Misstatements and Factual Errors from Critics
Editor’s Note: Oliver Stone wrote this letter to HNN in response to a piece by Ron Radosh entitled “Oliver Stone’s Latest Travesty.”. You can read the letter that Mr. Stone, Mr. Weisbrot, and Mr. Ali wrote to the New York Timeshere.
Ron Radosh, in his June 28 diatribe about my documentary, South of the Border, alleges that the film is full of “distortions and omissions,” citing a June 26 New York Times article about the film by Larry Rohter to back up his claims.
Attached and available on our web site http://www.southoftheborderdoc.com is our response to Rohter’s article in the New York Times, which demonstrates that our film was right and Rohter was wrong on every point he raised: from the 2002 coup in Venezuela to the 1998 presidential race there, Argentina’s economic recovery and water privatization in Bolivia.
Radosh also claims “there are no dissenting voices in the film.” In reality, the film contains dozens of comments from U.S. reporters and news anchors, and opposition leaders in South America criticizing the presidents featured in the film.
I would advise Radosh to check his own facts before he criticizes our film for factual errors, and I encourage your own readers to see the film, visit our web site, and make up their own minds.
- Mark Weisbrot: Rohter Strikes Out Yet Again on South of the Border
- Larry Rohter: Oliver Stone Still Doesn't Get It
- Stone's, Weisbrot's, and Ali's Letter to the NYT
- Oliver Stone: Misstatements and Factual Errors from Critics
- Oliver Stone, Mark Weisbrot, and Tariq Ali: Responding to the New York Times's Broadside at Our Documentary
- Ron Radosh: Oliver Stone's Latest Travesty
comments powered by Disqus
Peter Kovachev - 7/27/2010
If you're still lurking about here, perhaps you or one of your flunkies can clarify a much more "interesting" development than your ailing movie...oops, "film," is the word I think you'd prefer.
See, according to fresh media reports on an interview with Britain's Camila Long, you've had on...who else, but the Jews.
And what astounding, profound, novel and historically poignant observations in the sphere of Jewish studies did you make? Apparently, that our "focus on the Holocaust" is due to "Jewish domination of the media,” because, according to you, Jews are “the most powerful lobby in Washington.” Then, it seems you went on with “there’s a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment. The most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has [expletive] up United States foreign policy for years.”
Now, all that sounds a little too stupid and not very "progressive" for someone like you, so I hope that it isn't really so, Ollie! I hope you or one of your shrinks will announce that you were misquoted, entered an alternate universe, were [expletive]-faced drunk or on bad crack, had a mental break-down, involuntarily channelled your [expletive]-buddy Ahmenedijad, or whatever (trying to help you here, bud); because just having plain [expletive]-for-brains is no excuse for capping one's already wobbly reputation with that of a dirty old antisemite. That would be so yukky, wouldn't it, Ollie.
Sure, I may think some of your latest flicks are a pile of [expletive], but some of your earlier stuff was quite good (I liked *Platoon*), and I'd hate to gag over your name for the rest of my life.
David Austin Walsh - 7/12/2010
Posted at his request:
"I stand by my PJM article, as well as my WSJ op-ed. Stone claims there are indeed dissenting voices in his film.
As anyone who sees it knows, they are set-ups put in to be quickly knocked down. Does anyone really believe that shots of the AM breezy Fox News morning show hosts talking about Venezuela are examples of serious critics of Chavez, and that they know anything at all?
There are no interviews with those who are well acquainted with Chavez and have a different perspective. I again recommend that people watch the PBS Frontline program "The Hugo Chavez Show," which anyone can watch for free on line at the Frontline website, or download through You Tube to your TV if you have a wi-fi connection.
Yes, watch Stone's film, and then watch the other one. I doubt whether having done this, you will conclude that Stone respects the truth’"
- ‘The Interview’: Seven Other Controversial Film Releases in History
- New Stonehenge Discovery Hailed As 'Most Important In 60 Years'
- Judge Rules 14-Year-Old's Execution a 'Travesty of Justice' in Case in the Jim Crow South
- Lawsuit May Reshape Tourist Industry in History-Rich Savannah
- Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer Turns 75