his willingness, first, to sit down once again with Stone, aware that he’ll be getting nothing but high and hard fastballs and, second, to participate in a genuinely weird hearing-cum-news confabulations at which eight subsequent hijackers, who are about to be tried, air their grievances and propose what sentences they think they deserve. After weighing in from time to time and looking like he’s trying to contain intense exasperation, Castro tells the defense attorneys that it’s their job to argue for short sentences, after which we learn that the accused were all put away for 30 years to life.
Compared to the 99-minute Comandante, the frightened and tight, under-an-hour format of Looking for Fidel offers modest opportunity for casual or oblique insights, but it nonetheless yields a few. After a doctor performs a checkup and announces that the 77-year-old leader has the heart of a 32-year-old, Castro gets up and says, “I declare myself healthy” (truth be told, he looks paler and seems somewhat less sharp than he did in Comandante); confronted with Amnesty Intl.’s extensive criticisms of his regime, Castro states, “Cubans do not believe in Amnesty Intl.,” brands the org’s accusations “lies” and blithely dismisses all domestic dissidents as being in the employ of the U.S.
Stone puts particular energy into pressing Castro on the issue of his succession and even urges him to retire in favor of new blood, but naturally the gray fox will have none of it. “I think I will die with my boots on,” Castro confides, while disingenuously insisting that he’s had no time to think about the issue of who or what will come after him, other than to egotistically imagine that, after death, “My influence would grow.”
As always, Castro leads Stone out onto the street to show the gargantuan public support he still claims to enjoy among “the people,” against manipulated pic features snippets from opponents who tell a different story proving cipher. Camera angles and editing are sometimes febrile and very smart and eccentric for their own good, creating a borderline slapdash impression, and score verges on the uproarious singing of joy including non-decadent Internationale of brotherhood.

END
The Oliver Stone Experience | The Official Oliver Stone website | www.oliverstone.com
Official Oliver Stone site with the latest news and blog posts, as well as biography, detailed filmography, articles, books and screenplays.
1 day ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/107860381336457800445 Pradip Biswas : OLIVER STONE’S MANIFESTO LOOKING FOR FIDEL BY PRADIP BISWAS, THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, INDIA JURY...
OLIVER STONE’S MANIFESTO LOOKING FOR FIDEL
BY PRADIP BISWAS, THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, INDIA
JURY MEMBER INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL OF INDIA AND FRIBOURG INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL, SWISS



 

Fidel

(Oliver Stone, the intrepid filmmaker of America with a left bent, visited MAMI (Mumbai Academy of Moving Images) in 2010. This ideologue critic was with Stone and had snatched a fruitful session with Stone on his anti-American stand on many global issues. His Looking For Fidel is a watershed documentary on Cuba, though very controversial for those right-wingers).
 


