Controversial directors

I was wondering what my fellow posters thought of those so-called "controversial directors", such as Oliver Stone, Spike Lee, and the like, and what you thought of their movies.

Personally, I think that Spike Lee is the most misunderstood director now working. He's been labeled as an angry racist, but I don't see it in his movies. His work, to me, is as even-handed as his subject matter allows. I think that his 'Do the Right Thing' is one of the saddest (and most important) American films ever made, and 'Malcolm X' is one of the greatest of all the screen biographies. What do you guys think of him, and why?

Oliver Stone is a pretentious, coked-out maniac who happens to make great movies. He's "controversial" because his films deal with subjects that are sensitive to many people, and he hits nerves. Movies like his stir the sh-t, shake things up, and make people look at things differently, and I commend him for it. I think that JFK, Platoon, and Natural Born Killers are his best films...What do you think of them?

Any other controversial directors you want to discuss, write about them here. This is the spot.

__________________
**** the Lakers!

I think that you forgot Kubrick. Just for A Clockwork Orange alone he deserves to be listed here. I mean in England for every murder that took place it was blamed on Mr. Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. He eventually had to take it off the screen

Oh come on dude is that all you think about?

I don't know what to make of Spike Lee. He has talent, no doubt, but I do think he probably harbors some racist feelings. I will say this, though: I have not seen all of He Got Game, but what I have seen of it was very, very impressive. It really draws you in.

I had never seen a Spike Lee movie (or "Joint", as he calls them) until tonight. I rented Bamboozled and watched it. I enjoyed it, though the message seemed a bit heavy-handed at times. Overall, I thought it was a good movie (I rented it basically to see what it would look like since it was shot on digital video. I rented and watched Chuck & Buck tonight for the same reason).

As for Stone, while I enjoyed JFK as a movie, I kind of wish he had pursued a plausible theory of the Kennedy Assassination instead of rehashing Garrison's paranoid rant. But it was still an enjoyable movie. I've never seen Natural Born Killers as it didn't look like something I would like, but Wall Street is among my favorites.

OK i just had to throw in Kubrick. Really I think that Spike Lee is probably the most controversial. I mean people call him a racist, but he is just so misunderstood.

The thing about JFK is, it's not about figuring out who shot Kennedy. The film isn't concerned with that. It's concerned with asking questions. It throws out every possible theory, and hopes it will make you think. It's about the SEARCH for truth, not the truth itself.

I recommend Do the Right Thing, Malcolm X, Bamboozled, He Got Game, and Summer of Sam for those of you who haven't seen Spike Lee's flicks.

But should the search for the truth contain so many lies, falsehoods and mischaracterizations? It presents too much as truth that isn't anywhere near the truth. If the movie was about asking questions, the movie should've stayed away from presenting "evidence" as fact that is known to be untrue.

For me, it's hard to watch a movie that is supposed to be based on history knowing that so much of the history is flat-out wrong. It'd be like making a movie of Pearl Harbor but having the Germans as the people who attacked Pearl Harbor and putting Pearl Harbor in Montana.

The movie doesn't present any of it as truth. It's no more or less truthful than any other movie based on real life events. It presents everything to build TOWARD this monologue at the end, that defines the movie's true aims as being about the search, not the truth. It wants us to ask questions, and in using all of the information, if FORCES us to.

How does it not present truth by having Laurie Metcalf talk about the famous backyard photo and claiming that the shadows show that it's probably fake (it's not, and even Marina Oswald says she took that picture)? How is it not presenting truth by showing Clay Shaw say his alias is Clay Bertrand (something that never happened)? How is it not trying to show truth by giving a prominent role to Jean Hill's story that is contradicted by photographs taken at the scene? Her story is never questioned. It is never presented in a way that would make people think that it may not be true (and cannot possibly be true given the photographic evidence). Why present the umbrella man as a mystery without presenting the explanation given at the House Select Hearings. Even if you think his story is BS, you could at least present the explanation if one is really questioning things rather than trying to present one side. How is it not trying to present truth to show Rose Cheramie story without noting that she had a long history of mental illness and a history of reporting false stories to the FBI? How is it not trying to show truth by not showing the bad side of Garrison - his history of making stuff up, his intense paranoia, etc.? And so on and so on and so on. The film continuously shows us things that aren't true and never even hints that these things might not be true. They are presented as fact and are never questioned. If the intent was to have people ask questions, why not question the material in the film rather than presenting it without question?

If the purpose is to question things, why only show one side? If the purpose is to question things, why regurgitate things that cannot possibly be true? It does no good to question things that are unquestionable, especially if the truth is specifically not presented, not even as an option or possibility. Why again tarnish the names of innocent people based solely on Jim Garrison's fantasies and not make it clear that real life was far different than what's presented in the movie?

