I just finished seeing this four part interview tonight, and was entirely engrossed when listening to Putin on such a wide range of topics. One could tell when things were getting to him -- when it came to Ukraine, especially... Syria... (which I see is heating up again between Russia and the U.S.).
Oliver Stone did a truly amazing thing in bringing these interviews to the American people especially, or at least those who are open minded enough to listen with an open mind. There are likely many Americans who are on the fence about Putin, and this seems to highlight an intelligent, decent, probing, thoughtful nature.
Putin did make a faux pas early on when Stone asked him whether he ever had a bad day, and Putin, who was maybe a bit rattled by the question, said something to the effect that he never did, that he wasn't a woman. It was too bad that happened since in that moment I felt that he offended a lot of American women especially with that remark, and might even have lost their ear, as it were. You could see Putin was sorry he said it, and he did some back tracking, but it was an unfortunate thing for him to have said, and he knew it.
Stone, to me, can be deeply insightful at times -- Putin, towards the end of part 4 when they were discussing Stalin, called him "cunning" -- but Stone can also be embarrassingly "American" at times as well. I know he needs to at least appear objective to those in the states who aren't in the least objective, but who want to see their perspective mirrored as proof of Stone's objectivity, and so I realize Stone has that to contend with. But at the same time... I mean, at one point Stone is talking about his wish for wealth, and it was rather endearing how Putin almost sounded like a father figure in his response, pointing out to Stone his own obvious talents and accomplishments, which had nothing to do with monetary wealth.
Also, if Stone read the documents on the hacking, didn't he also see that there is no smoking gun, so to speak? If so, why the: "Why did you hack the U.S. elections?" question without any qualifiers. One supposes Stone felt he had to do that. But I'm not always sure what his true beliefs are.
There's an interesting somewhat hidden history related to Stone when you realize he did the JFK movie, and that he was severely censured for it. I knew someone once in the film business who had a line on certain "inside the industry" sort of stories. He told me once that after making JFK Stone was threatened with doing jail time for cocaine if he didn't in some way "acquiesce." I saw Stone interviewed -- not sure how many years later, but it was for an interesting show on filmmaking -- and I was shocked to see Stone describe his JFK film as some manner of fairy tale. He has also been (in case you haven't noticed, and as this interview with Putin demonstrated) unable to represent a truthful view of 9/11. I do believe that that's what's required of him at this point. Unless he's actually begun to believe the lies.
In light of all that it's interesting that he's able to do this Putin interview, and one wonders who its backers are exactly. I haven't seen the Charlie Rose interview yet but I can imagine his take on it. With Rose representing a certain aspect of the power elite, who are those who are backing Stone in this? I saw a Spanish name for a producer, but I haven't looked into it. Snowden and Assange might be a good clue since they themselves are not all they seem.
Stone also did an interesting documentary on the Russian role in WWII, which is rather revelatory given the focus on most WWII docs is on the Western front. Yes, we all know Russia had a lot to do with defeating the Germans, but this documentary makes it clear that they had EVERYTHING to do with it. No contest. It's THE story that gets suppressed.
Stone is also affiliated in some way with the Dalai Lama, I saw him speaking about him on Youtube. It seems Stone's a practicing Buddhist. Actually, the Dalai Lama (whom is discussed on this site related to his being supported by the CIA until Nixon recognized China and the gig was up) claims to be a Marxist politically speaking, which I suppose surprised me given the situation with Tibet and China. I watched a number of films on Youtube on the darker side of the Dalai Lama that rather depressed me, since I always supposed he was one of those leaders who is "beyond reproach" seemingly. But instead, similar to Gandhi, this appears not to be the case.
But back to Stone... it's just curious the deeper story with him. His ties to the Dalai Lama, his particular interest in Russia, his distancing himself from his JFK work, and from 9/11 (outside of a more mainstream viewpoint)... I'm not sure what it all adds up to. But, certainly, doing such an extensive, candid seeming interview with none other than Vladimir Putin -- especially at this point in time -- seems historic.
