Oliver Stones "The Putin Interviews": Historic Documentary about Putin

Hi Aaragon.

Actually, the way Putin discussed McCain had a real double edge to it. He lauded his patriotism, but (and I realize I'd have to view that again to see the sleight of hand he used), he was able to turn what he initially termed a positive aspect against itself. I wish I could remember more precisely. It may have been when he was discussing how many U.S. politicians are still in the "old world." I think he did a brilliant job of distinguishing contemporary Russia -- that is, HIS Russia -- from the Russia of the past. U.S. politicians, he pointed out, are stuck in that past, and so are attacking Russia on that basis. That's not done out of ignorance either, and Putin knows that as well. Remaining in the past with Russia is a way of resisting formulating a new future. As has already been discussed on this site, the West never saw Putin coming. He has outmaneuvered them at every turn. The U.S. hostility -- including their secretive cyber agenda -- has only made Russia more self sufficient, and in that more strong.

... the U.S., as it is operating now, will not and cannot allow for what might otherwise be a change for the better for the balance of power on this planet, as represented by Putin.

... hopefully Stone's attempt here will at least register something of this larger picture that the media try so hard to suppress and distort.
 
This is one great series of interviews! Thanks for sharing.

Besides many other gems in the interviews, one thing stuck to my mind: in connection with the Snowden saga, I think Oliver Stone asked whether this wasn't an elaborate plot by the US, or something along those lines. To which Putin responded, in his trademark diplomatic style: "honestly, I don't think they are that sophisticated. They just made one mistake after the other" (paraphrasing).

I found that interesting because he doesn't seem to think in grand conspiracies, but rather sees the dumbness and wishful thinking that is going on in the West. He also said at one point that "they live in another reality".

He really is one statesman in a million.


Aragorn said:
I was similarly surprised and a bit disappointed with Putin's remarks of him not being a woman (not having a bad day). Putin is very smart and strategic, but in that instance he made a clear miscalculation, IMO. I think that Putin with his clever humor and sarcasm is sometimes just giving more ammunition to the corporate western media. However, as became clear later, he doesn't seem to care what the western MSM says. Stone was asking why Russia isn't defending itself against all accusations, offering some countering proof, but Putin dismissed this line of action. In a sense, that's wise, because I don't think any proof or facts that Russia would provide would be enough for the westerners.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think it's good on Putin that he doesn't care too much about the Western media's opinion. He would have to give in to the pressure all the time, paying attention that he doesn't 'offend' anyone etc., when the shills would find some reason to smear him anyway. And the comment about women - geez, he's stating the obvious - women have cycles that affect their mood on some days. What's wrong with that statement? And good for him that he doesn't want to be a woman, you know, that's the normal thing for a man to think (and vice-versa, btw).

Aragorn said:
I was hoping that Putin would show some knowledge of psychopathy/ponerology, but from what I could see and hear, he didn't take it into consideration during the talks. He even, perhaps intentionally, "normalized" McCain, saying that he admires his patriotism. I'm just guessing, but I don't think that Putin is that naive, I think he is often playing "naive" not to show his true knowledge. Calling the US elite for what they are, psychopaths, would most likely backfire. Hard to say.
Click to expand...

I think Putin is primarily interested in Russia and its people, and secondarily in helping others on the world stage if this also helps or at least doesn't harm Russia. I don't think calling the US psychos names would do much good for Russia at this point. He's always leaving the door open for dialogue and for his 'partners' to save face and come to their senses, if only because he doesn't leave them any other option. Hence his stoic patience and diplomatic conduct even in the face of the blatant evilness and web of lies that he witnesses every day with his 'partners'.
 
Heather said:
Hi Aaragon.

Actually, the way Putin discussed McCain had a real double edge to it. He lauded his patriotism, but (and I realize I'd have to view that again to see the sleight of hand he used), he was able to turn what he initially termed a positive aspect against itself.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say, too. Sorry for being unclear. I think he intentionally made this remark, which for those in the know (and any neurons firing) will know how to interpret. I'm not sure if McCain has those neurons...
 
