Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would not necessarily call Stone "naive", he was a classmate of George W. Bush at Yale but dropped out and went to Vietnam instead. He has made some classic anti-war films, with his trilogy on Vietnam being his finest work, IMO.
I watched part one of this, you can watch part of it on the Showtime network, and I was not terribly impressed. I love documentaries, and there was nothing particularly enlightening in Part One, nor was it presented in a visually artful style that would make me say it is better than other documentaries on the subject. I cannot comment on whether or not it gets better, and it quite possibly does, I only saw Part One.
I don't remember anything memorable in what I saw that is different than what I know already
Oliver Stone is an artist and he brings an artist's sensibility to history. In cases where he must choose between a factual truth and an emotional truth, Stone the artist invariably goes with the emotional truth. Oliver Stone is also a highly politicized artist and when the choice is between facts and partisan truth, Stone invariably chooses the political truth.
Facts are the basis for factual history. Emotional truth is the basis for novels and films. Political agendas are the basis for political truths.
Take your entertainment from Stone. Take your history from historians.
Where do you draw the line with sources? 1 person? 2 people? "Popular belief"
Stone uses many declassified material but does state "according to X, this occured" while I know Moore would use shock value.
There are so many examples in history that involve differing opinions because of personal pride, embarrassment and fear
Of what use is it to say "according to X" when the X you are quoting or paraphrasing is not an expert and/or doesn't have a well reasoned or otherwise respected or accepted opinion?
Of what use is it to say "according to X" when the X you are quoting or paraphrasing is not an expert and/or doesn't have a well reasoned or otherwise respected or accepted opinion?
They state inaccuracies on the history / military channel all the time. There is no absolute truth unless recorded physically on paper, audio or video
The title is all wrong. It should be Revisionist Leftist "Blame America First" History of the United States.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