 
“Fidel Castro is a moral, selfless and wise man”.
Oliver Stone
Fidel Castro, Cuba’s monolithic figurehead, is claimed to be responsible for ushering armed-struggled revolutions among small countries in South America, subjugated under glacial oppression for 500 hundred odd years. His only genuine associate in the battle for social change from imperial rulings is Che Guevara who overlooked Castro in many a way. When Oliver Stone decided to confront his own Govt. by announcing a massive biopic/ a political documentary on Fidel Castro, the bash had raised million red eyes in USA. Flacks were heaped on him for being supportive to Latin American countries. Not only that the White House tripped over the alarming news that their Oliver Stone is bent upon taking up Fidel in the explosive visual medium. As long as the cautionary warnings continued in the land, Oliver Stone landed with his documentary Looking for Fidel, he first of its kind in the world cinema that stays with time and history.
He was in the news as often as they have been about the news. JFK, Stone’s daring and divisive drama about a conspiracy to murder President John F. Kennedy, is still hotly debated and rightly so. It is said only in recent year, on a television special commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination, ABC News’s Peter Jennings noted that a significant number of Americans remain convinced of a conspiracy based entirely on Stone’s movie. Amazingly Stone has created indelible stories about Richard Nixon (in Nixon) and Jim Morrison (in The Doors) and tackled the American culture of violence in Natural Born Killers. His films about the Vietnam war—Heaven & Earth, Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July—are inextricably tied to the nation’s collective memory of the conflict and the 1960s antiwar movement. These documentaries are just palimpsest for the posterity to pursue. 
Almost no one is indifferent to Stone. He has die-hard fans, and film critics have lauded many of his movies/filmswith human zeal. Critic Leonard Maltin called JFK “a masterful cinematic achievement.” Norman Mailer called Nixon “a major work by a major artist.” That Stone is not a push-over came as a caveat to American super Rulers. This is why Stone’ rabid detractors are equally impassioned and don’t hide emotions, mainly on the surface. It is true some bovine carpers dismiss him as a paranoid nutcase; Time magazine dubbed him Mr. Conspiracy. After Stone described the September 11 terrorist attack on America as “a rebellion against globalization, against the American way,” journalist Christopher Hitchens called Stone “a moral and intellectual idiot.” But despite such binge of cruel attacks, Stone does not tilt and counter them with Euclidean wisdom. Inner reading of art of the film is mysterious and the critics like Hitchens and his clan coil back in the face of proud majority appreciations. Stone’s virulence thus seems to have dwarfed his bovine pack of detractors.  
Now let us know about his genealogy and upcoming of the turbid director. In formative years, Stone first enrolled at New York University to study filmmaking; with the end of tenure he wrote and directed his first movie, Seizure, in 1974. He gleefully won his first Oscar, in 1979, for his screenplay for Midnight Express. A decade after writing Platoon, he finally made the film, which was released in 1986. It won the Academy Award for best picture, and Stone won the best director award against heavy odds. He was also nominated that year for a best screen-writing Oscar for Salvador. Screenwriting nominations for JFK and Nixon followed, and he picked another best director statue for Born on the Fourth of July, made on scars of Vietnam. But among the lot Salvador is treated most angry and explosive because it made a polemical dive into political dialectics of Salvador, the cock-pit of power struggle.
On the making of Alexander the Great he seems to have pitched Greek mythology into  mystical attitudes of Greek people with élan. This time he was in college. H’d always wondered why his story had never been dramatized. His curiosity made him run for Alice In Wonderland, a piece of abandon wonders. According to him it’s one of the most extraordinary stories in history. His wonder remains..why hadn’t Shakespeare tried? Why hadn’t other great playwrights or screenwriters remained cold and passive?  Finally Stone blurted out: “I think he scares people off because he was so fucking successful. There’s an inherent dislike or fear or distrust of somebody who is that much bigger than life. It seemed too much for a story—the decadent politics, the outrageous ambition, the decadent lifestyle. So I struggled with how to make the movie that has eluded everyone. I loved the character, but I never thought I would get to do him.” No doubt, such was his mental possession and alien dreams struggling to be born!!! Making big projects needs bigger angels. He did not get financed in Hollywood. He was rejected there. Finally, they got to manage the film financed in Europe only, and it didn’t help to have Dino De Laurentiis telling his friends in various countries, “Don’t buy that movie.” This is avenging gesture and heinous. Without foreign sales you’re dead in the water. There were a lot of shenanigans, and there was a lot of ugliness. Stone is called names. He has tried to stay out of it. Says he: “I’m not going to be left with bad karma on my set. I just stuck to the work, and we eventually pulled people together and got the movie made.” He is of quaint caliber. His association with America is skewed and ludic one. Says he: “I’m not sure, but he’s what America wants. I’m not surprised by the then governor in calling shots. He’s got an amazing face. He’s got a great smile. He has great willpower. The guy pulls off amazing things with his charisma. Unless he really fucks up, he can go right to the White House.”
While reading him, this scribe forms a unique contour about Stone. Stone was in MAMI festival, Mumbai where this critic had long sessions on cinema and its dialectical leap; Stone, in a way, is scary one. He looks like a tiny little chamber of commerce guy. Such is the odd impression of many. Incidentally, in the 1950s he would have been considered distasteful. He’s worse than Nixon in his vulgarity. He looks like he shops at Wal-Mart. That’s not what a president is supposed to be. He has admitted it frankly. He has no intellectual curiosity and is proud of it. He says his wife does the book thing. He’s a liar, hiding behind a shallow and dangerous patriotism. In ridicule he peels off: “We’re number one. The American way.” He retorts: It’s a Superman comic book idea of the world. It covers up the complicated realities, and it’s very dangerous fallouts.”
It is said when Christopher Hitchens called Stone an idiot, Stone, not in anger but in pity called him “A moral and intellectual idiot, to be exact.” In the 1980s he admired Hitchens. He was strongly pro-Nicaragua and right about it. He seemed very intelligent. Since then he has gotten into an extremist groove. He has become an ideologue. He thought it behooved us to understand how America’s unilateralism, arrogance and history of pushing around the rest of the world enrages people. Since Iraq, the outrage is worse than ever.
Stone as a film ideologue has had mind-boggling ideas both political and sociological. His fears about regime of the Republicans are known to us. Says he: “I worry that the Republicans will do anything to win. For a long time I’ve worried that Bush will start another war before the election to get people fearful. Voters are nervous about changing leadership in the middle of a war. He bills himself as Mr. Security, which of course he’s not. He’s Mr. Insecurity. Every decision he has made has led to a worse military conclusion and a less secure nation. He has generated enormous hatred, and hatred begets violence. He shovels up the worst kind of patriotic crap. Thirty or 40 years ago, even in the 1920s, they would have run him out of town. Patriotic stuff works occasionally, as it did during Joe McCarthy’s time, but Bush is overdoing it.”
Stone is a man of open feelings and human warmth. What he hates, he hates. There is no compromise point. Talking about his film Alexander, he says: “I’m talking about hypocrisy. Our puritanism allows boys to kill and be killed but not humanity. It’s ludicrous. Once again we pretend things are one way. Alexander lived in a more honest time. We go into his bisexuality. It may offend some people, but sexuality in those days was a different thing. Pre-Christian morality. Young boys were with boys when they wanted to be. Sometimes it was physical and sometimes platonic. Nonetheless, a man was expected to marry. They didn’t know how heirs were made. At the time, many thought sperm itself contained the whole thing and that the vagina was merely the receptacle. It led them to view women as second-class citizens, as baggage carriers. Sexuality wasn’t necessarily tied to procreation and morality, and men were allowed to have a homosexual side as well as a heterosexual side.” However these are Stone’s personal ideas and thinking about Alexander to which we may not stumble to or chime with.
On cinema project Stone is specific to say: “I follow whatever motivates me, whatever puts the wind in my sails at the moment. I have to be zealous about a project, because it requires years. You have to be consumed by it. Whether it’s Alexander or U Turn, you give it your all. I’ve always changed genres. I’ll do a film noir and then a sports drama like Any Given Sunday. This is the first time I’ve done a historical epic. Ideas come to me, some people say too fast. Perhaps they’re right and I have to learn to slow down, but age takes care of that anyway. I just have to keep going. When I have been shut down, I’ve found a new way. I’m misunderstood and I keep going. I was accused of promoting violence. Anyone who knows me understands that I promote peace.”
On JFK, a project of awe and wonder, Stone had to say a lot of things: “Let’s look at JFK. JFK doesn’t say the things some people say it does. It’s very much a hypothesis. It’s a philosophical inquiry into what is truth, what is reality. If you look closely at the film, it’s written precisely with conditional tenses, what-ifs. It’s a timeworn method of drama. And we put out an entire book with footnotes to explain our sources. We made every effort to be honest, and we were raked over the coals. I was in Europe, thank God, but Peter Jennings took me apart on ABC on the 40th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination.”
Stone is believed to ne conspiracy-minded? Says Stone: “In Europe everyone is conspiracy-minded. They assume that things happen behind the scenes in government and business. They aren’t naive enough to believe the evening news and the soundbites from politicians. Americans want to believe the evening news. They want to believe the press conference. Don’t people realize that they’ve been lying to us for years? So they attack Michael Moore. They attack me.”
Now Fidel Castro, the political architect of people’s voice for over five decades, has caught Stone’s active imagination and self. No doubt for this he has been accused of pandering to Castro. In reality such cut makes no dent on Stone as he is too stoical to taradiddle. For Stone it was more than a epic adventure. His deep association and genuine camaraderie seem to have grown to the peak. Fidel instantly agreed to be lined by Stone. Knowing fully well that Stone is a maverick and could raise pro-Americab issues without dialectical knowledge. But during the 69 minute documentary no unpleasant questions have been asked or raised by Stone as is expected. It is because Stone profoundly believes America’s imperial role in Latin America since the beginning of 20th century. 
We need to know that oak-strong Stone stood by Castro and Cuba in its provocation of American interest. Says he: “ I saw great value in a deep look into a man who has had an enormous impact on history. I was never a journalist, grilling him on his human rights record. That wasn’t my purpose. I wanted to get inside his head. I did, too. I was accused of humanizing him, but what does that mean? I suggest that it’s useful to understand world leaders on the deepest possible level. Once again, though, people want a black-and-white story—Castro, Cuba, communist. What more is there to be said?” As a matter of fact, Stone  didn’t go in with much of an impression at all. He admired him because he’d done something extraordinary with his life. Through the interviews, he came to respect him. What other world leader would talk so straight to you, with the camera rolling and without a PR assistant? Let him be heard, for Christ’s sake. The American people have a right to hear the guy who lives 90 miles away on a hostile little island. The result: he was criticized for humanizing him, but if he had demonized him, they would have loved it.
Stone amazingly has expressed that you find other kinds of beauty. Moments can be deadly, so moments can be beautiful. You must find the beauty. So get on with it. If one door is blocked, move to another door. Adapt. If they try to stop you, find a way to persevere. Yes, if you call attention to yourself, you’ll get nailed. Stone only humanly tried to shake it up, and sometimes he has suffered for it. But he won’t stop. For it’s his ideological duty and moral too.
Janet Tamaro out of his own perceptive counting has maintained Oliver Stone plays the equal time game in Looking for Fidel, posing all the tough questions to Castro he somehow forgot to ask the first time around in his buddy-buddy act Comandante. Fortunately, HBO Inch asked Stone to return for a follow-up interview with the Maximum Leader after the March 2003 executions of three hijackers and arrest of more than 75 Cuban political dissidents; such framed up questions have failed to bother Stone for he is here to uphold truth and not otherwise. As a result Comandante has been criticized as too soft on the world’s longest-running communist  power-holder politician after its January Sundance premiere. Ironically, Looking for Fidel, designed as a corrective to its predecessor, emerges for “the moment as the only view of its subject on the pay cabler, the original having been yanked from its initial spring 2003 air dates and never reskedded.” 
Stone’s comradely, confidential tone with Castro in Comandante sliced both ways, cutting the dictator a lot of slack on the one hand but serving to relax and open him up on the other. Once you accepted that the interrogator was never going to nail his subject with too many probing queries, result could be appreciated for its prolonged, wide-ranging portrait of an unavoidably important figure in 20th century politics. This time around, Stone is all business; so to-the-point is his manner that it’s easy to pick up a subtext suggesting that the filmmaker couldn’t wait to get this obligatory assignment over with so he could move on to his epic project laying in wait, “Alexander.”
Sitting down across from Castro in very Mike Wallace fashion, Stone immediately confronts his host with the outrage of the international community over the brutality of Cuban justice in the cases of the hijackers and political opponents. Defending his actions as a proper response to “terrorism” and insisting he’d handle things just the same way if he had it to do all over again, Castro then indulges in a long-practiced habit of turning the negative spotlight away from his country and onto the United States, as he underlines the due process denied to the 800-odd prisoners held on his own island at Guantanamo Bay.
Stone is not disillusioned over the mega biopic. It is within his ken that the U.S. remains Castro’s obsession and bete noire, the oppositional force that has fed his revolutionary fervor for nearly 45 years. But at this point, from an American point of view, Castro looks like yesterday’s enemy. A rare remnant of the collapsed Soviet empire, Castro can fulminate all he wants about alleged and real Yank belligerence, hypocrisy and so on, but the loquacious old rebel now reps a faded side show to the main event on the world stage and must know it.
Stone has gently acknowledged his hidden passion for Fidel which he is “Looking for”. How else to explain his willingness, first, to sit down once again with Stone, aware that he’ll be getting nothing but high and hard fastballs and, second, to participate in a genuinely weird hearing-cum-news confabulations at which eight subsequent hijackers, who are about to be tried, air their grievances and propose what sentences they think they deserve. After weighing in from time to time and looking like he’s trying to contain intense exasperation, Castro tells the defense attorneys that it’s their job to argue for short sentences, after which we learn that the accused were all put away for 30 years to life.
Compared to the 99-minute Comandante, the frightened and tight, under-an-hour format of Looking for Fidel offers modest opportunity for casual or oblique insights, but it nonetheless yields a few. After a doctor performs a checkup and announces that the 77-year-old leader has the heart of a 32-year-old, Castro gets up and says, “I declare myself healthy” (truth be told, he looks paler and seems somewhat less sharp than he did in Comandante); confronted with Amnesty Intl.’s extensive criticisms of his regime, Castro states, “Cubans do not believe in Amnesty Intl.,” brands the org’s accusations “lies” and blithely dismisses all domestic dissidents as being in the employ of the U.S.
Stone puts particular energy into pressing Castro on the issue of his succession and even urges him to retire in favor of new blood, but naturally the gray fox will have none of it. “I think I will die with my boots on,” Castro confides, while disingenuously insisting that he’s had no time to think about the issue of who or what will come after him, other than to egotistically imagine that, after death, “My influence would grow.”
As always, Castro leads Stone out onto the street to show the gargantuan public support he still claims to enjoy among “the people,” against manipulated pic features snippets from opponents who tell a different story proving cipher. Camera angles and editing are sometimes febrile and very smart and eccentric for their own good, creating a borderline slapdash impression, and score verges on the uproarious singing of joy including non-decadent Internationale of brotherhood.