The four parts can now be watched streaming on the official site:

http://www.sho.com/the-putin-interviews#/closed
 
Leaving my bias aside - I have much positive things to say about the interview, it is must watch for everyone - it seems that the interview is appealing on another level. It seems that you could ignore all about politics and still get you to like the guy. That's whats going to reach people but specially in the US. And could tilt the balance away from the Russophobia among common people too.

Aragorn said:
I was hoping that Putin would show some knowledge of psychopathy/ponerology, but from what I could see and hear, he didn't take it into consideration during the talks. He even, perhaps intentionally, "normalized" McCain, saying that he admires his patriotism. I'm just guessing, but I don't think that Putin is that naive, I think he is often playing "naive" not to show his true knowledge. Calling the US elite for what they are, psychopaths, would most likely backfire. Hard to say.
Click to expand...

I thought that was a master stroke, because he compared him to Cato the Elder, and highlighting Cato's "Carthage must be destroyed" mantra. Being described in that way can hardly get you to be perceived as reasonable person, quite the contrary.
 
So far I have seen part 1 and 4 (after Joe gave it high marks I had to jump with limited time).


It's been good and I recommended it to friends and co workers. Good thing Oliver Stone's name is attached to it, because people do remember his good works all over.




Charlie Rose pissed me off with his stubbornness. I felt like with him it was less being a paid shill for the system and more of what I despise- AUTHORITARIAN FOLLOWER MENTALITY. He seriously has faith in our democracy, despite the rampant corruption. That in itself is like a religious belief, that we have the best system always and forever and you should never question our glorious leader. Oops, isn't that N Korea? haha! Seriously, I'm starting to think that even Cobert believes that it's for real. Those studies on how people's brains "hurt" when given the truth that contradicts their views just makes me wonder.


If people, whether intelligent or not can be short circuited by some "faith" then what use is their intelligence in the first place? I'm sure many of the global warming scientists who push the co2 cause fudge the data because they think this will prove the "truth" too! It's a reminder of what Caesar said in the sessions, that people are fickle and even if you start young, they are easily swayed. Maybe that's the defining characteristic of an OP, a "bot" that just follows who is on top. For the USA, our idea of democracy and illusion of wealth, despite being abused and stolen from.
 
Part four finished strong with serious discussion about cyber warfare, past Russian leaders (some who definitely add to the west's anti Russian bias.) Stone tops it all off by asking some rather pointed questions about whether being in power too long is a good idea and how it can change a person. Over all it shows Putin and Russia in a more reasonable and objective light. Something sorely needed in the west. Two thumbs up!
 
genero81 said:
Part four finished strong with serious discussion about cyber warfare, past Russian leaders (some who definitely add to the west's anti Russian bias.) Stone tops it all off by asking some rather pointed questions about whether being in power too long is a good idea and how it can change a person. Over all it shows Putin and Russia in a more reasonable and objective light. Something sorely needed in the west. Two thumbs up!
Click to expand...

I consider part four as the best of the series, where Stone formulated his questions the best, challenging Putin effectively.
 
Navigator said:
genero81 said:
Part four finished strong with serious discussion about cyber warfare, past Russian leaders (some who definitely add to the west's anti Russian bias.) Stone tops it all off by asking some rather pointed questions about whether being in power too long is a good idea and how it can change a person. Over all it shows Putin and Russia in a more reasonable and objective light. Something sorely needed in the west. Two thumbs up!
Click to expand...

I consider part four as the best of the series, where Stone formulated his questions the best, challenging Putin effectively.
Click to expand...

Finished watching part 4 last night and I agree. It was most likely done on purpose through editing, but it seemed like Stone was really pushing Putin to answer a number of tough questions that he didn't seem to do in the first 3 parts. It was almost like two old friends catching up and calling each other out and that was refreshing and enjoyable to watch.
 
Spoiler Alert!

Putin warned Stone that he will get into trouble for what he is doing with the movie, right at the end of the fourth part:

The Putin Interviews Part 4 said:
Putin: "Have you ever been beaten?"

Stone: "Ohh yes, I've been beaten".

Putin: "So it's not going to be something new, because you are going to suffer for what you are doing."

Stone: "Ohh.. sure yeah I know, but it is worth it. It is worth it to bring some more peace and consciousness to the world."
Click to expand...
 
