Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 11:14:00 PDT
From:         "Caroline Sisneros, Mgmt Lib." <ECZ5BCS@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Stone, Allen, Scorsese

I could'nt let this post go by without comment simply because I think it very w
ell thought out and has some very interesting things to say.
>
> Woody Allen makes very personal films and often evokes a clear and precise
> image of the past (Radio Days, Zelig, Purple Rose of Cario [actually doesn't
> JFK have more in common with ZELIG than another American film?]), but nothing
> about the way the films are shot, edited or scored demands the viewer to see
> the film as anything but Woody Allen's personal views, his own diary, etc. In
> fact I think he would be upset if somebody tried to attach meaning or truth
> to these films. He wants to entertain and cause people to think and come to
> their own conclusions.

 I'm reminded of two things. My best friend hates Woody Allen movies because sh
e says it's like being in on someone's therapy session. They speak to personal
feelings and your reactions I think depend on the emotions that they invoke, no
t on what the filmmaker is feeling. I was blown away by the Purple Rose of Cari
o because I saw it as I was studying for my master's comprehensivesin film stud
ies and it spoke to all I was feeling at that time, it spoke to my truth at the
 time.

> Scorsese also makes personal films about the past (RAGING BULL, GOODFELLAS)
> often seen through the eyes of his "hero", but although his film are jam
> packed with virtuoso camera work, brillant editing, and wonderfully
> suggestive uses of music, he manages to keep a distance and perspective
> on what he's film which allows the viewer to think and make his/her own
> judgements about morality and other issues raised. He neither vilifies nor
> sanctifies. He treats the audience like it has a brain.

I think it was in Premiere magazine where they talked about how when he was a c
hild Scorsese was sick and spent much of his time looking at the window at the
world and this (IMHO) is how he approaches his films.

> Oliver Stone evokes a personal image of the past, deals with moral issues,
> Stone's cinematic vision there is no point of view but his. The audience
> has no brain and needs to be told everything, over and over again.
> Although I think I might share Stone's views on Capitalism and Greed (WALL
> STREET), Viet Nam (PLATOON, BORN ON THE 4th OF JULY), Latin America (SAL-
> VADOR), and the Kennedy assasination (JFK) I am always offended by the
> heavy handed way he tries to manipulate what he considers to be the
> truth. Now I know what about to say next will cause a lot of you
> guys to go nuts but in my opinion Oliver Stone makes the same kind of
> movies that were made in Gernamy between say 1936 and 1945); if you
> don't believe me try screening some of Stone's work along side OLYMPIAD
> (just to name one less hateful example).
> All this is just my opinion.

I can't stand watching Oliver Stone movies. This is nothing against his talent
as a filmmaker. I will acknowledge that. It even has nothing to do with whether
 I agree or disagree with what he has to say, it is the way in which I am given
 no choice to agree or disagree. And I think that his movies are propoganda bec
ause he presents them as "THE TRUTH" particularly for issues where I don't thin
g there can ever really be "THE TRUTH". And that's my two cents.

Actually what I really wanted to do was compliment Peter on his analysis.

Caroline
UCLA
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU