The Right, Our History, and The Fear of Understanding

The Modern American Right has always had an issue with the accurate portrayals of American History and it being displayed in text and film formats. That's always troubled me. And I'm not alone. Enter Oliver Stone and Showtime. The Right, whether in their more modest and farthers forms, have never liked Stone. I can almost see why - to a fault. From Stone's earlier works like Platoon to his forays into the world of documentaries like Persona Non Gratta, Stone has been cast in the character of a pariah for decades. Now he's about to complete another magnum opus for Showtime on American's "real" history. Enter William Bigelow and the serial distortionists at the Breitbart Media Complex

The polemic, which airs its final installment at 8 p.m. EST tomorrow night, intentionally distorts history in order to paint the United States as a terrible country that oppressed its people and hid the seamy side of its past. Ronald Radosh, in a brilliant attack on Stone and Kuznick in the Wall Street Journal, explains how they twist the truth in order to promulgate their attack on the noblest of nations. He begins by noting that Kuznick wrote in a book of essays that his role entails “creating a bridge between leftist and more moderate students … try to radicalize some of the more moderate and liberal students.” Kuznick said of the Vietnam War that America had gone so far "to the dark side" that "we were the wrong side." The authors deny that the Cold War was necessary, arguing that it only transpired because President Franklin D. Roosevelt dumped his socialist vice-president Henry A. Wallace (their hero) for Harry Truman in 1944. They assert that if Wallace had succeeded Roosevelt instead of Truman, everything would have been hunky dory with the Soviets.

While the documentary, regardless of subject matter, requires that somewhat of a common theme or narrative been reinforced throughout it's running time, the Modern American Right have clearly injected their own narrative without even the slightest attempt to understand that the history of this country isn't all waving flags, rhetorical flourishes from great men and women, and people prospering in the face of adversity. It was - and still is - at many times a bloody and scary place to call home and some of it's primary characters didn't always have a life that was white as snow. So here's the question - what does the Modern American Right have against even mentioning the seemingly more darker portion of our nation's history? They are all too willing at times to talk to us about "the truth", but are quite hesitant when that truth is revealed. This isn't to say that Stone's work on the Showtimes series didn't have historical plot-holes or spend longer stretches of time on subjects where more of a wealth of solid information is available or even hypothesize to a degree. Does that make it a documentary that is without merit? No. Does this mean that Stone is attempting to say that America is a place of nothing but evil and where not everyone is created equal? Not in the least. I'm not going to hold my breath in the hopes that the Modern American Right are going to even begin to accept the true history of our nation within my lifetime. Maybe never - based solely on the fact that they are creating their own dark history of this country, but it doesn't include anything about the Right - as the dark history revolves exclusively within the realm of anyone or anything that doesn't accept conservative or even libertarian beliefs as holy writ.

Biting The Hand That Feeds

Richard Dreyfuss was on the View today to "publicize" Oliver Stone's latest film "W", in which he plays Dick Cheney.

When asked why he made the film, he said he did it for "money." Dreyfuss also said, "I think it's 6/8ths of a great film."

Asked how it was to work with Oliver Stone, he said "imagine working for Sean Hannity... you can be a fascist, even when you're on the left."

He also said he isn't sure the film "will have any historical legs."

Huffington Post has the video here.

While this might come as a shock to some, it is not uncommon for actors to not completely enjoy a particular movie that they have been in. I'm reminded of Mel Gibson's comments about Wim Wender's film "Million Dollar Hotel", calling it "as boring as a dogs ass".

Let's not forget that this is the same guy that complained about Jaws.

Also, Oliver Stone doesn't have a reputation of being a director that everyone enjoys working with. Many directors aren't people that you can just "pal-around" with.

In the end, Dreyfuss looked at this as a job, nothing more. But, one would at least expect at least a modest amount of courtesy from a great actor.

Actress / News Anchor Attacked - Because Of Film Roll?

Unless you live in Little Rock, AK, you have probably never heard of Anne Pressly.

However, if you have seen Oliver Stone's latest film, "W", you would recognize her as the actress that played Ann Coulter.

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Anne Pressly's personality made her a hit with television viewers. Now, police want to know whether her celebrity made her a target.

The popular KATV anchorwoman, who had a small part in the new Bush biopic "W," was in critical but stable condition Tuesday after a severe beating in her home. Investigators aren't sure whether she was the random victim of a home invasion or a target because of her high-profile job.

"(It) is possible that it is something other than robbery," police spokeswoman Cassandra Davis said. "Our detectives are talking with co-workers because she was a public figure, because she was on the news, in the media."

Pressly, 26, was found Monday a half-hour before she was due on the set of "Daybreak," a morning mix of news and features on Little Rock's ABC affiliate. Her mother discovered the anchorwoman battered and bloodied after she didn't answer a wake-up call.

More here.

It would be far too easy to cast this aside as simply coincidental. Others may take an even more pathetic path and claim that she "deserved it". As for myself, I find this highly suspect. This wasn't just a "robbery" attempt.

What I'm Going To Be Watching Friday Night

Provided that it's going to be playing in my town.

Oliver Stone's Bush bio-pic, "W".

Stone did a brief interview with REUTERS

Q: Why is it important to release "W." so near to the 2008 U.S. presidential elections when President George W. Bush is not running for office again?

A: "We are dealing with the phenomenon of Bush and whoever wins the election, his impact is going to be in the shadow of this huge presence that existed for eight years and which changed the world. I think a lot of people should come because it's good for them, before the election, to think about who they elected in the last eight years, and about where we are as a country right now."



Q; Which is the legacy of the Bush administration that most concerns you?

A; "This man has left us with a legacy of three wars -- the war in Iraq, in Afghanistan and the war on terror -- and the policy of the preemptive strike. These are all very dangerous things in terms of foreign policy.

"Internally he has assumed privileges for the executive that were never taken in such extremity before or over such a long period. He has violated laws and not enforced laws that he did not agree with."

more here

Oliver Stone Releases Trailer For George W. Bush Movie

Here's the first official trailer for Oliver Stone's movie about Bush called ( appropriately ) "W".



We're still waiting on word from The White House on this one, but i'm fairly sure that they won't have anything nice to say. Considering that Stone has a pretty "cynical" view of how American Government - and those that are in said government - works, this should be a fairly interesting film.