American media about Stone's film. Western media: Stone's film about Putin is a political interview in the style of a thriller. Another attempt by Zelensky to please the people

"saw the light. And the light, of course, could not help but react!

Any work of art exists only if three conditions are present: the author, the hero and the audience. And if the author (Stone) and the hero (Putin) managed to find a common language, then what about the audience? Did she understand the film and find a common language with him? And, most importantly, how exactly did you understand?

Here we must immediately make a reservation that we are not now focusing on those professional critics whose opinions change in full accordance with the “topic” from the editor-in-chief and the wishes of the media owners. And what, in the end, do ordinary people, less engaged, think?

I will quote several brief opinions from English-language Twitter, and I will build on two of them.

Why? Here's why!

For a smart person, the comparison of these two theses in itself is quite enough, but I still want to expand on the topic in more depth.

What, in fact, was Oliver Stone's goal when making a film about Putin? Fame? Stone will have enough for a couple of generations to come. Money? I doubt it - his past film projects can hardly be called purely commercial. If you believe him himself, then: "I love World. I would like harmony to reign in the world. I believe that the US and Russia could be great partners... Why did things get so bad?” Stone said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times.

And so the rebel director decided to take on the function of a “people’s diplomat”: relying on the “magical power of art,” to show a wary and misinformed world what the “terrible” Putin is, how he lives and what he plans - first-hand. And achieved the most unexpected effect! Suddenly it turned out that he, perhaps, only harmed the cause of “world peace.” That is, on the one hand, of course, it helped - hundreds of millions of people were able to look at Putin more objectively, but on the other hand, it certainly did harm, because people compared... And this comparison of those on whom world peace depends greatly offended and infuriated. Putin, of course, foresaw this when he predicted to Stone what kind of film he would get in his native Palestine.

The most “terrible” thing that the film showed (without even any special intention on the part of the director - it just showed, and that’s all) is Scale, Adequacy and Integrity. That is, exactly what any normal person intuitively values ​​in their leader, but at the same time it is rare, very rare to find such a winning combination. Scale without adequacy is Hitler. And a claim to adequacy without integrity is a cheap, faceless populist.

So, it seemed that these archetypal qualities of a political leader were irrevocably a thing of the past, when suddenly - Putin. A person who speaks carefully, carefully, but honestly. Which does not avoid sensitive topics, but does not go towards confrontation. Who is not afraid of responsibility, but carefully calculates his options. Sharp-tongued, erudite. Who was or is like this? Hypocritical mumbo-jumbo Obama? Psychopath Bush? Clinton the libertine? Or a host of faceless Hollandes, Camerons and other riffraff? Trump, too, unfortunately, has not yet gone beyond the boundaries of his reputation as a showman.

I’ll just illustrate my words with a few quotes from the film:

“Do you think our goal is that we have to prove something to someone? Our goal is to strengthen our country. We make no excuses for anything. Russia took shape over a thousand years” - no ingratiation, aristocratic dignity, a tone long unheard of in relation to the “shining city on a hill”, USA.

“Snowden was not going to give us any information. He called for a joint struggle. And when it turned out that we are not yet ready for this, I will probably disappoint many, maybe you - I said that this is not for us. We already have complicated relations with the United States; we don’t need additional complications.” at the same time, a sober view of things, calm pragmatism.

“Awareness of oneself as the only world power, driving into the heads of millions of people the idea of ​​their exclusivity gives rise to such imperial thinking in society. And this, in turn, requires an appropriate foreign policy, which society seems to expect. And the country’s leadership is forced to act in this logic, but in practice it turns out that this does not correspond to the interests of the people of the United States, as I imagine it” - I am sure that those tens and hundreds of millions of Americans who elected Trump will agree with this point of view. But for now, however, they are becoming more and more disappointed in him... We have to, reluctantly, agree with Putin.

Putin also aptly compared Russophobes with anti-Semites; drew parallels between Stalin, Cromwell and Napoleon; expressed hope that future generations of Ukrainians and Russians will be able to unite their efforts for the common good; talked about his family - and it was all normal. Not “awesome”, “shocking”, “provoking” - but just normal: an intelligent person expressed his point of view, and another smart person helped him with questions, polemicizing. Lord, it’s just a celebration of some kind of adequacy!

So why is it surprising that one of the movie’s viewers wrote:

“Week of Hate” - media reaction to Stone’s film “Interview with Putin” July 16th, 13:59

yadi.sk/i/jMp46514qpwX yw …
Oliver Stone and Vladimir PutinOliver Stone and Vladimir Putin

The recent release of three-time Oscar winner Oliver Stone's film Interview with Putin caused a furious negative reaction in the Western media. So negative that Stone himself called this reaction a “week of hate” and even directly called the collective Western media the “Ministry of Truth,” referring to the analogy with this institution from George Orwell’s famous novel “1984.”

