Oliver Stone's "Untold History of the United States" -- Reviews and Discussion

[Charles Drago]

Oliver Stone's long-awaited premium cable TV series, Untold History of the United States, premiered on Monday, November 12, 2012 on Showtime.

The series is touted thusly:

"There is a classified America we were never meant to see. From Academy Award®-winning writer/director Oliver Stone, this ten-part documentary series looks back at human events that at the time went under reported [sic], but that crucially shaped America's unique and complex history over the 20th century. From the atomic bombing of Japan to the Cold War and the fall of Communism, this in-depth, surprising, and totally riveting series demands to be watched again and again."

Based upon the content of the first episode, "The Birth of the American Empire," Stone will end up delivering nothing more than watered down, mainstream history that scrupulously avoids examination of the "untold stories" that the filmmaker so dramatically promises to reveal.

ITEM: Stone's high school survey of FDR's presidency avoids all mention of the 1934 so-called "Business Plot" to overthrow the Roosevelt government and of American hero Smedley Butler's single-handed thwarting of that coup.

ITEM: Nowhere does Stone challenge the conventional wisdom regarding the rise of Adolf Hitler or address the thesis of Guido Preparata as set forth in his seminal Conjuring Hitler.

ITEM: The possibility of conspiracy and cover-up related to the Pearl Harbor attack is not referenced, let alone addressed.

ITEM: Stone tacitly accepts the official argument for the necessity of the atomic bombing of Japan.

It appears that FDR's replacement of Henry Wallace will be a main focus of the second episode. This is promising.

But as far as the first episode of Untold History of the United States is concerned, Oliver Stone today seems content to wade aimlessly in the shallow end of the deep politics pool.

[Charles Drago]

I just purchased the companion book to the series.

On Amazon, we learn the following:

The authors (Stone and historian Peter Kuznick) reveal that:

· The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were militarily unnecessary and morally indefensible.

No such revelation was included in episode one. Let's be patient until next week's telecast.

We're also promised that the book will demonstrate how:

· The United States, not the Soviet Union, bore the lion's share of responsibility for perpetuating the Cold War.

· The U.S. love affair with right-wing dictators has gone as far as overthrowing elected leaders, arming and training murderous military officers, and forcing millions of people into poverty.

· U.S.-funded Islamist fundamentalists, who fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan, have blown back to threaten the interests of the U.S. and its allies.

· U.S. presidents, especially in wartime, have frequently trampled on the constitution and international law.

· The United States has brandished nuclear threats repeatedly and come terrifyingly close to nuclear war.

Stay, as they say, tuned.

[Jan Klimkowski]

The series is being broadcast in the UK now.

As Oiiver Stone is the narrator, the documentaries are structured and framed as historical essays authored by Stone.

There are deliberate stylistic echoes of other great documentary series - the epic feel of the World At War, the deadly curiosity and juxtapositions of Adam Curtis' Pandora's Box.

The content is often brilliant but Stone's delivery is downbeat, matter of fact, frequently articulating shocking thoughts with an absence of emotion.

The effect is strange, curious, disconcerting.

The moral judgements are not made directly in the narration, but usually come from statements of fact about wartime atrocities, or in the juxtaposition of barbaric statements by a leader or a general with imagery of the human cost. Corpses.

The archive footage is frequently breathtaking.

I saw the JFK episode (#6) over the weekend.

JFK is presented as a man on a secret political journey, whose public statements are often diametrically opposed to his private views.

The last 10 minutes of the film frames JFK as a leader who believes the goodness of man can triumph over humanity's inherent evil.

As the motorcade drives through Dallas, the commentary lists - matter of factly - the powerful groups who felt betrayed by JFK. The list contains almost all the false and true sponsors named here on DPF, and the historical "failures" that these groups blamed on Kennedy.

The narrator concludes: "The rage towards (JFK) was visceral."

Then, very deliberately, very tellingly given the small size of the canvas, the limited time available in the documentary, as Kennedy's car glides through Dallas, the film evokes Seven Days In May.

It states that "Kennedy had read the best selling novel which portrays a coup d'etat by a Joint Chiefs of Staff furious over a liberal President's new nuclear treaty with the Soviets".

Cut, in Adam Curtis style, to Burt Lancaster's General calling the President "criminally weak".

Stone's narrator continues by stating that JFK had read Seven Days and told a friend that such a coup d'etat was possible in the US if there were "a third Bay of Pigs".

And so JFK is slaughtered. Cue the music from Stone's movie JFK.

This is outstanding documentary filmmaking - using the shorthand grammar of Curtis' Pandora's Box.

After casting doubt on the Warren Commission, Stone continues:

"We may never know who was responsible (for the assassination) or what their motive was. But we do know that Kennedy's enemies included some of the same forces who would cut down Henry Wallace in 1944 when he was trying to lead the United States down a similar path of peace."

Stone presents overwhelming evidence that JFK was slaughtered for geopolitical reasons but chooses not to say it explicitly. Rather the technique employed is to encourage the viewer to assess the evidence presented and to come to the only possible conclusion.

Then there's a huge juxtaposition to a contemporary newsreel announcing:

"KHRUSCHEV RESIGNS"

Footage of Khruschev's grave - hidden from sight. "No monument was erected for years."

The clear implication is that, like Kennedy, Khruschev was removed from power by the forces opposed to the path of peace.

Stone's narrator continues: "Future generations owe an enormous debt, and possibly their very existence, to these two brave men who stared into the abyss and recoiled from what they saw."

Cut to a black and white photograph of Vasili Arkhipov, with the national anthem of the USSR playing.

"And they owe a special debt to an obscure Soviet submarine commander who single-handedly blocked the start of a nuclear war."

This is astonishing. In an American documentary about the assassination of President John F Kennedy, the climax is not some grand statement about JFK. Instead, the climax is shared between Kennedy, Khruschev and "an obscure Soviet submarine commander".

Whether you agree with the historical argument or not, I maintain that this shows that Oliver Stone has editorial control over the series. No production company Executive Producer would cut away from images of the assassination of JFK to the grave of Khruschev and a very Russian story.

Then the documentary returns to JFK's inaugural 1961 speech, where the new President says that the baton has been passed to a "new generation".

The narrator responds by stating that, with Kennedy's murder, the baton was returned to the "old generation of Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Reagan - leaders who would systematically destroy the promise of Kennedy's last year as they returned the country to War and Repression".

"The promise of Kennedy's last year" - JFK was on a political journey, and was no longer the man who had been elected.

Stone continues: "Though the vision that Kennedy and Khruschev had expressed would fall with them, it would not die. The seeds they had planted would germinate and sprout again long after their deaths."

A brief section on the horrors of the Vietnam War, and then back again to the Dallas motorcade.

The words of the narrator have to be considered against the images flickering on the screen.

The imagery says:

From American Innocence to American Grotesque.

From Cheerleaders to Sinister Forces.

Stone's narrator concludes: "In hindsight, it was on that afternoon in Dallas when John Kennedy's head was blown off in broad daylight, it was if a giant horrific Greek Medusa had unearthed its hideous face to the American people, freezing us with an oracle of things yet to come."

[Dawn Meredith]

How very disappointing. Makes you wonder if Stone even understands the significance of his own film. I remember thinking this at the time too, based on interviews I saw with him.
I forget his exact words but his implication was that there was much fiction in the film as a way of presenting another version of history. "Because the Warren Commission was fiction" he would say.
At the time I cut him much slack because of how badly this film had been reviewed prior to its release. Never had this happened before. He was so
demomized in the press. And the film was so very important to me. Garrison vindicated, at last.

The above reviews however make me realize that Stone is just one more Hollywood persona with little capacity for truly comprehending
this nation's true history.

Sad, I had such high expectations for this documentary.

Thanks for the reviews. I will pass on this one.

Dawn

[Jan Klimkowski]

How very disappointing. Makes you wonder if Stone even understands the significance of his own film. I remember thinking this at the time too, based on interviews I saw with him.
I forget his exact words but his implication was that there was much fiction in the film as a way of presenting another version of history. "Because the Warren Commission was fiction" he would say.
At the time I cut him much slack because of how badly this film had been reviewed prior to its release. Never had this happened before. He was so
demomized in the press. And the film was so very important to me. Garrison vindicated, at last.

