Comments on: Oliver Stone To Make First Major 9/11 Film

By: Cas

Cas — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 08:17:35 +0000

Good job.

By: Palli

Palli — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 05:11:35 +0000

I don’t live in USA and i am not familier with who’s who of anyone living there.But as they say 9/11 changed the world forever,i might agree that the devil’s minions have resurfaced with a bang and noone’s safe from there hate.
I don’t agree with America’s policies over Iraq and Afghanistan.As i am from a third party nation only Terrorism and the human toll in the US,Iraq and Afghanistan is a concern to me.
Mr.Stone,in my view,just wants to be the “first” becuase every director is dying to make a movie on hot and controversial issues.
But they should always keep in mind the human cost and should always respect those who suffered.

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 01:50:24 +0000

Fair enough.

And by the way, please don’t misunderstand. I definitely think you have the right to call Stone whatever you please, but I still don’t think it helps. ;-)

By: Callimachus

Callimachus — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:21:48 +0000

I consider him a crackpot not based on his body of work (most of which I haven’t seen) but based on his comments and statements about 9/11 and the history since then. And I have the courage to call a pot cracked if I see the fault line.

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:55:46 +0000

I completely agree with you about the Ground Zero memorial. I want Soros and his group to get the hell out of there. I don’t think a memorial like that belongs at a place like Ground Zero, period. However, crackpot? Why? Because he questions the status quo and provides a different point of view? Sure, ‘JFK’ was out there, but people condemn him for that without considering his entire lexicon of work.

And a lot of people don’t even realize that in the span of two years he made Salvador, Platoon and Wall Street, three of the most politically charged and powerful American films ever. This 9/11 pick will have to dive into the issues and I know Stone will have the courage to do it. Am I nervous? Damn right, but that’s art. An artist’s portrayal may not be one everybody agrees with, but that’s the point. Art is meant to challenge, not to placate.

So please, refrain from name calling. You may not agree with what he has to say, but he has the courage to say it, and that’s more than I can say for most filmmakers working today.

By: Callimachus

Callimachus — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:12:30 +0000

9/11 is the most potent symbol in America these days. More potent than the flag-raising at Iwo Jima, more potent than the Gettysburg address or the Martin Luther King Jr. speech. As such, it is the object of a great tug-of-war, and leading polemicists on both sides know this, whether they admit it or not. Just look at the bitterness over what has been suggested at the Ground Zero memorial.

A crackpot like Stone (who has spoken of the attacks as “the revolt of Sept. 11th” and the Afghan invasion as a sham orchestrated by oil companies) could no more make a “respectful” 9/11 movie than D.W. Griffith could make a balanced one about Reconstruction. He’s got a job cut out for him, to tickle Islamist fundamentalist suicide attacks into the liberal pantheon of compassion and tolerance, but he’ll try, no doubt.

He’s got no choice. It’s too powerful to secede to the other side. Just like the French Republicans of the late 19th century had to co-opt, eventually, the Catholicism of the provinces, which they loathed, if only to take it out of the hands of the royalists.