Oliver Stone - John Williams collaborations

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Exactly. Real events and facts misinterpreted.

[Thor 7,465]

I think people should leave the whole 'facts' thing behind (I find it rather narrowminded and absurd to apply in this setting, to be honest) and instead focus on what the director wants to say; what is his message, what is his style and approach to the subject matter. In the case of Stone's films, what he wants to explore goes WAY beyond the actual events that took place in real life.

As others alluded to above, it's like criticizing this painting of the French Revolution for not adhering to the facts and how things really happened:

[Josh500 1,615]

No, I'm not saying it's half fiction, I'm actually saying it's 100% fiction.......BASED on real events.

What does that mean? "100% fiction based on real events?"

This movie is based on real events (of J.G.'s life), period.

I think people should leave the whole 'facts' thing behind (I find it rather narrowminded and absurd to apply in this setting, to be honest) and instead focus on what the director wants to say; what is his message, what is his style and approach to the subject matter. In the case of Stone's films, what he wants to explore goes WAY beyond the actual events that took place in real life.

As others alluded to above, it's like criticizing this painting of the French Revolution for not adhering to the facts and how things really happened:

No.

Like I already said:

The movie doesn't purport to tell us the truth about JFK's assassination. Instead the movie tells us the truth about Jim Garrions' investigation and experiences, what various witnesses told him, how he charged Shaw, what resistance he encountered along the way, his personal speculations and thoughts, his disintegrating family life etc.

If you still disagree, read Jim Marrs's non-fiction book! And start with this article!

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Jim_Garrison

__________________

By the way, anybody seen this extended edition of Nixon (28 minutes added!!!)? I don't think in Europe this is available on DVD...

Does it also feature additional JW cues?

http://www.amazon.co...22134247&sr=1-1

Anybody?

[Thor 7,465]

I can't believe I'm having this discussion.

There are a gazillion FICTION films based on real events that are nothing but 100% fiction. Or are you seriously suggesting that every time someone makes a film about a real event, they somehow automatically transform into news reports that should be judged by factual criteria?!?

Broadly speaking, I would say that BOT4OJ is about disillusionment, shattered naïvité, a critical form of patriotism. JFK is about paranoia, the FICTIONAL speculation of a conspiracy and the problematization of national image-building and values. NIXON is about a complex man, the corruption of power and a fascinating character portrait. Same with W.

And all of them are channelled through Stone's unique style and trademarks.

You're definitely barking up the wrong tree if you evaluate these films based on how TRUE they were to the real events. That's never what they intended to be in the first place.

Of course, I can understand how they can be construed as controversial, since they're based on fairly recent events that most living people have a connection to. But that's ALSO the intention. It wouldn't be a Stone film otherwise.

[Josh500 1,615]

Dear God.

Read what I wrote again. And don't say something silly like JFK is "100% fiction based on real events"...

There are a gazillion FICTION films based on real events that are nothing but 100% fiction. Or are you seriously suggesting that every time someone makes a film about a real event, they somehow automatically transform into news reports that should be judged by factual criteria?!?

Who is talking about all films based on real events? We are talking about JFK.

And this is a movie based on real events, based on a real-life character (Jim Garrison), who investigated the JFK assassination...

Of course, I can understand how they can be construed as controversial, since they're based on fairly recent events that most living people have a connection to. But that's ALSO the intention. It wouldn't be a Stone film otherwise.

That's not an issue. Of course it's a controversial subject, no one is disputing that!

[Thor 7,465]

Who is talking about all films based on real events? We are talking about JFK.

And this is a movie based on real events, based on a real-life character (Jim Garrison), who investigated the JFK assassination...

Yeah, but that's only the superficial frame story. The themes go way deeper than that, as I mentioned above. The themes he explores, and the manner in which he does it, are what makes this a fiction film.

I can understand the temptation of someone very much into the real events attacking and scrutinizing such a film merely on the basis of the TRUTH aspect, but IMO that completely misses the point. Then they should rather focus their attention on history books, academic articles, news reports, documentaries (of the more objective kind, at least) and other documents purporting to this particular aspect.

[Josh500 1,615]

I disagree with you. (Whether the speculations and theories put forward in the movie are true or not, nobody knows, of course; but that's also perfectly made clear in the movie and that's why J.G. loses the trial in the end = that's what really happened.) So this movie is definitiely NOT fiction, except for some artistic licences here and there, like I said.