END
The Oliver Stone Experience | The Official Oliver Stone website | www.oliverstone.com
Official Oliver Stone site with the latest news and blog posts, as well as biography, detailed filmography, articles, books and screenplays.
1 day ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/107860381336457800445 Pradip Biswas : OLIVER STONE’S MANIFESTO LOOKING FOR FIDEL BY PRADIP BISWAS, THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, INDIA JURY...
OLIVER STONE’S MANIFESTO LOOKING FOR FIDEL
BY PRADIP BISWAS, THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, INDIA
JURY MEMBER INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL OF INDIA AND FRIBOURG INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL, SWISS



 

Fidel

(Oliver Stone, the intrepid filmmaker of America with a left bent, visited MAMI (Mumbai Academy of Moving Images) in 2010. This ideologue critic was with Stone and had snatched a fruitful session with Stone on his anti-American stand on many global issues. His Looking For Fidel is a watershed documentary on Cuba, though very controversial for those right-wingers).
 


 
“Fidel Castro is a moral, selfless and wise man”.
Oliver Stone
Fidel Castro, Cuba’s monolithic figurehead, is claimed to be responsible for ushering armed-struggled revolutions among small countries in South America, subjugated under glacial oppression for 500 hundred odd years. His only genuine associate in the battle for social change from imperial rulings is Che Guevara who overlooked Castro in many a way. When Oliver Stone decided to confront his own Govt. by announcing a massive biopic/ a political documentary on Fidel Castro, the bash had raised million red eyes in USA. Flacks were heaped on him for being supportive to Latin American countries. Not only that the White House tripped over the alarming news that their Oliver Stone is bent upon taking up Fidel in the explosive visual medium. As long as the cautionary warnings continued in the land, Oliver Stone landed with his documentary Looking for Fidel, he first of its kind in the world cinema that stays with time and history.
He was in the news as often as they have been about the news. JFK, Stone’s daring and divisive drama about a conspiracy to murder President John F. Kennedy, is still hotly debated and rightly so. It is said only in recent year, on a television special commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination, ABC News’s Peter Jennings noted that a significant number of Americans remain convinced of a conspiracy based entirely on Stone’s movie. Amazingly Stone has created indelible stories about Richard Nixon (in Nixon) and Jim Morrison (in The Doors) and tackled the American culture of violence in Natural Born Killers. His films about the Vietnam war—Heaven & Earth, Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July—are inextricably tied to the nation’s collective memory of the conflict and the 1960s antiwar movement. These documentaries are just palimpsest for the posterity to pursue. 
Almost no one is indifferent to Stone. He has die-hard fans, and film critics have lauded many of his movies/filmswith human zeal. Critic Leonard Maltin called JFK “a masterful cinematic achievement.” Norman Mailer called Nixon “a major work by a major artist.” That Stone is not a push-over came as a caveat to American super Rulers. This is why Stone’ rabid detractors are equally impassioned and don’t hide emotions, mainly on the surface. It is true some bovine carpers dismiss him as a paranoid nutcase; Time magazine dubbed him Mr. Conspiracy. After Stone described the September 11 terrorist attack on America as “a rebellion against globalization, against the American way,” journalist Christopher Hitchens called Stone “a moral and intellectual idiot.” But despite such binge of cruel attacks, Stone does not tilt and counter them with Euclidean wisdom. Inner reading of art of the film is mysterious and the critics like Hitchens and his clan coil back in the face of proud majority appreciations. Stone’s virulence thus seems to have dwarfed his bovine pack of detractors.  
Now let us know about his genealogy and upcoming of the turbid director. In formative years, Stone first enrolled at New York University to study filmmaking; with the end of tenure he wrote and directed his first movie, Seizure, in 1974. He gleefully won his first Oscar, in 1979, for his screenplay for Midnight Express. A decade after writing Platoon, he finally made the film, which was released in 1986. It won the Academy Award for best picture, and Stone won the best director award against heavy odds. He was also nominated that year for a best screen-writing Oscar for Salvador. Screenwriting nominations for JFK and Nixon followed, and he picked another best director statue for Born on the Fourth of July, made on scars of Vietnam. But among the lot Salvador is treated most angry and explosive because it made a polemical dive into political dialectics of Salvador, the cock-pit of power struggle.
On the making of Alexander the Great he seems to have pitched Greek mythology into  mystical attitudes of Greek people with élan. This time he was in college. H’d always wondered why his story had never been dramatized. His curiosity made him run for Alice In Wonderland, a piece of abandon wonders. According to him it’s one of the most extraordinary stories in history. His wonder remains..why hadn’t Shakespeare tried? Why hadn’t other great playwrights or screenwriters remained cold and passive?  Finally Stone blurted out: “I think he scares people off because he was so fucking successful. There’s an inherent dislike or fear or distrust of somebody who is that much bigger than life. It seemed too much for a story—the decadent politics, the outrageous ambition, the decadent lifestyle. So I struggled with how to make the movie that has eluded everyone. I loved the character, but I never thought I would get to do him.” No doubt, such was his mental possession and alien dreams struggling to be born!!! Making big projects needs bigger angels. He did not get financed in Hollywood. He was rejected there. Finally, they got to manage the film financed in Europe only, and it didn’t help to have Dino De Laurentiis telling his friends in various countries, “Don’t buy that movie.” This is avenging gesture and heinous. Without foreign sales you’re dead in the water. There were a lot of shenanigans, and there was a lot of ugliness. Stone is called names. He has tried to stay out of it. Says he: “I’m not going to be left with bad karma on my set. I just stuck to the work, and we eventually pulled people together and got the movie made.” He is of quaint caliber. His association with America is skewed and ludic one. Says he: “I’m not sure, but he’s what America wants. I’m not surprised by the then governor in calling shots. He’s got an amazing face. He’s got a great smile. He has great willpower. The guy pulls off amazing things with his charisma. Unless he really fucks up, he can go right to the White House.”
While reading him, this scribe forms a unique contour about Stone. Stone was in MAMI festival, Mumbai where this critic had long sessions on cinema and its dialectical leap; Stone, in a way, is scary one. He looks like a tiny little chamber of commerce guy. Such is the odd impression of many. Incidentally, in the 1950s he would have been considered distasteful. He’s worse than Nixon in his vulgarity. He looks like he shops at Wal-Mart. That’s not what a president is supposed to be. He has admitted it frankly. He has no intellectual curiosity and is proud of it. He says his wife does the book thing. He’s a liar, hiding behind a shallow and dangerous patriotism. In ridicule he peels off: “We’re number one. The American way.” He retorts: It’s a Superman comic book idea of the world. It covers up the complicated realities, and it’s very dangerous fallouts.”
It is said when Christopher Hitchens called Stone an idiot, Stone, not in anger but in pity called him “A moral and intellectual idiot, to be exact.” In the 1980s he admired Hitchens. He was strongly pro-Nicaragua and right about it. He seemed very intelligent. Since then he has gotten into an extremist groove. He has become an ideologue. He thought it behooved us to understand how America’s unilateralism, arrogance and history of pushing around the rest of the world enrages people. Since Iraq, the outrage is worse than ever.
Stone as a film ideologue has had mind-boggling ideas both political and sociological. His fears about regime of the Republicans are known to us. Says he: “I worry that the Republicans will do anything to win. For a long time I’ve worried that Bush will start another war before the election to get people fearful. Voters are nervous about changing leadership in the middle of a war. He bills himself as Mr. Security, which of course he’s not. He’s Mr. Insecurity. Every decision he has made has led to a worse military conclusion and a less secure nation. He has generated enormous hatred, and hatred begets violence. He shovels up the worst kind of patriotic crap. Thirty or 40 years ago, even in the 1920s, they would have run him out of town. Patriotic stuff works occasionally, as it did during Joe McCarthy’s time, but Bush is overdoing it.”
Stone is a man of open feelings and human warmth. What he hates, he hates. There is no compromise point. Talking about his film Alexander, he says: “I’m talking about hypocrisy. Our puritanism allows boys to kill and be killed but not humanity. It’s ludicrous. Once again we pretend things are one way. Alexander lived in a more honest time. We go into his bisexuality. It may offend some people, but sexuality in those days was a different thing. Pre-Christian morality. Young boys were with boys when they wanted to be. Sometimes it was physical and sometimes platonic. Nonetheless, a man was expected to marry. They didn’t know how heirs were made. At the time, many thought sperm itself contained the whole thing and that the vagina was merely the receptacle. It led them to view women as second-class citizens, as baggage carriers. Sexuality wasn’t necessarily tied to procreation and morality, and men were allowed to have a homosexual side as well as a heterosexual side.” However these are Stone’s personal ideas and thinking about Alexander to which we may not stumble to or chime with.