The above reviews however make me realize that Stone is just one more Hollywood persona with little capacity for truly comprehending
this nation's true history.

Sad, I had such high expectations for this documentary.

Thanks for the reviews. I will pass on this one.

Dawn

Dawn - I respectfully disagree.

I suspect Stone does not believe in didactic history.

As a documentary maker, I'm highly sensitive to film grammar.

If the narrator states "blah blah" as absolute truth, then this is conventional, orthodox, mainstream history.

Official History.

In terms of documentary grammar, Stone presents the evidence and lets the viewer make their choice.

His critics accuse Stone of "cherrypicking the evidence".

But all historians cherrypick their evidence: emphasise Fact A, suppress Fact B.

Is The Strategy of Tension taught in any classroom?

The evidence that Stone presents leads to inescapable, unavoidable, truths.

Official History is a lie.

In my judgement, Stone's Untold History is often brilliant - in form and in content.

I also believe it will be hated - by the Fox News end of the political spectrum for exposing the evidence that proves their Official History is Fantasy, and by the mainstream left for flirting with "conspiracy theory".

This is how the JFK episode ends:

A brief section on the horrors of the Vietnam War, and then back again to the Dallas motorcade.

The words of the narrator have to be considered against the images flickering on the screen.

The imagery says:

From American Innocence to American Grotesque.

From Cheerleaders to Sinister Forces.

Stone's narrator concludes: "In hindsight, it was on that afternoon in Dallas when John Kennedy's head was blown off in broad daylight, it was if a giant horrific Greek Medusa had unearthed its hideous face to the American people, freezing us with an oracle of things yet to come."

Yes. Yes. YES.

This concluding sequence is correct.

Not at the level of prose. But at the level of archetypes, of poetry.

The giant horrific Medusa, the Heart of Darkness, does not need to be named.

[Dawn Meredith]

Well very good. Charles' review made it sound very unworthy of its title.
And at the time it was being presented on a cable station we do not get I read some similar reviews
that made it sound very tame and unrepresentative of any real "untold story".
I love Stone so was very disappointed.
That he still speaks out passionately on the JFK assassination utilizing
James Douglass' powerful JFKU caused me to definately want to see this documentary.
I have now re-considered and will add it to our film list.
Thanks for the clarification.
I am still troubled however that he would not relay the truth about Pearl Harbor.
Because I thought "JFK" was so very brilliant I possibly expect too much of Stone.

Dawn

[Malcolm Pryce]

Thanks for this review, Jan, it sounds amazing. I will be going out of my way to watch it.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Thanks for this review, Jan, it sounds amazing. I will be going out of my way to watch it.

Malcolm - thanks. I very much welcome your thoughts too, and hope you will post them here at DPF.

I hope other members will post their responses too.

I expect there will be disagreements, frustrations, anger at this and praise for that.

Many will have a very different reaction to the series from mine.

I recorded a couple of the episodes, and although as a filmmaker I'm fairly good at reading documentaries first time I found the second and third watches to be very rewarding.

Ultimately Stone is attempting to convey hugely complex ideas and to reveal new historical narratives to a mass audience. Stone makes the viewer work very hard. These are not easy, familar, watches. These documentaries are laying out the evidence for an "untold history", which spans the globe.

The series is far from perfect, But at its best, it is pretty damn good.

[Magda Hassan]

Ultimately Stone is attempting to convey hugely complex ideas and to reveal new historical narratives to a mass audience. Stone makes the viewer work very hard. These are not easy, familar, watches. These documentaries are laying out the evidence for an "untold history", which spans the globe.

The series is far from perfect, But at its best, it is pretty damn good.

He sounds like he is making a better go of it than Jesse Ventura.....

[Tracy Riddle]

I'm almost done reading the book. I'd give it a 7.5 on a 10 scale. There's a lot of good information here - I would definitely recommend it to someone just beginning to learn about these events - but it's incomplete in some areas. No mention of the U2 crisis of 1960, which was a pretty major event. They accept the official story about Forrestal's death. No mention of the USS Liberty attack. Overall it just dips its toe into the waters of Deep Politics. But come to think of it, so did Howard Zinn's "People's History."