BECAUSE THE MOVIE ISN'T ABOUT JIM GARRISON'S FANTASIES. JIM GARRISON IS JUST THE VESSEL TO SHOW US EVERYTHING THAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THE KENNEDY ASSASINATION. It "tarnishes" the names of people because it's about the quest for truth. The quote at the beginning sums up the feelings in the movie, and the only feelings:

"To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men."

And about questioning things that are unquestionable...that's just a matter of opinion. You can think whatever you want. The movie presents things in a one-sided manner becasue it wants us to ask questions, to be confused, to be frustrated. It's not concerned with anything else.

Films aren't a medium for fact, with only a few exceptions. They are a medium for emotions, and JFK has plenty.

Garrison cannot be a vessel to show us everything that is known about the Kennedy Assassination because we are not shown everything that is known about the assassination. As a matter of fact, we are often shown things that contradict things that are known about the Kennedy Assassination. And everything having to do with David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Guy Bannister, et al is nothing more than Jim Garrison's fantasy. Even the nuttiest of the Assassination crowd don't believe these things, and most of them have been proven to be untrue.

And fact is not my opinion. Fact is fact. It cannot be questioned because it is fact. Stone shows us many things in JFK that are contradicted by fact (not just opinion, but fact). Questioning facts is a waste of time when they are facts. One cannot present an alternate fact because facts are facts.

If I made a movie that said that Steve N. was Oswald's homosexual lover and was involved in the Kennedy Assassination you'd have no problem with that because I'd be presenting a quest for the truth, right?

The fact that it was Jim Garrison who made up the connection between Oswald and Clay Shaw rather than me making up that you were connected to Oswald and the Assassination shouldn't make any difference right? We're just on a quest for the truth. Might as well say anything. Why not blame space aliens? It seems odd to me that a movie that is supposedly about the quest for the truth would have so much disrepect for the truth.

So what? The film DOESN'T CONCERN ITSELF WITH TRUTH. It's no more or less truthful than Erin Brockovich or even Braveheart for that matter. FACT DOESN'T MATTER. It belongs in the printed word. It doesn't matter in films, except docs.

Garrison is the vessel because he was THE ONLY PERSON to ever try to search for truth. How he was in real life doesn't matter in this film, because again, fact doesnt' matter. Who would you suggest be the person to take us through the film?

If I was going to make the film, I'd be more concerned with presenting Garrison as he really was. We can follow his search for his version of the truth through the flawed "hero" that he was. We can present things that are real and not present things that aren't real. We can show that Clay Shaw was wrongly accused and present the supposed conspirators how they really were rather than in a completely made-up way that sprang solely from the mind of Jim Garrison. Why present his theories as plausible while not presenting the way he came up with them in the manner that he came up with them. Why must Garrison be a hero? Why can't we show the world how it really was. If anything, that would be a better movie. People put faith in Jim Garrison to bring the truth, but Garrison was a huckster who never had the truth to give. The true story of Jim Garrison would be a fascinating movie. I'd rather see the real Garrison than the made-up Garrison. If he's going to make up the personality of the person, why not just make up the person completely?

Since Stone has so little respect for fact, he could've simply made someone up to take us through what could've happened in Dallas. Since most everything else is made-up, why must a real person be used as the "hero"?

Umm, did you read what I said? FACT DOESN'T BELONG IN FILM. IT BELONGS IN THE PRINTED WORD.

I'd like to point out, too, that Jim Garrison never tried to search for the truth of the Kennedy Assassination. He tried to bring convictions against innocent people based solely on his own fantasies. That was his m.o. with many issues during his tenure in New Orleans. He was a huckster. He was never on a quest for the truth in real life. Oliver Stone made him out to be a hero on a quest for the truth, when in real life, he was far, far different.

Another idea, why must a prosecutor be the hero? Why not a journalist? Why not Marrs or one of the other self-appointed journalists who have written on the Kennedy Assassination. Nearly every one of them has a more plausible theory of the crime that isn't contradicted by the what we actually know to be fact and truth.

He didn't make up a character because he knew that his choice would start sh-t. It's about a real person, but moreso it's about a man with an obsession.

I didn't stutter, my friend. Facts don't matter. What's plausible and what isn't have nothing to do with this film.

He chose Garrison because Garrison was the ONLY person to ever try to prosecute. Theories don't matter, it's the action that matters. He knew something was wrong, just like the American people generally believe the Warren report is wrong, and he keeps digging and digging at it. Saying he tried to prosecute people on images from his own fantasies IS a matter of opinion. How do you know? The man was the only one at the time who looked for answers, and Stone correctly chose him as the person we should follow the story of the film with.

Fact belongs in films that present themselves as fact. When has Oliver Stone ever said that his movie in entirely fiction. When did he go out during the film's initial run and point out the made-up stuff in his film. He didn't do that. He went on TV and defended the made-up stuff on news programs as if they were fact. I seriously doubt we could get Oliver Stone to say that his film is as fictional as it is.