On cinema project Stone is specific to say: “I follow whatever motivates me, whatever puts the wind in my sails at the moment. I have to be zealous about a project, because it requires years. You have to be consumed by it. Whether it’s Alexander or U Turn, you give it your all. I’ve always changed genres. I’ll do a film noir and then a sports drama like Any Given Sunday. This is the first time I’ve done a historical epic. Ideas come to me, some people say too fast. Perhaps they’re right and I have to learn to slow down, but age takes care of that anyway. I just have to keep going. When I have been shut down, I’ve found a new way. I’m misunderstood and I keep going. I was accused of promoting violence. Anyone who knows me understands that I promote peace.”
On JFK, a project of awe and wonder, Stone had to say a lot of things: “Let’s look at JFK. JFK doesn’t say the things some people say it does. It’s very much a hypothesis. It’s a philosophical inquiry into what is truth, what is reality. If you look closely at the film, it’s written precisely with conditional tenses, what-ifs. It’s a timeworn method of drama. And we put out an entire book with footnotes to explain our sources. We made every effort to be honest, and we were raked over the coals. I was in Europe, thank God, but Peter Jennings took me apart on ABC on the 40th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination.”
Stone is believed to ne conspiracy-minded? Says Stone: “In Europe everyone is conspiracy-minded. They assume that things happen behind the scenes in government and business. They aren’t naive enough to believe the evening news and the soundbites from politicians. Americans want to believe the evening news. They want to believe the press conference. Don’t people realize that they’ve been lying to us for years? So they attack Michael Moore. They attack me.”
Now Fidel Castro, the political architect of people’s voice for over five decades, has caught Stone’s active imagination and self. No doubt for this he has been accused of pandering to Castro. In reality such cut makes no dent on Stone as he is too stoical to taradiddle. For Stone it was more than a epic adventure. His deep association and genuine camaraderie seem to have grown to the peak. Fidel instantly agreed to be lined by Stone. Knowing fully well that Stone is a maverick and could raise pro-Americab issues without dialectical knowledge. But during the 69 minute documentary no unpleasant questions have been asked or raised by Stone as is expected. It is because Stone profoundly believes America’s imperial role in Latin America since the beginning of 20th century. 
We need to know that oak-strong Stone stood by Castro and Cuba in its provocation of American interest. Says he: “ I saw great value in a deep look into a man who has had an enormous impact on history. I was never a journalist, grilling him on his human rights record. That wasn’t my purpose. I wanted to get inside his head. I did, too. I was accused of humanizing him, but what does that mean? I suggest that it’s useful to understand world leaders on the deepest possible level. Once again, though, people want a black-and-white story—Castro, Cuba, communist. What more is there to be said?” As a matter of fact, Stone  didn’t go in with much of an impression at all. He admired him because he’d done something extraordinary with his life. Through the interviews, he came to respect him. What other world leader would talk so straight to you, with the camera rolling and without a PR assistant? Let him be heard, for Christ’s sake. The American people have a right to hear the guy who lives 90 miles away on a hostile little island. The result: he was criticized for humanizing him, but if he had demonized him, they would have loved it.
Stone amazingly has expressed that you find other kinds of beauty. Moments can be deadly, so moments can be beautiful. You must find the beauty. So get on with it. If one door is blocked, move to another door. Adapt. If they try to stop you, find a way to persevere. Yes, if you call attention to yourself, you’ll get nailed. Stone only humanly tried to shake it up, and sometimes he has suffered for it. But he won’t stop. For it’s his ideological duty and moral too.
Janet Tamaro out of his own perceptive counting has maintained Oliver Stone plays the equal time game in Looking for Fidel, posing all the tough questions to Castro he somehow forgot to ask the first time around in his buddy-buddy act Comandante. Fortunately, HBO Inch asked Stone to return for a follow-up interview with the Maximum Leader after the March 2003 executions of three hijackers and arrest of more than 75 Cuban political dissidents; such framed up questions have failed to bother Stone for he is here to uphold truth and not otherwise. As a result Comandante has been criticized as too soft on the world’s longest-running communist  power-holder politician after its January Sundance premiere. Ironically, Looking for Fidel, designed as a corrective to its predecessor, emerges for “the moment as the only view of its subject on the pay cabler, the original having been yanked from its initial spring 2003 air dates and never reskedded.” 
Stone’s comradely, confidential tone with Castro in Comandante sliced both ways, cutting the dictator a lot of slack on the one hand but serving to relax and open him up on the other. Once you accepted that the interrogator was never going to nail his subject with too many probing queries, result could be appreciated for its prolonged, wide-ranging portrait of an unavoidably important figure in 20th century politics. This time around, Stone is all business; so to-the-point is his manner that it’s easy to pick up a subtext suggesting that the filmmaker couldn’t wait to get this obligatory assignment over with so he could move on to his epic project laying in wait, “Alexander.”
Sitting down across from Castro in very Mike Wallace fashion, Stone immediately confronts his host with the outrage of the international community over the brutality of Cuban justice in the cases of the hijackers and political opponents. Defending his actions as a proper response to “terrorism” and insisting he’d handle things just the same way if he had it to do all over again, Castro then indulges in a long-practiced habit of turning the negative spotlight away from his country and onto the United States, as he underlines the due process denied to the 800-odd prisoners held on his own island at Guantanamo Bay.
Stone is not disillusioned over the mega biopic. It is within his ken that the U.S. remains Castro’s obsession and bete noire, the oppositional force that has fed his revolutionary fervor for nearly 45 years. But at this point, from an American point of view, Castro looks like yesterday’s enemy. A rare remnant of the collapsed Soviet empire, Castro can fulminate all he wants about alleged and real Yank belligerence, hypocrisy and so on, but the loquacious old rebel now reps a faded side show to the main event on the world stage and must know it.
Stone has gently acknowledged his hidden passion for Fidel which he is “Looking for”. How else to explain his willingness, first, to sit down once again with Stone, aware that he’ll be getting nothing but high and hard fastballs and, second, to participate in a genuinely weird hearing-cum-news confabulations at which eight subsequent hijackers, who are about to be tried, air their grievances and propose what sentences they think they deserve. After weighing in from time to time and looking like he’s trying to contain intense exasperation, Castro tells the defense attorneys that it’s their job to argue for short sentences, after which we learn that the accused were all put away for 30 years to life.
Compared to the 99-minute Comandante, the frightened and tight, under-an-hour format of Looking for Fidel offers modest opportunity for casual or oblique insights, but it nonetheless yields a few. After a doctor performs a checkup and announces that the 77-year-old leader has the heart of a 32-year-old, Castro gets up and says, “I declare myself healthy” (truth be told, he looks paler and seems somewhat less sharp than he did in Comandante); confronted with Amnesty Intl.’s extensive criticisms of his regime, Castro states, “Cubans do not believe in Amnesty Intl.,” brands the org’s accusations “lies” and blithely dismisses all domestic dissidents as being in the employ of the U.S.
Stone puts particular energy into pressing Castro on the issue of his succession and even urges him to retire in favor of new blood, but naturally the gray fox will have none of it. “I think I will die with my boots on,” Castro confides, while disingenuously insisting that he’s had no time to think about the issue of who or what will come after him, other than to egotistically imagine that, after death, “My influence would grow.”
As always, Castro leads Stone out onto the street to show the gargantuan public support he still claims to enjoy among “the people,” against manipulated pic features snippets from opponents who tell a different story proving cipher. Camera angles and editing are sometimes febrile and very smart and eccentric for their own good, creating a borderline slapdash impression, and score verges on the uproarious singing of joy including non-decadent Internationale of brotherhood.