According to your logic, Schindler's List would also be fiction! And yet, there really was a guy named Schindler, who had many affairs, liked to party, was a war profiteer, ended up saving many Jews, etc. etc. And yet, Spielberg probably took many many more artistic licences that O.S. did.

Yeah, but that's only the superficial frame story.

Wow. Have you seen this movie? It's 95% about Jim Garrison and his investigations...

[Thor 7,465]

According to your logic, Schindler's List would also be fiction! And yet, there really was a guy named Schindler, who had many affairs, liked to party, was a war profiteer, ended up saving many Jews, etc. etc. And yet, Spielberg probably took many many more artistic licences that O.S. did.

It most definitely is a fiction film, it's Spielberg and Zaillan's interpretation of the man and his life. What, did you think it was a documentary?

Wow. Have you seen this movie? It's 95% about Jim Garrison and his investigations...

That's the catalyst, the frame, the superficial storyline. The subjects and themes obviously go deeper than that, as it does with all art. It's a "speculation" movie that is an interesting experiment and angle. It does not set out to tell the be-all, end-all truth of the events.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Basically anything that involves recreating an event that happened after the fact is fiction. Especially in the movies, were something that really happened have to be told in a few hours time. Things are condensed, places and names might differ. Things are ommited.

[Josh500 1,615]

According to your logic, Schindler's List would also be fiction! And yet, there really was a guy named Schindler, who had many affairs, liked to party, was a war profiteer, ended up saving many Jews, etc. etc. And yet, Spielberg probably took many many more artistic licences that O.S. did.

It most definitely is a fiction film, it's Spielberg and Zaillan's interpretation of the man and his life. What, did you think it was a documentary?

I am starting to think you don't know the meaning of the word "fiction." Maybe you should look it up.

http://www.thefreedi...ary.com/fiction

I said, JFK (and Schindler's List) are based on real events. And you keep disagreeing with me. Of course these movies (like all feature movies) are fictionalized, meaning they take many artistic licenses. But the main plot, the basic stuff, really happened. To say that JFK or SL are fiction implies that the plot of these movies are all or in large part invented or imaginary, which is most definitely not true.

Wow. Have you seen this movie? It's 95% about Jim Garrison and his investigations...

That's the catalyst, the frame, the superficial storyline. The subjects and themes obviously go deeper than that, as it does with all art. It's a "speculation" movie that is an interesting experiment and angle. It does not set out to tell the be-all, end-all truth of the events.

And who said that? Not me. For the last time, I said this movie is based on real events. It is most definitely not fiction (and no, it's not a documentary either).

Basically anything that involves recreating an event that happened after the fact is fiction. Especially in the movies, were something that really happened have to be told in a few hours time. Things are condensed, places and names might differ. Things are ommited.

That's not the definition of "fiction." See above.

________________

By the way, where can I find the complete cue list of JFK?

[Thor 7,465]

Vice versa, I don't think you really know what fiction is. Am I the only one who thinks Josh is being absurd when he basically disqualifies something as fiction because it is based on real events?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Josh. Would you consider James Cameron's Titanic fact or fiction?

[Josh500 1,615]

Josh. Would you consider James Cameron's Titanic fact or fiction?

Granted, Titanic is an exception: it's based on real events - except for the two main characters Jack and Rose, who were characters invented by Cameron. However, JFK is not like Titanic! None of the characters in JFK were invented (some minor characters are composite characters, sure, but they alone don't make this film fiction).

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Jim_Garrison

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Shaw

http://en.wikipedia....ki/David_Ferrie

http://en.wikipedia....aw#Guy_Banister

Thor apparently can't come up with a single explanation (examples) why JFK is supposed to be fiction.

Vice versa, I don't think you really know what fiction is. Am I the only one who thinks Josh is being absurd when he basically disqualifies something as fiction because it is based on real events?

Okay, I'm done discussing this with you. You can believe JFK is 100% fiction if you want to...

[Thor 7,465]

I don't believe it is. It factually is.

But if can't even agree on that, then there is indeed no point in debating further.

Meanwhile, I have some other "non-fiction" films to revisit-- like GETTYSBURG, MUNICH, SCHINDLER'S LIST, MILK, FRIDA, PATTON, TITANIC, WYATT EARP, THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY, BEN HUR, ROB ROY, BRAVEHEART, etc. etc. They are so wonderful documentaries.

[Josh500 1,615]

Either you're putting me on, or you are really this stupid, sorry.

You can say a movie is fiction or non-fiction. If it is non-fiction, is is NOT necessarily a documentary.

