Oliver Stone fires back at critics of his latest, ‘South of the Border’

LOS ANGELES — It’s a Monday night in Los Angeles, and Oliver Stone is causing trouble.

The provocateur filmmaker has just finished showing
his new documentary “South of the Border” — a shameless if genial piece
of agitprop about leftist leaders in South America and Cuba — to a group of Southern California intimates and progressives. From the stage after the film, inside the lobby screening room of the marble-and-glass Century City offices of Creative Artists Agency, Stone is running through U.S.-perpetrated injustices and misperceptions in South America as he sees them.

The Americans under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama are working to destabilize democratically elected leaders. The American
media perniciously spread rumors that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez suppresses the media (“it’s a total lie … Venezuela isn’t China“).
The American public has been misled about South American policies. And
U.S. military adventures around the world foretell the end of American
dominance. “Fidel used to say that Che said that it will be the end
when America has three Vietnams, and we’re almost at the point,” Stone
pronounces.

Stone is always eager to needle the right with his
brazenly ideologically driven filmmaking. As the CAA event shows, a
session with Stone can feel like a college course, with the director as
the professor and audiences as the wide-eyed freshman-year class. He is
happy to pepper his responses with numbers and factoids: about gross
domestic product, about oil production, about poverty levels.

But the director’s filmic methods for teaching that
class have shape-shifted in “South of the Border.” Unlike “JFK” or
“Born on the Fourth of July,” where Stone provoked ire
for using a feature-film format to pass off his views of history, Stone
touches a different nerve here: He’s using the ostensibly truth-telling
format of nonfiction film to expose his views of (in)justice. (It’s
most akin, perhaps, to his first Cuba documentary, “Commandante,” which HBO refused to air because they said it didn’t push Fidel Castro hard enough.)

In the new film, Stone crisscrosses South America lobbing mainly gentle questions at six leftist leaders, spending particular time with Bolivia’s coca-grower-trade-leader-turned-President Evo Morales and Venezuela’s
polarizing leftist Chavez, gaining access and currying favor with them
at the same time. From where, Mr. Chavez, did you get the courage to
stand down the America-centric International Monetary Fund, he asks the
leader. How good, Mr. Morales, does it feel to chew coca leaves? (The
two proceed to do just that together.) And what is it like, Raul Castro, to know your brother was such a pioneer in squaring off against the Americans?

It’s a survey course of modern Latin American
politicians and their relationship with America and Americans, but
after a fashion; those hoping for context on the opposition or the
people these leaders govern will be forced to look elsewhere.

For his part, Stone says that the point of the film
is not to explore every wrinkle in Latin American society but to offer
a cinematic corrective to stateside perceptions of U.S. foreign policy.
“This issue is much larger than these six countries,” Stone says in a
phone interview the morning after the screening. “We’re still
subscribing to the Bush, Cheney and Wolfowitz doctrine of unilateral
control of the world. Obama is a puppet president in that regard.”

Those who have helped Stone put together the film
say that it’s a much-needed remedy to an American media that ignores
and distorts South America.
(The film is sprinkled with examples of blithe hyperbole, mainly from
Fox News, about the evils of South American leaders). “What we’re
trying to do is show that the media doesn’t report what’s really going
on in South America, that there’s another side that never gets covered in the United States,”
“South of the Border” producer Fernando Sulichin said in an interview
from the Cannes Film Festival last month. A suave, Argentine-born, Paris-dwelling producer, Sulichin helped arrange access to many of the leaders for Stone.

For all its political preoccupations, however, South
of the Border” focuses heavily on economics and financial policy. Its
main concern lies with the way the U.S. has sought to impose a system,
and how these leaders have, in Stone’s view, nobly resisted and thus
turned around their countries.

To spread this gospel, Stone, Sulichin and others
have embarked on a barnstorming tour that’s one part global media rock
show and one-part grassroots campaign. Over the last two months,
they’ve shown the film to government leaders in Madrid, to tastemakers in New York and to several thousand peasants and politicians in the rural Bolivia city of Cochabamba, a flash point for the water wars that seize Bolivian politics.

In Los Angeles, they find a group sympathetic to their message. The motley crew includes Benicio del Toro (he moderates the Q&A), the director Brett Ratner (he asks a question about Noriega, Stone calls him “Bart”); Fox movie studio chief Tom Rothman,
who pats Stone on the back and stands to the side listening to the
Q&A; and real-life characters whom Stone has made famous, including
activist Ron Kovic and journalist Richard Boyle, on whom “Born on the Fourth of July” and “Salvador” are based.

There are few at the screening who lift their voice
in opposition to the film, although controversy hovers anyway. Three
days before, the New York Times
ran a piece calling out Stone for “mistakes, misstatements and missing
details,” for whitewashing the leaders’ records and for self-selecting
experts.

Stone and his two researchers responded with a
detailed, 1,750-word blog rebuttal calling the article a “very
dishonest attempt to discredit the film.”

At the screening, producers are still visibly angry
about the piece, charging that the writer, the paper’s longtime Latin
American expert Larry Rohter, was not to be trusted because he had rightist sympathies and also had been banished from Brazil by President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

(The Brazilian government once ordered Rohter out of
the country after he wrote a story alleging that Lula had a drinking
problem.)

“The guy (Rohter) is wedded to a point of view. He
supported the Contras,” Stone says in the interview. “I think it’s
systemic at the paper. Perhaps there’s an unconscious racist bias that
they don’t recognize against dark-skinned races.” (Rohter did not
return a call for comment.)

It’s easy to mock Stone as knee-jerk and naive. At
least some of that he brings on himself, with bombastic claims made in
sincere conviction.

Like another provocateur leftist filmmaker, Michael Moore, Stone has the ability to get normally placid people — even self-described leftists — angry.

“Oliver Stone views Hugo Chavez and other leaders as heroic protagonists in a David-and-Goliath drama
rather than people who deserve critical and political analysis,” says Marc Cooper, a professor at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication and longtime L.A. Weekly columnist.

Cooper is a supporter of leftist causes and worked for Salvador Allende in Chile in the early 1970s, but he sees little value in Stone’s approach to South America.

(Cooper is well versed in Stone’s politics but acknowledges that he has not yet seen “South of the Border.”)

“Oliver Stone is right that the American mainstream media ignores most of South America,
and when it does cover it, it’s through a predictable optic. But the
antidote to that is the truth. It’s not to create caricatures out of
the leaders, and that’s what Oliver Stone does with
them. He’s an extraordinarily intelligent and thoughtful guy. But he
shouldn’t be making documentaries, or whatever you want to call them.”

Indeed, for all the research that went into the
film, missing are questions even high-schoolers would want answered. (A
producer says that tougher questions could be included on the DVD.)

Still, after witnessing Stone on the stump over a period of six weeks — in Cannes last month for “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps” and now for “South of the Border” — it’s tough not to harbor a certain respect for him.

Few Hollywood
directors show this kind of intellectual combativeness or conviction,
and even when Stone comes off as cringingly off-base, it’s difficult
not to admire the feistiness and wonkiness of a man who could just as
easily collect his studio paycheck and go home.

At the L.A. screening, Stone shows that pugnacity: “South America
bugs me because it’s in my back yard.” He cites what he says are dozens
of U.S.-led coups — “and the American public doesn’t know anything
about it.” The group soon retires to a reception in the lobby, but
Stone stays in the theater greeting everyone who comes up to him,
rattling off more claims and statistics.

———

(c) 2010, Los Angeles Times.

Visit the Los Angeles Times on the Internet at http://www.latimes.com/

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.