END
The Oliver Stone Experience | The Official Oliver Stone website | www.oliverstone.com
Official Oliver Stone site with the latest news and blog posts, as well as biography, detailed filmography, articles, books and screenplays.
1 day ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/107860381336457800445 Pradip Biswas : OLIVER STONE’S MANIFESTO LOOKING FOR FIDEL BY PRADIP BISWAS, THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, INDIA JURY...
OLIVER STONE’S MANIFESTO LOOKING FOR FIDEL
BY PRADIP BISWAS, THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, INDIA
JURY MEMBER INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL OF INDIA AND FRIBOURG INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL, SWISS



 

Fidel

(Oliver Stone, the intrepid filmmaker of America with a left bent, visited MAMI (Mumbai Academy of Moving Images) in 2010. This ideologue critic was with Stone and had snatched a fruitful session with Stone on his anti-American stand on many global issues. His Looking For Fidel is a watershed documentary on Cuba, though very controversial for those right-wingers).
 


 
“Fidel Castro is a moral, selfless and wise man”.
Oliver Stone
Fidel Castro, Cuba’s monolithic figurehead, is claimed to be responsible for ushering armed-struggled revolutions among small countries in South America, subjugated under glacial oppression for 500 hundred odd years. His only genuine associate in the battle for social change from imperial rulings is Che Guevara who overlooked Castro in many a way. When Oliver Stone decided to confront his own Govt. by announcing a massive biopic/ a political documentary on Fidel Castro, the bash had raised million red eyes in USA. Flacks were heaped on him for being supportive to Latin American countries. Not only that the White House tripped over the alarming news that their Oliver Stone is bent upon taking up Fidel in the explosive visual medium. As long as the cautionary warnings continued in the land, Oliver Stone landed with his documentary Looking for Fidel, he first of its kind in the world cinema that stays with time and history.
He was in the news as often as they have been about the news. JFK, Stone’s daring and divisive drama about a conspiracy to murder President John F. Kennedy, is still hotly debated and rightly so. It is said only in recent year, on a television special commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination, ABC News’s Peter Jennings noted that a significant number of Americans remain convinced of a conspiracy based entirely on Stone’s movie. Amazingly Stone has created indelible stories about Richard Nixon (in Nixon) and Jim Morrison (in The Doors) and tackled the American culture of violence in Natural Born Killers. His films about the Vietnam war—Heaven & Earth, Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July—are inextricably tied to the nation’s collective memory of the conflict and the 1960s antiwar movement. These documentaries are just palimpsest for the posterity to pursue. 
Almost no one is indifferent to Stone. He has die-hard fans, and film critics have lauded many of his movies/filmswith human zeal. Critic Leonard Maltin called JFK “a masterful cinematic achievement.” Norman Mailer called Nixon “a major work by a major artist.” That Stone is not a push-over came as a caveat to American super Rulers. This is why Stone’ rabid detractors are equally impassioned and don’t hide emotions, mainly on the surface. It is true some bovine carpers dismiss him as a paranoid nutcase; Time magazine dubbed him Mr. Conspiracy. After Stone described the September 11 terrorist attack on America as “a rebellion against globalization, against the American way,” journalist Christopher Hitchens called Stone “a moral and intellectual idiot.” But despite such binge of cruel attacks, Stone does not tilt and counter them with Euclidean wisdom. Inner reading of art of the film is mysterious and the critics like Hitchens and his clan coil back in the face of proud majority appreciations. Stone’s virulence thus seems to have dwarfed his bovine pack of detractors.  
Now let us know about his genealogy and upcoming of the turbid director. In formative years, Stone first enrolled at New York University to study filmmaking; with the end of tenure he wrote and directed his first movie, Seizure, in 1974. He gleefully won his first Oscar, in 1979, for his screenplay for Midnight Express. A decade after writing Platoon, he finally made the film, which was released in 1986. It won the Academy Award for best picture, and Stone won the best director award against heavy odds. He was also nominated that year for a best screen-writing Oscar for Salvador. Screenwriting nominations for JFK and Nixon followed, and he picked another best director statue for Born on the Fourth of July, made on scars of Vietnam. But among the lot Salvador is treated most angry and explosive because it made a polemical dive into political dialectics of Salvador, the cock-pit of power struggle.
On the making of Alexander the Great he seems to have pitched Greek mythology into  mystical attitudes of Greek people with élan. This time he was in college. H’d always wondered why his story had never been dramatized. His curiosity made him run for Alice In Wonderland, a piece of abandon wonders. According to him it’s one of the most extraordinary stories in history. His wonder remains..why hadn’t Shakespeare tried? Why hadn’t other great playwrights or screenwriters remained cold and passive?  Finally Stone blurted out: “I think he scares people off because he was so fucking successful. There’s an inherent dislike or fear or distrust of somebody who is that much bigger than life. It seemed too much for a story—the decadent politics, the outrageous ambition, the decadent lifestyle. So I struggled with how to make the movie that has eluded everyone. I loved the character, but I never thought I would get to do him.” No doubt, such was his mental possession and alien dreams struggling to be born!!! Making big projects needs bigger angels. He did not get financed in Hollywood. He was rejected there. Finally, they got to manage the film financed in Europe only, and it didn’t help to have Dino De Laurentiis telling his friends in various countries, “Don’t buy that movie.” This is avenging gesture and heinous. Without foreign sales you’re dead in the water. There were a lot of shenanigans, and there was a lot of ugliness. Stone is called names. He has tried to stay out of it. Says he: “I’m not going to be left with bad karma on my set. I just stuck to the work, and we eventually pulled people together and got the movie made.” He is of quaint caliber. His association with America is skewed and ludic one. Says he: “I’m not sure, but he’s what America wants. I’m not surprised by the then governor in calling shots. He’s got an amazing face. He’s got a great smile. He has great willpower. The guy pulls off amazing things with his charisma. Unless he really fucks up, he can go right to the White House.”
While reading him, this scribe forms a unique contour about Stone. Stone was in MAMI festival, Mumbai where this critic had long sessions on cinema and its dialectical leap; Stone, in a way, is scary one. He looks like a tiny little chamber of commerce guy. Such is the odd impression of many. Incidentally, in the 1950s he would have been considered distasteful. He’s worse than Nixon in his vulgarity. He looks like he shops at Wal-Mart. That’s not what a president is supposed to be. He has admitted it frankly. He has no intellectual curiosity and is proud of it. He says his wife does the book thing. He’s a liar, hiding behind a shallow and dangerous patriotism. In ridicule he peels off: “We’re number one. The American way.” He retorts: It’s a Superman comic book idea of the world. It covers up the complicated realities, and it’s very dangerous fallouts.”
It is said when Christopher Hitchens called Stone an idiot, Stone, not in anger but in pity called him “A moral and intellectual idiot, to be exact.” In the 1980s he admired Hitchens. He was strongly pro-Nicaragua and right about it. He seemed very intelligent. Since then he has gotten into an extremist groove. He has become an ideologue. He thought it behooved us to understand how America’s unilateralism, arrogance and history of pushing around the rest of the world enrages people. Since Iraq, the outrage is worse than ever.
Stone as a film ideologue has had mind-boggling ideas both political and sociological. His fears about regime of the Republicans are known to us. Says he: “I worry that the Republicans will do anything to win. For a long time I’ve worried that Bush will start another war before the election to get people fearful. Voters are nervous about changing leadership in the middle of a war. He bills himself as Mr. Security, which of course he’s not. He’s Mr. Insecurity. Every decision he has made has led to a worse military conclusion and a less secure nation. He has generated enormous hatred, and hatred begets violence. He shovels up the worst kind of patriotic crap. Thirty or 40 years ago, even in the 1920s, they would have run him out of town. Patriotic stuff works occasionally, as it did during Joe McCarthy’s time, but Bush is overdoing it.”
Stone is a man of open feelings and human warmth. What he hates, he hates. There is no compromise point. Talking about his film Alexander, he says: “I’m talking about hypocrisy. Our puritanism allows boys to kill and be killed but not humanity. It’s ludicrous. Once again we pretend things are one way. Alexander lived in a more honest time. We go into his bisexuality. It may offend some people, but sexuality in those days was a different thing. Pre-Christian morality. Young boys were with boys when they wanted to be. Sometimes it was physical and sometimes platonic. Nonetheless, a man was expected to marry. They didn’t know how heirs were made. At the time, many thought sperm itself contained the whole thing and that the vagina was merely the receptacle. It led them to view women as second-class citizens, as baggage carriers. Sexuality wasn’t necessarily tied to procreation and morality, and men were allowed to have a homosexual side as well as a heterosexual side.” However these are Stone’s personal ideas and thinking about Alexander to which we may not stumble to or chime with.
