|It's that time of year again.|
How 'in' do you have to be to not only be a Marxist-sympathising director of conspiracy movies but a Hitler-embracing one, too?
Jewish control of the media is preventing an open discussion of the Holocaust, prominent Hollywood director Oliver Stone told the Sunday Times, adding that the U.S. Jewish lobby was controlling Washington's foreign policy for years.
In the Sunday interview, Stone reportedly said U.S. public opinion was focused on the Holocaust as a result of the "Jewish domination of the media," adding that an upcoming film of him aims to put Adolf Hitler and Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin "in context."
Where does one begin with that?
Yes, the tragedy of the Holocaust has been discussed every which way since the end of the Second World War. Indeed, there are more movies made about that particular genocide than any other. Oliver Stone has profited from the spurious claims of his films and I'm sure he plans to do so with this one. What "context" could he put Hitler and Stalin in? How much context does one need for the planner of the Beer Hall Putsch, Kristallnacht, the conquest of Europe and the planned murder of millions? Did twenty million Ukrainians just up and starve themselves without Stalin's knowing? One can ply another with fact upon fact of Hitler and Stalin's tyranny, facts which are available to refute Stone's accounts (if only a movie-going audience would care to educate itself before wasting money on a ticket). The bigger question is why Oliver Stone would even dream of revising two of the twentieth century's worst dictators and maligning one group for perceived opposition.
Simply, because he can.
Oliver Stone is too nutty to pretend he doesn't actually believe his own hype and inflammatory natterings. His visits to Chavez and Castro confirm what has become a typical leftist pet knee-jerk love of anything that is not conservative or not insane. He has angered the proverbial father with his wayward actions for so long that he does buy into leftist philosophies. Stone has also become too big to squash. Would an independent director be as untouchable? Probably not. Hollywood may be nauseatingly liberal but it's still a country club where everybody pats their friends on the back (SEE: Academy Awards). The indie director had better be in like Flint to be completely protected, otherwise the best he can expect is a few kinds words on how the young buck is just trying to 'fight the power' but should have chosen his words a little better.
Oliver Stone enjoys the insulation leftist and morally and intellectually lazy Hollywood has given him. And with this insulation comes the kind of insidious hypocrisy and dishonesty that can be excused at virtually any cost. Consider the mercurial and disgraced Mel Gibson. He and he alone is to blame for the loss of his prestige and family. I'm sure he knows that. He also knows that directing a self-funded and very successful film about Christ is just not on, unless it serves an antipathetic narrative. He and the film were decried as "anti-semitic" (it wasn't but whatever). If the price of anti-semitism is professional exile, one wonders what boycotting Israel and putting Hitler "in context" would do to one's career. If one is on the right side of the political divide, not much.