Let’s take a closer look at exactly how their media reacted to the release of “Interview with Putin.” Thus, after watching the first two episodes of the film, the American portal Deadline called the film “heavy, clumsy propaganda that would be scary if it weren’t so obvious and stupid.” The American publication Mediate wrote that numerous critics in the United States did not like Stone’s behavior in his interview films with Vladimir Putin; in their opinion, it was too soft with the Russian president. The Austrian newspaper Kronen Zeitung noted that Putin is shown by the authors of the film as a “witty macho”, but at the same time Putin’s “blatant chauvinism” is clear. American weekly Newsweek stated that the film was receiving negative press due to its "apparently flattering tone". France's Le blog TV News noted the film's "scope" as comparable to "The Nixon Interview" - a series of filmed conversations between journalist David Frost and former US President Richard Nixon, shown exactly 40 years ago in 1977, clearly alluding to "Russiagate" (according to analogies with “Watergate”) - this is how the US press, opposed to the current US President Donald Trump, calls the ongoing scandals associated with unsubstantiated accusations of the Kremlin interfering in the 2016 US elections. Correspondents for The Hollywood Reporter call Stone's tone in films atypical for him, “feignedly shy” and “flirty,” and note that so far the interviewer has not gotten “good and sincere answers” ​​from the “Cold War veteran” (V. Putin - approx. IA Krasnaya Vesna) ”, but only constantly listens to “sexist and homophobic” forced jokes. The American newspaper Variety simply calls the film a “farce.” And Bloomberg believes that Putin himself sets the tone of the conversation in the interview.
partner news
How girls over 27 are humiliated in China
Threat at Russian borders: another country has begun

This “Ministry of Truth Hate Week” of the Western media, as the director himself called it, ended with Oliver Stone having to declare on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” that his son is not a Russian agent, although he is working on the Russia Today TV channel.

Let us remember that Oliver Stone is a famous American director, producer and screenwriter. He is a student of the famous Martin Scorsese and has been awarded the prestigious American film Oscar three times. He fought in South Vietnam and was awarded military decorations. Among his most famous works are the so-called. “Vietnamese trilogy” (films “Platoon” (1986), “Born on the Fourth of July” (1989) and “Heaven and Earth” (1993)), the scandalous film “John F. Kennedy. Shots Fired in Dallas" (revisiting the Warren Commission's findings regarding the assassination of President Kennedy). Stone opposes the official White House and its policies and welcomes social transformation in the spirit of “21st century socialism.”

In 2003, Stone shot an hour and a half interview film “Comandante” about Fidel Castro, who by that time had turned 77 years old. Immediately before the film's release, a scandal erupted related to the case of convicted Cuban dissidents. The "world community" accused Castro of violating human rights. Stone considered it necessary to have a frank conversation with Comandante himself, and in 2004 he released another interview with him, calling the film “In Search of Fidel.” In 2012, Stone released his third film about Castro, who by that time had resigned his official powers as the Cuban leader, but still remained a prominent figure and an interesting interlocutor, whose view of ongoing world processes is of interest to many. Stone's films about Fidel allowed audiences from all over the world to see the legendary leader of the Cuban Revolution not through the prism of the propaganda machine of the Western media, but through a dialogue with the main character himself. In 2009, Oliver Stone decides to conduct a series of interviews with a number of Latin American leaders. All of them are united by their adherence to left-wing or center-left views, and each of them, in their own way, challenges the global capitalist system, opposing the policies imposed by the United States of America. Stone begins his tour with an interview with Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez. Then his interlocutor becomes Bolivian President Evo Morales. Following him, the Oscar-winning director is interviewed by the spouses Nestor and Cristina Kirchner, who served as President of Argentina one after another from 2003 to 2015, Paraguayan leader Fernando Lugo, and Brazilian President Inacio Lula da Silva. In Ecuador, he meets with the country's President Rafael Correa and the head of the Republic of Cuba, Raul Castro, who replaced his older brother Fidel in this post. He combined all these interviews into the film “South of the Border.” Stone doesn't just collect interviews. He does not hide his sympathy for left-wing politicians. So, after the death of Hugo Chavez in 2013, Stone dedicated a film to the leader of the Bolivarian revolution, which was called “My Friend Hugo.” However, Oliver Stone is not only interested in Latin America. While making the film “Persona Non Grata,” released in 2003, the director interviewed representatives of both warring sides of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: Chairman of the Palestinian National Authority Yasser Arafat and prominent Israeli political figures Ehud Barak, Benjamin Netanyahu and Shimon Peres. The film “Ukraine on Fire,” in which the director again tries to convey an alternative view to official Western propaganda, included interviews with the overthrown Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych as a result of a coup, as well as the current Russian President Vladimir Putin.