Another pretty interesting part was what Putin had to say right after the new president Trump got into power. I think it is worthwile to watch that part and Putins reaction to the question "what will change in the US now?". His reaction was quite funny and to the point.
 
In regards to why Stone doesn't mention 9/11, I think it is quite obvious that this would make it very hard for him to even create such movies, let alone spread it as far as he can now. The same goes for Putin. I'm pretty sure he and his team know what happened there, but at this point it is not wise to go there, considering his commitment to his country. Having said that, I don't think it is impossible that they eventually will leak sensible material about it, if the craziness continues. If that leak would make any difference now, is the other question. Most people seem to have forgotten that 9/11 connection and wouldn't really care I think, or make the connection to today, sadly as it is.

And in regards to this:

luc said:
[...] And the comment about women - geez, he's stating the obvious - women have cycles that affect their mood on some days. What's wrong with that statement? And good for him that he doesn't want to be a woman, you know, that's the normal thing for a man to think (and vice-versa, btw). [...]
Click to expand...

I wouldn't get offended by this statement. It was essentially a joke and he tried to soften it afterwards for his american counterpart and the western viewers I guess. Russians are quite blunt generally and what usually offends a westener isn't viewed as such a big deal in this country. And of course, as such a statesman of russia you have to present a certain image of "manliness". I'm sure there will be quite a number of people who will use that statment to make Putin look like "a man that puts woman down" while nothing of that sort is actually happening and it is actually happining in the west by objectifying woman.
 
Pashalis said:
luc said:
[...] And the comment about women - geez, he's stating the obvious - women have cycles that affect their mood on some days. What's wrong with that statement? And good for him that he doesn't want to be a woman, you know, that's the normal thing for a man to think (and vice-versa, btw). [...]
Click to expand...

I wouldn't get offended by this statement. It was essentially a joke and he tried to soften it afterwards for his american counterpart and the western viewers I guess. Russians are quite blunt generally and what usually offends a westener isn't viewed as such a big deal in this country.
Click to expand...

It reminded me of the following from the "Northern Exposure" series, where a (very competent) woman says exactly the same thing. ;)


https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x50a65x
 
Pashalis said:
And in regards to this:

luc said:
[...] And the comment about women - geez, he's stating the obvious - women have cycles that affect their mood on some days. What's wrong with that statement? And good for him that he doesn't want to be a woman, you know, that's the normal thing for a man to think (and vice-versa, btw). [...]
Click to expand...

I wouldn't get offended by this statement. It was essentially a joke and he tried to soften it afterwards for his american counterpart and the western viewers I guess. Russians are quite blunt generally and what usually offends a westener isn't viewed as such a big deal in this country. And of course, as such a statesman of russia you have to present a certain image of "manliness". I'm sure there will be quite a number of people who will use that statment to make Putin look like "a man that puts woman down" while nothing of that sort is actually happening and it is actually happining in the west by objectifying woman.
Click to expand...

Well, however you want to view Putin's comment -- and I can assure you, it won't help Stone's greater cause, and I'm surprised he didn't edit that segment -- Putin himself seemed to regret it. It exposed a moment of, if not insecurity, then indecision. He just couldn't bring himself to say: "Yeah, I have a bad day now and then." Of course, he might have said: "I can't afford to have a bad day," and then the both of them could have had a bit of a laugh maybe. But, instead the question caught him off guard.

But then it was sort of a throw away, even tabloid type question that Stone no doubt intended in a "human interest" vein. And sometimes exchanges like that go well in that they lessen the tension a bit, and sometimes they backfire, as it did here.

Stone & Co. did a lot of editing for this piece, and in my opinion that segment might just as well have come out -- given the larger purpose of this interview, which is to bring not just the reasoned person and approachable personality of Putin to the American public, but also to highlight the stakes involved in our being able to view him as such, apart from the endless "evil empire" aria that we are incessantly exposed to.

As to Stone's decision to keep the segment in no doubt to keep the piece "honest"... it would also have been honest -- and yet deferential -- to take his cue from Putin's own back pedaling, which in a sense was his owning to his mistake. If Stone was on the fence about it he might have taken that approach instead.


[edit: cut original quote to the portion relevant to the topic]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom