Stone's Real Intent
So Stone wasn't a politician, so what [Apples & Oranges]?
John Wayne hadn't been one either and that didn't stop him from making those godawful politically motivated, war fantasy films or the radio commentator, Rush Limbaugh's media agitprop campaign or Bill O'Reilly's political jibberish using the TVmedium [puuuulleeze].
And lest we forget Reagan's hammy acting career which consisted [mostly] of political and military hyperbole & historical revisioning (like J. Wayne and ilk) etc.
Stone's real intent in making movies like Platoon and Born On The 4th Of July was to counteract the official polished, slick, sanitized version of those "records of events."
Again, I must reiterate that people who hasn't been there, cannot make assessments of any portion of The `Nam which they hae no direct experience, knowledge or understanding of, i.e., Hamburger Hill vs Platoon.
How can anyone claim on the one hand that Hamburger Hill was amazingly depicted, very detailed, etc. while on the other hand, claiming Platoon was pandering to the Box Office, an absolute fakery blahblahblah
How can someone know which gear was the real deal in which movie, and which wasn't?
Or which one was shot on location and which wasn't?
In the final analysis, the only thing that counts is the knowing vs merely speculating. Nuff said.
Who said "Platoon" was pandering to the box office?
Stone was never a politician but made films about politics -- he was a soldier and made a film about soldiers. No apples and oranges there. It just means that his being a soldier doesn't necessarily mean he can direct actors to portray soldiers realistically. I don't feel he achieved that realism.
You may consider yourself an authority on how authentic each film appears to be according to accoutrements but tools do not a great film make.
We're going to have to agree to disagree here -- cinematically, "Platoon" is alright but its message is somewhat lost in the same "artistic" mumbo jumbo that spoiled "JFK" for me. And I'm not a conservative and certainly not a fan of Wayne's burnt offerings such as "The Green Berets," which is laughable as cinema.
The slick and sanitizing liberal Democrats version of Vietnam is in question here? Or Nixon's abortive way of ending the conflict? A very confusing war, indeed and there is no comprehensive film explaining exactly what went on there.
As I alluded to before, I applaud Stone's inspiration to throw back the covers on some very unfortunate periods of US history but as filmmaker, I still feel he is overrated.
I think we are looking at things from different viewpoints and I tend to look at films as how imaginative and profound they can be rather than just how authentic they can be.