On cinema project Stone is specific to say: “I follow whatever motivates me, whatever puts the wind in my sails at the moment. I have to be zealous about a project, because it requires years. You have to be consumed by it. Whether it’s Alexander or U Turn, you give it your all. I’ve always changed genres. I’ll do a film noir and then a sports drama like Any Given Sunday. This is the first time I’ve done a historical epic. Ideas come to me, some people say too fast. Perhaps they’re right and I have to learn to slow down, but age takes care of that anyway. I just have to keep going. When I have been shut down, I’ve found a new way. I’m misunderstood and I keep going. I was accused of promoting violence. Anyone who knows me understands that I promote peace.”
On JFK, a project of awe and wonder, Stone had to say a lot of things: “Let’s look at JFK. JFK doesn’t say the things some people say it does. It’s very much a hypothesis. It’s a philosophical inquiry into what is truth, what is reality. If you look closely at the film, it’s written precisely with conditional tenses, what-ifs. It’s a timeworn method of drama. And we put out an entire book with footnotes to explain our sources. We made every effort to be honest, and we were raked over the coals. I was in Europe, thank God, but Peter Jennings took me apart on ABC on the 40th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination.”
Stone is believed to ne conspiracy-minded? Says Stone: “In Europe everyone is conspiracy-minded. They assume that things happen behind the scenes in government and business. They aren’t naive enough to believe the evening news and the soundbites from politicians. Americans want to believe the evening news. They want to believe the press conference. Don’t people realize that they’ve been lying to us for years? So they attack Michael Moore. They attack me.”
Now Fidel Castro, the political architect of people’s voice for over five decades, has caught Stone’s active imagination and self. No doubt for this he has been accused of pandering to Castro. In reality such cut makes no dent on Stone as he is too stoical to taradiddle. For Stone it was more than a epic adventure. His deep association and genuine camaraderie seem to have grown to the peak. Fidel instantly agreed to be lined by Stone. Knowing fully well that Stone is a maverick and could raise pro-Americab issues without dialectical knowledge. But during the 69 minute documentary no unpleasant questions have been asked or raised by Stone as is expected. It is because Stone profoundly believes America’s imperial role in Latin America since the beginning of 20th century. 
We need to know that oak-strong Stone stood by Castro and Cuba in its provocation of American interest. Says he: “ I saw great value in a deep look into a man who has had an enormous impact on history. I was never a journalist, grilling him on his human rights record. That wasn’t my purpose. I wanted to get inside his head. I did, too. I was accused of humanizing him, but what does that mean? I suggest that it’s useful to understand world leaders on the deepest possible level. Once again, though, people want a black-and-white story—Castro, Cuba, communist. What more is there to be said?” As a matter of fact, Stone  didn’t go in with much of an impression at all. He admired him because he’d done something extraordinary with his life. Through the interviews, he came to respect him. What other world leader would talk so straight to you, with the camera rolling and without a PR assistant? Let him be heard, for Christ’s sake. The American people have a right to hear the guy who lives 90 miles away on a hostile little island. The result: he was criticized for humanizing him, but if he had demonized him, they would have loved it.
Stone amazingly has expressed that you find other kinds of beauty. Moments can be deadly, so moments can be beautiful. You must find the beauty. So get on with it. If one door is blocked, move to another door. Adapt. If they try to stop you, find a way to persevere. Yes, if you call attention to yourself, you’ll get nailed. Stone only humanly tried to shake it up, and sometimes he has suffered for it. But he won’t stop. For it’s his ideological duty and moral too.
Janet Tamaro out of his own perceptive counting has maintained Oliver Stone plays the equal time game in Looking for Fidel, posing all the tough questions to Castro he somehow forgot to ask the first time around in his buddy-buddy act Comandante. Fortunately, HBO Inch asked Stone to return for a follow-up interview with the Maximum Leader after the March 2003 executions of three hijackers and arrest of more than 75 Cuban political dissidents; such framed up questions have failed to bother Stone for he is here to uphold truth and not otherwise. As a result Comandante has been criticized as too soft on the world’s longest-running communist  power-holder politician after its January Sundance premiere. Ironically, Looking for Fidel, designed as a corrective to its predecessor, emerges for “the moment as the only view of its subject on the pay cabler, the original having been yanked from its initial spring 2003 air dates and never reskedded.” 
Stone’s comradely, confidential tone with Castro in Comandante sliced both ways, cutting the dictator a lot of slack on the one hand but serving to relax and open him up on the other. Once you accepted that the interrogator was never going to nail his subject with too many probing queries, result could be appreciated for its prolonged, wide-ranging portrait of an unavoidably important figure in 20th century politics. This time around, Stone is all business; so to-the-point is his manner that it’s easy to pick up a subtext suggesting that the filmmaker couldn’t wait to get this obligatory assignment over with so he could move on to his epic project laying in wait, “Alexander.”
Sitting down across from Castro in very Mike Wallace fashion, Stone immediately confronts his host with the outrage of the international community over the brutality of Cuban justice in the cases of the hijackers and political opponents. Defending his actions as a proper response to “terrorism” and insisting he’d handle things just the same way if he had it to do all over again, Castro then indulges in a long-practiced habit of turning the negative spotlight away from his country and onto the United States, as he underlines the due process denied to the 800-odd prisoners held on his own island at Guantanamo Bay.
Stone is not disillusioned over the mega biopic. It is within his ken that the U.S. remains Castro’s obsession and bete noire, the oppositional force that has fed his revolutionary fervor for nearly 45 years. But at this point, from an American point of view, Castro looks like yesterday’s enemy. A rare remnant of the collapsed Soviet empire, Castro can fulminate all he wants about alleged and real Yank belligerence, hypocrisy and so on, but the loquacious old rebel now reps a faded side show to the main event on the world stage and must know it.
Stone has gently acknowledged his hidden passion for Fidel which he is “Looking for”. How else to explain his willingness, first, to sit down once again with Stone, aware that he’ll be getting nothing but high and hard fastballs and, second, to participate in a genuinely weird hearing-cum-news confabulations at which eight subsequent hijackers, who are about to be tried, air their grievances and propose what sentences they think they deserve. After weighing in from time to time and looking like he’s trying to contain intense exasperation, Castro tells the defense attorneys that it’s their job to argue for short sentences, after which we learn that the accused were all put away for 30 years to life.
Compared to the 99-minute Comandante, the frightened and tight, under-an-hour format of Looking for Fidel offers modest opportunity for casual or oblique insights, but it nonetheless yields a few. After a doctor performs a checkup and announces that the 77-year-old leader has the heart of a 32-year-old, Castro gets up and says, “I declare myself healthy” (truth be told, he looks paler and seems somewhat less sharp than he did in Comandante); confronted with Amnesty Intl.’s extensive criticisms of his regime, Castro states, “Cubans do not believe in Amnesty Intl.,” brands the org’s accusations “lies” and blithely dismisses all domestic dissidents as being in the employ of the U.S.
Stone puts particular energy into pressing Castro on the issue of his succession and even urges him to retire in favor of new blood, but naturally the gray fox will have none of it. “I think I will die with my boots on,” Castro confides, while disingenuously insisting that he’s had no time to think about the issue of who or what will come after him, other than to egotistically imagine that, after death, “My influence would grow.”
As always, Castro leads Stone out onto the street to show the gargantuan public support he still claims to enjoy among “the people,” against manipulated pic features snippets from opponents who tell a different story proving cipher. Camera angles and editing are sometimes febrile and very smart and eccentric for their own good, creating a borderline slapdash impression, and score verges on the uproarious singing of joy including non-decadent Internationale of brotherhood.

