Oliver Stone style editing

Rating: 10/10 (30 December 1999)

Why must we hear of MTV style editing every time Oliver Stone releases a picture? Roger Ebert is even guilty. Why don't we hear of Oliver Stone style editing on MTV? That would seem more appropriate. If this editing style is in the way of ones moviegoing experience, then don't watch! And don't badmouth Stone because you fail to see what he is trying to accomplish. Since when does a visually interesting movie get scorned because of it's style? This is absurd. The fast pased editing does no less than allow Stone to fit more into the allotted timeframe than any other director. Why do his characters seem more real than anyone else's? Why do Stone's actors seem to be one notch better than the same actor in someone else's film? Because of his style. It allows for multiple layers of story and character.
Now, on to Any Given Sunday, yet another triumph in the illustrious career of Mr. Stone. To some, the football action done in closeup may be bothersome. These folks would rather see a Fox broadcast with John Madden blithering incoherently and drawing all over the screen with his telestrator. Well, we don't get that here, and I'm glad. What we get, is football action from inside the huddle, the line of scrimmage, from inside a helmet being bounced around by 300 pound men. This film is not about strategy, it is about brutality, physical brutality in terms of the players, and mental brutality in terms of Tony (Al Pacino). We see the effects of the physical brutality on an aging quarterback, and the emotional, and mental effects on the coach, Pacino. What we also have, is the brutality of greed. Ah, there it is. The famous Stone allegory. We all know that Stone's films are not about the chosen subject, they are about something larger. They are about America, about morality, about the media, about film itself. This one is at its heart about bloodlust, for money, the bottom line. It all traces back to the almighty dollar in this one.

I saw a review posted on here stating something to the effect that this is also about age. A very perceptive idea. Stone, as an aging filmmaker, Pacino as an aging actor, it's all about age, about rekindling a love for ones art, Pacino's coach, and ultimately about Stone finding the fire within once again.
I beleive that Stone was very emotionally hurt by the box office draw (or lack thereof) for Nixon. One of the great epics of all time in my opinion. Here is a film that is half Citizen Kane, and half Godfather, and is succesful at this blend. Incredible. It's too bad he was scoffed at because he is inherently so polictical. It's sad that this great work has been overlooked. If you haven't given it a try, do so, you will not be sorry. The first half up until the Republican convention of 1968 is the most masterful piece of directing of all time. Believe me, it's that good. And what more can you ask from Anthony Hopkins? Here is a man who CLEARLY does not look one bit like Richard Nixon, but makes one forget by the end what Nixon looked like. Truly one of the most masterful performances ever by an actor.
I digress, I am obviously a huge fan of Stone, so big a fan that I even forgave him for U-Turn, and eventually learned to like it. I just hate these critics and nay-sayers who can't get past his style to see what substance lies within.