IA Krasnaya Vesna
Read the entire article at the link.

In the fourth part of the film about Vladimir Putin, director Oliver Stone drew attention to rumors that the Russian president is “the richest man in the world.” American users appreciated the degree of seriousness and even provocativeness of Stone's questions.

Let us remember that Putin said that he does not have the wealth that is attributed to him. He also called the speculation about his supposed accounts in Cyprus “nonsense,” since he “would have been presented with” this information “long ago.” At the same time, the Russian leader complimented Stone, calling him a “much richer man” than those who can boast of a large bank account, since the American director “has his own opinion” and talent, as well as the opportunity to show it, leaving "a noticeable trace" behind.

“Money doesn’t give you such happiness. There are no pockets in a coffin, you can’t take money with you,” Putin chuckled.

“Comparing our government and Putin, Putin is the one who takes into account American taxpayers and citizens. Think about it,” says a blogger under the nickname Galileo’s Tea. “Watch The Putin Interviews by Oliver Stone. As for me, everything is fine with Putin, as with everything he says. Not such a bad person as the US government describes him,” dustinnb was convinced.

"I'm absolutely fascinated by watching #ThePutinInterviews. Vladimir Putin is an interesting and smart person," opines An Elitist.

Stone himself received many warnings from the Americans that the film would cause real hysteria in the Western media, since they would need to react to this film in the spirit of the already established situation. "I loved this documentary. Thank you for expanding our consciousness and opening our minds," says Jane Doe. “I watched with an open mind, and indeed, my mind was open,” said Chris Watson, amazed at Stone’s “fantastic” work. “I didn’t realize how cool and smart he was,” admits SpaceSpeck.

It is worth noting that after the showing of the fourth part of the film about Putin, Americans began to more openly express their thoughts and give assessments, including positive ones. As a rule, US citizens rarely speak up if they understand that their statements do not keep up with what is being said on the screens: for example, conservatives are usually more restrained than liberals.

However, Stone succeeded, if not in breaking the line of the Western media, then at least in sowing doubts. Those clichés that are usually used by Western media are no longer very satisfying to the public. This is precisely what experts tend to associate with Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election: analysts are no longer more interested in what Americans are talking about, but in what they are silent about, or, more precisely, keeping quiet.

And in this “silent” section there remain quite a lot of sensitive topics - the notorious “excesses” of tolerance, social stratification, problems of African Americans, the struggle for jobs, sensitive gaps in social protection and many other issues that American politicians love to avoid - not without help." Russian threat,” which literally feeds the “Washington hawks” by hand.

American director Oliver Stone compared the discussion of his documentary “An Interview with Putin” in the American press with a week-long festival of hatred of an external enemy described in George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984.” Stone shared his opinion in an interview with Rossiyskaya Gazeta, an excerpt from which was published on the publication’s website.

Putin: The US will never disclose data on MH17 that contradicts the version about the guilt of the militias

Putin: Anatoly Sobchak was a sensible person and was against the collapse of the USSR

Oliver Stone called Vladimir Putin a "great leader" for Russia

Putin: closing a section of the border between the Russian Federation and Ukraine until a settlement will lead to the death of people

"This is an organized week of hate. It's literally the Ministry of Truth," he said.

The director added that he considers the Russiagate scandal disgusting (similar to the Watergate scandal that erupted in the United States in 1972-1974 and ended with the resignation of President Richard Nixon), associated with the alleged Kremlin interference in the US presidential election. "In fact (the media - TASS note) hate Trump. But they somehow brought two people together and confusion arises. Although they never met, they say that they have woven a big conspiracy," he said.

British writer George Orwell's novel 1984 describes life in the fictional totalitarian state of Oceania, with its capital in London. The main character, Winston Smith, works in the Ministry of Truth - a department engaged in falsifying the news and history of the country in accordance with the current policies of the ruling party, headed by Big Brother.

In May, the association of American movie theater owners, the United State of Cinema, organized a collective screening of the film adaptation of the novel in 185 American cities as a protest against the policies of US President Donald Trump. At the beginning of this year, due to the growing popularity of the novel in the United States, an additional 75 thousand copies of the book were released.

The premiere of a new documentary film by director Oliver Stone, “The Putin Interview,” took place in the United States on the cable channel Showtime. The premiere ended on Thursday, and on Friday a book with the full texts of the interview was released in the United States by Hot Books. Channel One bought the rights to show the film in Russia; viewers will be able to watch four episodes of the documentary from June 19 to 22.