END
The Oliver Stone Experience | The Official Oliver Stone website | www.oliverstone.com
Official Oliver Stone site with the latest news and blog posts, as well as biography, detailed filmography, articles, books and screenplays.
1 day ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/103848723204239763419 haris butt : The Dictator (2012) [Hin-Eng] ||The Dictator (2012)|| [Hin-Eng | BRRip | 720P] Rating:  6.4/10 Genre...
The Dictator (2012) [Hin-Eng]
||The Dictator (2012)|| [Hin-Eng | BRRip | 720P] Rating:  6.4/10 Genre:  Comedy Director:  Larry Charles Release Date:  16 May 2012 Stars:  Sacha Baron Cohen, Anna Faris and Ben Kingsley Storyline:  The Republic of Wadiya is ruled by an eccentric and oppres...
The Dictator (2012) [Hin-Eng]
||The Dictator (2012)|| [Hin-Eng | BRRip | 720P] Rating: 6.4/10 Genre: Comedy Director: Larry Charles Release Date: 16 May 2012 Stars: Sacha Baron Cohen, Anna Faris and Ben Kingsley Storyline: The Republic of Wadiya is ...
1 day ago - Via - View -
https://plus.google.com/102467852489121424795 Bikes in the Fast Lane : Syria: Cops Expected To Ride With Photo Of Dictator Assad?: #Syria #Police - Wow, it looks like the ...
Syria: Cops Expected To Ride With Photo Of Dictator Assad?: #Syria #Police - Wow, it looks like the motorcycle police in Syria need to ride around with photos of the (dictator) president Assad. If not.... ...
Syria: Cops Expected To Ride With Photo Of Dictator Assad?
Wow, it looks like the motorcycle police in Syria need to ride around with photos of the (dictator) president Assad. If not....
1 day ago - Via - View -
https://plus.google.com/108432007275761621669 Joshua Ong : In the last GE, PR won 51% of the vote compared to 47% for BN but the former still lost #Putrajaya to...
In the last GE, PR won 51% of the vote compared to 47% for BN but the former still lost #Putrajaya to the latter. Sapu #Malaysia! #Indonesia Boleh!

