Thursday, February 20, 1997
By Scott Lunceford
Daily Bruin Staff
cademy Award-winning writer and director, Oliver Stone, makes
films in the milieu of a pressure cooker. His projects are rarely
disconnected from controversy, or at least from close media
scrutiny. Never straying far from the heat, Stone co-produced last
year’s most controversial film, "The People v. Larry Flynt." His
budgets are tight, and his shoots are quick and nerve-wracking. He
is a polemic whose reputation precedes him  but the
reputation is not the man. In an exclusive Daily Bruin Q & A,
Stone opens up and reveals the inner mechanisms of one of our most
prolific and visceral filmmakers.
Many of your projects seem to spark public debate. You once
commented on the importance of bringing back the old, lost
qualities of dissent. Is your upcoming film "U-Turn" a continuation
of that attitude?
I am proud of the movies I did. If I dissented, it was my right,
and I will defend that right to the death. But I don’t feel like I
have to dissent all the time. It’s not my goal. Otherwise, I could
have been a journalist like George Seldes or I. F. Stone. These
people fought on their own for years, you know. I admire them very
much because of the loneliness  the odds were long. They had
monolithic enemies; the entire state was against them. When you
take on state power in whatever country in the world, you’re in for
a rough ride, wherever you are, whether it’s Peru or China or even
the United States. People don’t understand that.
The stakes are high and certain people have a lot to
protect.
Right. There’s a lot of power, and J. Edgar Hoovers continue to
exist in other forms. They may not be as colorful, but they’re
there as part of that group. And they think the same way. I cannot
believe that people attack me who deny their existence. What’s
wrong? Do these people not read? Do they not understand the nature
of history  the way the wheels spin inside the mechanism?
Sometimes I get the details wrong, but it’s inevitable. It’s
complicated and, sometimes, when some of the details are wrong,
people jump on them and say "Well, therefore the whole thing is
off." That’s unfair, and it’s partly an attempt to discredit. It’s
the way the game is played. It’s played hard, and I was a little
naive getting into that. So, let me say dissent is not my role, but
I don’t shy from it. If I have something to say, I’ll say it. Or
try to. I mean I won’t say everything, because I would get killed
for some things. I know that some of the things would be
unpopular.
You have to be somewhat of a relativist in this world to get by.
If you’re an absolutist, you sometimes get murdered, so you learn
the art of relativity, and you sort of slide a bit. You have to
give yourself a break. I couldn’t be Ralph Nader, that’s for sure.
I mean, I admire him, but it seems to me he has a starkness. There
are certain men and women who are born to the mantle of political
leadership. I admire those people because they are willing to step
into the public arena and take the heat that they take, which is
enormous.
As a moviemaker, I have taken some of that heat in the public
arena and they’ve scalded me and I said, man, let me go back into
private life. I can’t take this on a full-time basis. I’d go
fucking nuts. "JFK" was heavy, so was "Natural Born Killers," so
was "Nixon" in its own way. I mean, they were all prejudged. So
"U-Turn" is a bit of a relaxation. My ambitions are smaller, but
nonetheless go deep inside the realm of human behavior. These
people are scorpions living in a southwest American town who all
become interrelated during the course of this one day in the life
of this town, Superior, Arizona. And it pays off in various ways
 dreams, hope, sex, betrayal, jealousy, death  all that
good stuff. It’s called "U-Turn" because one guy comes into town
and his radiator hose goes bust and he can’t get out.
So there’s no chance that the film will go back to your original
title, "Stray Dogs?"
I don’t think so. There’s arbitration that’s going on. The
Japanese registered that title in 1949 for a black-and-white film,
"Stray Dog," that was not widely seen. They have a permanent title
ban.
Your upcoming novel, "A Child’s Night Dream" is set in Vietnam.
Is it a further exploration of the Vietnam War experience?
"A Child’s Night Dream" was written when I was 19, before I
served in Vietnam. It was based on my first trip to Vietnam. There
are war sequences in it, but the novel is essentially the journey
of a young man from one state of consciousness to another in three
different continents  in the United States, Asia and Europe.
It’s a book about something other than the Vietnam War. Otherwise,
people would pin it down and say it’s the novel of "Platoon," or
something, but that’s not at all what it is.
The book is important to me. I worked hard on it. I went back to
it after 30 years. It was a trip! I reinvested in it and went
through the emotions of that 19-year-old kid, so it was great
therapy, too. I took some time off after "Nixon" to work on it and
to be alone and be with the new baby and, you know, get away from
this harsh treadmill that we’re all on here in Hollywood, this
public scrutiny. There’s something nice about writing quietly in a
room. I just love that feeling, and I’ve always tried to maintain
that.
The Gulf War became thoroughly enmeshed in pop culture. People
watched CNN updates on the war much like they watched the O.J.
trial. Despite the fact that there had been bloodshed, many found
entertainment there. Do you feel younger generations need to look
back at Vietnam in order to strip the gloss from the Gulf War and
possibly question the motivations of future foreign military
actions?
It’s a good question, but it’s a tricky question because most
people in the United States did not go to the Vietnam War. Most
people in the United States watched it on television, and they also
were mildly entertained by it. At first, it was like a Rudyard
Kipling border war in Afghanistan. It had great reading; it was an
exciting time. So, don’t underestimate the similarity of the ’90s
and the ’60s in that regard.
In both cases, you had an artificial sector of the underclass
used for wages or for draft purposes or volunteer purposes, both in
Vietnam and in Arabia. And the veterans of the Gulf War, I gather,
are experiencing the reality problems that we had as Vietnam
veterans. I mean, they’re going through hell, some of these kids.
You know, they didn’t see that much war because the Gulf conflict
was relatively modern, and they were trying to avoid the lessons of
Vietnam, which they did. OK, they may have won it technically, but
the same damage will result to the soul of the country, and that’s
what they never understand: the psyche is twisted from the war.
And what we came back to  and the veterans of the Gulf
must have had the same feelings  was indifference. We didn’t
come back to hostility, we came back to mass indifference. People
were making money in the ’60s. People forget that the inflation of
the war drove the economy sky high. Johnson didn’t raise taxes to
fund the war effort. Business was booming. The whole concept of the
’60s  the taking of what the liberalism was and making it
commercial, the exploitation movies  all that was because of
money and because of the new excitement of money.
And it ties into something Norman Mailer said when he wrote a
defense of your film, "Nixon". He suggests that there’s such a
heavy spin put on all these events that the nation can no longer
see the heart and soul behind something like the Vietnam War or the
Gulf War. There was a human factor to the Gulf conflict which
became euphemized by the media.
And that’s the important thing to remember as a filmmaker. It is
important to remember the events and to remember the sights and
sounds and smells. The only honest things you have are feelings.
That’s what you experience. That’s the only thing you can do as a
filmmaker because, my God, they will mindfuck you and spin you to
death with the versions of history that they offer.
I mean, after I came back, the whole history of the Vietnam
thing was very devious to me, and it always bothered me. That’s one
of the things that motivated me to do "Platoon," "Born on the
Fourth of July," and "Heaven and Earth." "Heaven and Earth" was
very important to me because, not only was it about a woman, it was
about the Vietnamese. We never took into account the damage to
their soul and the damage to their people.
It’s unresolved because it goes back to fundamentals. It’s Sacco
and Vanzetti, it’s Revolutionary War behavior, it’s Civil War
behavior, Spanish-American and Philippines War behavior. It’s
behavior that continues. It’s a bad psyche that goes back to
ancient times, beyond America to aggression in general, and we have
to be aware of it. And only dramatists, it seems, are able to
capture the attention of people and make them aware of it, at least
temporarily.
The Gulf War was totally manufactured. It was created as a news
event. So it’s the same media as 30 years ago. You are facing the
same thing. It’s worse now because the media have more power,
they’re more conglomeratized. There are fewer outlets, and those
outlets are basically uniform in thought and in what they say. It’s
hard to keep your eye on the ball because they give you so much
scenery.
That is part of the reason I made the much reviled, sometimes
admired, "Natural Born Killers" a few years ago, because I really
wanted to kind of vomit back, to regurgitate, some of my own
disgust in the way our thinking is controlled and, even worse, the
way our feelings are controlled by media. We become false to our
own feelings. We lose track of who we are. We become, in a sense,
emotionally lobotomized by the concept of comfort. We reduce our
choices and our essential freedom  those things Kazantzakis
wrote so well about. Our essential freedom has been reduced to a
choice between Fab and Ajax, Ford and Chevrolet. I mean, that’s
what’s happened.
There were nine or 10 events in the early ’90s, one after the
other, that consumed our news, from Leona Helmsley to the woman who
cut off the penis to O.J. All those scandals  that was all
front-page news. Two ice skaters push each other, and it’s a
front-page world news item for 10 days! It’s insane! The O.J. thing
is insane!
It totally distracts the population and, at the same time, it
makes money. You make a fortune on television. That’s the beauty of
it. You sell soap and baby food and diapers and you’re glamorizing
murder and making it sensational, which is what I did in "NBK." And
people don’t get that. It’s a mirror, that’s all. Is someone going
to accuse me of sensationalizing? Sure. I did, but there was a
reason for doing it. I presented the subject in the manner that
people, in my opinion, are accustomed to viewing it. You don’t go
out and do some low-key, dull film where all this is pointed out in
a very measured way. It’s not going to work. You have to be part of
the hysteria in order to show the hysteria.
So it’s a very bizarre thing I get into in my movie trip, and it
goes way back. I mean, I did get into "Platoon," and I had to live
the violence of action again. Same thing on "Born on the Fourth of
July." I got visceral, because that’s the only way I can relate to
real feeling anymore. I’ve been blinded by the "light" of the media
and by the money. I was sleepwalking for 40 years of my life,
honestly. I mean, I knew things. I knew fragments, I could see
beyond the iceberg. But it’s still hard to keep your eye on the
ball.
As you’ve mentioned with "Natural Born Killers," viewers’
criticisms of your films often stem from a misreading of the films.
Is there a point where a filmmaker becomes comfortable with
allowing viewers to draw their own conclusions  even if they
are unintended  or is there a temptation to step forward and
set the record straight?
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Sometimes I do want to correct
the impression. I’ve been called everything  a liar, that I
fabricate. It’s not true. I do make mistakes in details,
absolutely. But I’m still out there doing my homework, doing my
research. I’m responsible, at least to myself.
And, you know, I don’t agree with some historians based on what
I’ve seen in my own life. I’ve lived in various countries and I
have seen many misrepresentations. There are at least five mass
delusions that I have witnessed in my life: in Russia, in France,
in Asia, and in Central and North America I’ve seen it, so I know.
There’s nothing that can replace that knowledge. It’s a knowledge
earned. This is very hard because people are always accusing me of
lying and inventing. Fine. Perhaps from their dulled perspective,
I’m very high-key. But I see life as very high-key. One reviewer
about 10 years ago said, "Oliver Stone ascribes to the anaconda
school of philosophy  at any given moment in the universe,
someone is being eaten by an anaconda." (Laughs)
With "U-Turn," you moved away from the big-budget production
 less than half of "Nixon’s" $43 million budget. You also
refused the big salary demands of people like Sharon Stone. Are you
saying that enough is enough, that it’s time to move away from
Hollywood as a business and get back to art for art’s sake?
I never went to Hollywood because it was a business. It’s been
good to me as a business, sometimes. It’s been hard some other
times. But "Nixon" was done for its own sake. Every film I’ve made
has been for its own sake. The fact is that "Nixon" had to cost
what it cost. There was no other way to do it, unless you cut the
nature of the story down to one set like Robert Altman did 10 years
ago.
You have to create a period and you have to create a semblance
of that period. It was a huge job to make "Nixon." The miracle is
that we did it for $40 million. Some domestic pictures with smaller
scopes are costing $60 million, and they’re going up to 120 these
days. That’s very indulgent to me. "Nixon" was done in 60 days.
There was never any sense of, "Oh, this is a deal." I mean, nobody
wanted to make the damn movie. I had to lose my contract at
Warners. I had to move the film. I took a beating financially and I
got it made because it had to be made. I had to make it. Same thing
with "Natural Born Killers." I took a beating on that, too, because
I had to complete the film. And also, on "NBK," I felt like we were
always sort of scrambling just to make it. It was shot in 54 days
 and then there was the huge editing job that cost a fortune.
"JFK" was a scramble. Every film I’ve done has been tight,
budget-wise.
We did shoot "U-Turn" in 40 days, which was pretty tight. If I
could have gotten more coverage, I would have had more angles, but
I made choices. Sometimes I get caught in the editing room and I’ve
got to figure out other ways to do it. So that’s what’s going on. I
set a peg in my head: this film should not cost more than that.
Otherwise, I feel that it’s indulgent and I don’t feel good about
spending that kind of money.
And I’ve never worked with a star that’s taken huge bucks. I’ve
never done that. It changes the balance of a movie. If everybody’s
working for nothing compared to a guy who’s getting double-digit
million dollars, it’s crazy. So, it’s true that, with "U-Turn," I
did move away from bigger budgets. All the stars took equal parity,
so it was a fair, circular structure. And Sharon (Stone) couldn’t
work inside that circle.
"Natural Born Killers" was subjected to 150 cuts in order to get
an ‘R’ rating from the MPAA. You responded by releasing your
director’s cut, much to the delight of "NBK" fans.
I am very proud of the director’s cut. I got it through,
finally. It took a year and a half. You’re right, a 150 cuts were
made to get the ‘R’ rating from the MPAA. It was very torturous. We
had to go back 10 times. We got that film out, but it was botched
in certain rhythms for me, so getting the director’s cut allowed me
to go back to the original rhythm, which is the music in
relationship to the texture of the film.
We got that out and it was a big success, but we had to get it
away from Warner Bros. first. Warners would not distribute it, so I
went to the heads of the studio and I asked them to relinquish it.
Otherwise, it would have had, to me, the impression of censorship.
They let it go, which is very rare. I don’t know if there is any
other instance of this happening. It was relinquished and licensed
to Tri-Mark. They did a splendid job.
For a small distributor, the director’s cut sold very well with
Tri-Mark. And I’m very happy because it is the original film. It is
the right version of the film.
Why wouldn’t Warner Bros. distribute the director’s cut?
It was an NC-17 cut and they didn’t want anything to do with it.
As a corporation, I criticized them at the time publicly. The
studios have instituted a ratings system, one of those ratings
being NC-17. NC-17 was not created to make porno films but to make
adult-content films. And Warners, although they instituted the
NC-17 rating, wouldn’t distribute "NBK." And their argument was,
among other things, corporate policy, stockholders  now watch
that word, stockholders. Who runs the corporation? It’s supposed to
be democratic, but it becomes a matter of intimidation.
Stockholders are often like McCarthyism; they will control, and
fear will predominate because money is involved. And it’s faceless
 "stockholders." How can you blame them?
Stockholders say, "You can’t distribute an NC-17 film."
Blockbuster says, "You can’t distribute an NC-17 film." Wal-mart
says, "You can’t distribute an NC-17 film," because they won’t
carry it in their stores and they are buying every store in the
country because the government can’t stop the monopoly. That’s the
issue of becoming a stockholder company. They are really chicken
shit. It makes them into cowards. They all become bureaucrats in
fear of the faceless stockholder. So we’re going into this
sanitized ‘R’ and ‘PG-13’ culture.
All the big-money movies get distribution. It’s really tough.
You know, you should welcome some of the darker movies. They’re
hard to keep going, and we’ve got to keep them going. Every time
somebody makes a good, dark movie, it helps other people to make
it. Bob Dole was saying that "Natural Born Killers" kills people.
It’s so crazy. He is the one who was promoting legislation to put
assault weapons back on the streets. That’s what kills people;
weapons, not movies. So we should all be on the side of some of
these movies, because many of us would like more darkness in the
movies.
Is that one of the reasons you’re invoking film noir in
"U-Turn?"
Sure, although all my films have this dark side. I have never
made a completely sunny movie, but maybe I will. I have enjoyed
comedies very much. I grew up on Cary Grant. I’d love to made
something witty and comedic all the way through, for fun. Not much
is at stake, but that’s fine. I like that. But I’d like to make
movies for $8 million, too. But, because it’s me, I can’t get the
same old deals. I can’t get people to work for nothing. This is a
trade. People work on movies as they would a trade. They will not
take lesser pay unless there’s some major reason. I can’t run an
emergency Red Cross unit the whole fucking time and tell them:
"You’re going to the front lines again, and I need you, and you’re
not going to take any money." It’s hard every time I try to get
away with something. The problem is, with the nature of the movies
I want to do, the moment the studio figures out that I really want
to do that movie, they’ve got me by the balls.
For your efforts to raise questions and spur debate your are
slapped with the label of "conspiracy theorist." Are you becoming
more comfortable with the labeling?
I think "conspiracy theorist" is a very demeaning phrase. It’s
overused. We have to examine history intelligently and objectively
and get off this media bullshit that says if you have any doubts
about the Kennedy killing it’s equivalent to believing in UFOs and
that Elvis is alive. It’s not true.
You should doubt the Kennedy killing. Anybody who doesn’t is in
sincere need of a brain, because if you look at the Zapruder film
it reveals two things wrong with the Oswald theory, not to mention
the autopsies, the history of Oswald, the history of Ruby. It’s
just a fucking mess. And if you don’t ask, then you are really
asleep.
So, for me to defend myself against that kind of labeling is
ridiculous! And it’s constantly being leveled at me, and it shows
you how right-wing the country has become. It’s not even debatable,
in my mind. History, objectively, involves accidents and
conspiracy. Things happen, yes, and for no better reason than that
they just happen: earthquakes, floods, bad harvests. But,
conspiracy is also alongside, all the way. The murder of
Alexander’s father, Julius Caesar, the endless amounts of kings and
queens that have been killed by conspiracy. Franklin Delanor
Roosevelt was almost removed by a coup d’etat in the 1930s. Jack
Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, they’re all very
suspicious. Lone nuts, yeah, right, with great marksmanship. All
crazy stories from that same decade.
Let’s not demean conspiracy by using the word in this pejorative
way that the media has taught us to use it. We should respect
conspiracy and deal with it and have a logical debate. Analyze it,
don’t throw labels.
Still, with all the controversy and labeling and scrutiny, is
Oliver Stone still having fun?
Sometimes, yeah. I have a great time. But I taught myself how.
Believe it or not, I was very sensitive as a kid, just
ultra-sensitive. I was an only child, and I very much lived in my
head. And I will always be hurt by criticism because I didn’t
really get enough approval from my parents, that kind of a thing.
So, it is very hard for me, and I’ve taught myself. I mean, there
are days when I read five or six things that are ugly about me and,
of course, it’s very depressing. I mean, most people react if they
get one bad thing. I seem to have been getting a steady flow for
about eight years now.
It’s because I’m out there doing stuff that’s not easy to
digest, perhaps, and it roils people. But it’s because that’s who I
am. It’s the nature of my being that I discuss things. I have
dialogues on film, even on "Scarface" there is a dialog between an
idea and an idea. "Midnight Express," too, in its more primitive
way, perhaps, but it works. But, yeah, I do have fun.
There are days when all that shit happens and I’m still okay
inside because it’s so important in the years I’ve got left to have
some fun  to have some joy and creativity. Because, for me,
creativity comes from joy. It used to come from my pain, and now
I’m trying to make it come from my joy, too.
Stone is currently editing "U-Turn," which stars Sean Penn, Nick
Nolte and Jennifer Lopez. "U-Turn" and Stone’s debut novel, "A
Child’s Night Dream" are scheduled for release this fall.
Warner Bros.
"The only honest things you have are feelings. That’s what you
experience."