Schindler's List, Munich, JFK, etc. . . . they are all non-fiction. They are neither fiction nor documentaries.

[Thor 7,465]

Either you're putting me on, or you are really this stupid, sorry.

You can say a movie is fiction or non-fiction. If it is non-fiction, is is NOT necessarily a documentary.

True. It could also be news reports etc.

A feature film with actors playing roles will always -- always! -- be a fiction film. Even if it is based on real events (the stress being on based here).

I always assumed this was common sense, but apparently not.

That is not to say that a fiction film can't include non-fiction elements, like real newspaper clippings, footage etc., but then they're used to frame the STORY or the angle that the filmmaker has chosen.

Seriously, Josh, you're the first person I've ever met who thinks JFK is NOT a fiction film. The mind boggles.

[Josh500 1,615]

Either you're putting me on, or you are really this stupid, sorry.

You can say a movie is fiction or non-fiction. If it is non-fiction, is is NOT necessarily a documentary.

True. It could also be news reports etc.

A feature film with actors playing roles will always -- always! -- be a fiction film. Even if it is based on real events.

I always assumed this was common sense, but apparently not.

That is not to say that a fiction film can't include non-fiction elements, like real newspaper clippings, footage etc., but then they're used to frame the STORY or the angle that the filmmaker has chosen.

I understand what you are saying, Thor, I really do, but BELIEVE me . . . your definition of "fiction" is simply not correct. I should know, I have been dealing with fiction half my life. Look up the definition of "fiction":

http://www.thefreedi...ary.com/fiction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiction

When you say a book or movie is FICTION, it implies that the plot is NOT based on real events. That's all it says, really. Whether the movie is recreated with prefessional actors or whether it's made up of real-life news footage is irrelevant. When you are say a work of art is FICTION, the PLOT is entirely or at least largely MADE UP.

And, as you well know, that's not the case with JFK; Schindler, Munich, etc. They are based on real events, thus they are NON-FICTION. Got it?

You know, it's really funny when you say all this stuff (that's really nonsense), and then talk about "common sense"!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Granted, Titanic is an exception: it's based on real events - except for the two main characters Jack and Rose, who were characters invented by Cameron.

No. Titanic is far from an exception. Pearl Harbour follows the same outline. So does Gone With The Wind, btw. Hell The Godfather 2 takes place during the Cuban revolution. But all the stuff with the Corleone's was made up.

[Josh500 1,615]

Granted, Titanic is an exception: it's based on real events - except for the two main characters Jack and Rose, who were characters invented by Cameron.

No. Titanic is far from an exception. Pearl Harbour follows the same outline. So does Gone With The Wind, btw. Hell The Godfather 2 takes place during the Cuban revolution. But all the stuff with the Corleone's was made up.

Well, yes, maybe.

These are works of fiction that plays against a historical background. That's it.

But neither JFK, Schindler, or Munich, etc. don't fall into this category, anyway.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The difference isn't that big.

[Josh500 1,615]

The difference isn't that big.

The difference is HUGE.

Jim Garrison, Oskar Schindler, etc. were real people, and the movies depict what they have really done!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

To a point.

But the movies also adds things that they never did ("i could have done more"), or change elements to make the more appropriate for the narrative pace of the film.

No film maker can be 100% accurate. Most don't even try to be. They just want to tell their story.

[Josh500 1,615]

Well, of course. That's what I meant by "artistic licenses" that every feature movie takes.

But my point was, these movies are NON-FICTION, because basically they deal with real-life characters and their (heroic) actions...

Thor doesn't seem to understand that. But never mind.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Is Braveheart non-fiction for you?

[Josh500 1,615]

Well, if the movie takes too many dramatic licenses, the line becomes blurry, yes.

But the main character Wallace really existed, and the main events really happened, so in the end "Braveheart" is non-fiction, albeit a highly fictionalized one.

[Thor 7,465]

I'm well aware what fiction is, Josh. I've been teaching dramaturgy and narration at university level for years. And all of those films, including those by Stone talked about here, are fiction. They are fiction based on real/true events. Some stick closer to the true events than others, but that doesn't change what they are by definition. There will always be made-up elements, either through the style or in the narrative itself.

Stone's mission is not -- nor has it ever been -- to recreate exactly what happened. Then he would have made an objective documentary instead. It's about mythological, social, political, psychological issues present in those events, as seen through his unique lens. And that's obviously where the fiction comes in.