Reform-minded governor wins Indonesian presidential race
Published: 22 July 2014

Indonesian presidential candidate Joko 'Jokowi' Widodo (left) talks with a child next to his colleague Anies Baswedan while waiting for the results announcement by the Elections Commission, at Waduk Pluit in Jakarta. – Reuters pic, July 22, 2014
Indonesian presidential candidate Joko 'Jokowi' Widodo (left) talks with a child next to his colleague Anies Baswedan while waiting for the results announcement by the Elections Commission, at Waduk Pluit in Jakarta. – Reuters pic, July 22, 2014
The reform-minded governor of teeming Jakarta, Joko Widodo, has comfortably won Indonesia's presidential race against a controversial ex-general with deep roots in the era of strongman Suharto, final results showed Tuesday.

Widodo, known by his nickname Jokowi, won around 53% of the vote compared to about 47% for Prabowo Subianto, according to a final tally cited by local media in the world's third biggest democracy.

The official announcement of the result of the July 9 election was expected shortly.



Widodo's victory caps a meteoric rise for the former furniture exporter who was born in a riverbank slum. It will be welcomed by investors who hope he can breathe new life into Southeast Asia's biggest economy after a recent slowdown.
Voters faced a stark choice between governor Widodo, from a new breed of politicians without links to the autocratic Suharto era, and Prabowo, a figure from the old guard with a chequered human rights record.

The news came just hours after Prabowo, who had also claimed victory in the election, alleged fraud and said he was withdrawing from the race.

Prabowo, 62, had been expected to challenge the result in the Constitutional Court if he lost, but a spokesman for his team said this was no longer an option since they had withdrawn from the whole process.

The decision removes the prospect of prolonged political deadlock because the court would not have ruled until the end of August.

Speaking to reporters earlier in Jakarta, Prabowo claimed there had been "a massive, structured and systematic fraud" in the 2014 elections.

"The presidential election, organised by the (election commission), is not democratic," he told reporters, adding the commission was "not fair or transparent".

Widodo however, insisted that "everything was transparent, everything was open" during the election in the world's most populous Muslim-majority nation. Independent analysts have said the poll has been largely free and fair.

Tensions have risen sharply since election day as each side accused the other of seeking to tamper with the votes during the lengthy counting process across the world's biggest archipelago nation.

There were fears the tension could spark unrest in a country that was hit by repeated outbreaks of violence before Suharto's downfall in 1998, and more than 250,000 police were deployed across the country on Tuesday.

Security was particularly tight in the capital Jakarta, with hundreds of police in riot gear stationed around the election commission headquarters, and roads around the centre of the capital closed off to traffic.

Police and politicians appealed for supporters not to take to the streets and by early evening there was no sign of major demonstrations.

Despite Prabowo's repeated accusations the coalition backing him appeared to be falling apart in recent days, with several key members reportedly conceding defeat.

Even President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono hinted Monday that the ex-general should accept the result if he loses, saying: "Conceding defeat is noble."

Widodo was the long-time favourite to become president, but a huge poll lead he held for months dwindled to single digits during the most divisive election campaign of Indonesia's short democratic era, which began with Suharto's fall in 1998.

However, on election day, pollsters with a track record of accurately predicting Indonesian election outcomes gave Widodo a slim but decisive lead, and only a small number of lesser-known survey institutes called a win for Prabowo.

Widodo, 53, won legions of fans during his time as Jakarta governor with his common touch, regularly making visits to the city's slums in casual clothes.

In contrast, Prabowo, who won support with fiery nationalistic speeches, used to command the army's feared special forces during the Suharto era and was formerly married to one of the dictator's daughters. – AFP, July 22, 2014.

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/world/article/reform-minded-governor-wins-indonesian-presidential-race#sthash.VlHafSDz.dpuf
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-dLEfiQlTcuE/U88DxQqjpFI/AAAAAAABgNY/R_PDDOzcmc4/w506-h750/14%2B-%2B1
1 day ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/101888616851771629455 Ogma Books : Just Arrived - The Woman Who Shot Mussolini - 7 April 1926: on the steps of the Capitol in Rome, surrounded...
Just Arrived - The Woman Who Shot Mussolini - 7 April 1926: on the steps of the Capitol in Rome, surrounded by chanting Fascists, The Honourable Violet Gibson raises her old revolver and fires at the Italian head of state, the darling of Europe’s ruling class. The bullet narrowly misses the dictator’s bald head, hitting him in the nose. Of all his would-be assassins, she came closest to changing the course of history. What brought her to this moment? She was the daughte... http://ow.ly/2KyunN
The Woman Who Shot Mussolini
7 April 1926: on the steps of the Capitol in Rome, surrounded by chanting Fascists, The Honourable Violet Gibson raises her old revolver and fires at the Italian head of state, the darling of Europe’s ruling class. The bullet narrowly misses the dictator’s bald head, hitting him in the nose. Of all his would-be assassins, she came closest to changing the course of history. What brought her to this moment? She was the daughter of an Anglo-Irish lo...
1 day ago - Via - View -
https://plus.google.com/113995437682570107227 METALFABRIKKEN KANAL KØBENHAVN : Klip fra The Dictator
Klip fra The Dictator
Watch the video: Etra the Virgin
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/d-orkbFuH3LaCdyOW42ts8mCYY-H2fWLEVZXzH8vPW2eDDMjBi2g4-OCGYZhSWfT5LEgt7mN0dLtL7vWSLW2=w506-h379-n
The Dictator getting attacked by his former security staff ...
1 day ago - Via - View -
https://plus.google.com/109724047800144265547 Thurman Hubbard : Dan Reed - The Dictator
Dan Reed - The Dictator

Dan Reed - The Dictator

2 days ago - Via - View -