Special Editor's Introduction: Oliver Stone as Cinematic Historian

Special Editor's Introduction | Editor's Corner Robert Brent Toplin University of North Carolina at Wilmington Special Editor's Introduction: Oliver Stone as Cinematic Historian Some of the most influential historians today are not teaching in the classroom, writing books, or managing public sites and museums. Rather, they are producing movies. Their products are making a tremendous impact on the public's views of the past. The American people's thinking about Gandhi's life, the experience of the Holocaust, or the mystery of a president's assassination are profoundly influenced by motion pictures such as Gandhi, Schindler's List, and JFK. The ideas of millions of people around the world have been shaped by such films. If we try to identify the cinematic historians who have given us the most memorable interpretations of the past on the big screen, we come up with names such as Richard Attenborough, Alan Parker, Edward Zwick, Steven Spielberg, Roland Joffe, and John Sayles. Yet no modern-day cinematic historian has delivered as consistent a record of highly charged, provocative, and commercially successful views of the past as Oliver Stone. Several of his movies have given us windows into the Vietnam experience: Platoon, Born on the Fourth oí July, Heaven and Earth. Stone has examined the American role in Central America in Salvador and presented a memorable indictment of greed in the 1980s through the movie Wall Street. The Doors gave us a perspective on the culture of drugs and music in the Sixties, and Naturai Born Killers raised questions about the infatuation with violence and the media in American culture. And, of course, Stone's highly controversial film, JFK, sent shock waves well beyond the movie theaters. JFK excited tremendous pressures in Congress that helped to spring the release of thousands of pages from the Warren Commission investigation and the subsequent Congressional investigations into the assassination of John F. Kennedy. How many movies have wielded that degree of political clout? Vol. 28.1-2(1998) | 5 Toplin !Special Editor's Introduction: Oliver Stone as Cinematic Historian In many respects, then, Stone is one of the most influential "historians" in America today. His diverse motion pictures have addressed important and controversial topics about developments in the United States and the world in the late twentieth century. Stone's cinematic interpretations have sparked lively debates about the past and its meaning. In calling Stone a historian we are, of course, expanding upon the familiar definition. Until recently, when identifying "historians" it has been common to Oliver Stone atthe 1997 American Historical Association meeting in NewYork City. For more information on this meeting see Film & HistoryW. 26, No. 14, 1996. Top: Stone with Jonathan and Martin Jackson. Middle: Stone meeting with audience members. Bottom: Stone and John O'Connor listening to Martin Jackson. think ofindependent writers or scholars working in educational institutions. Today the term needs a broader definition. In the modern age of film and video, producers and directors are acting historians, too, and their productions often make a significant impact on the public's perceptions ofhistory. Certainly no modern-day director ofdramatic films has done more to excite discussion about the past than Oliver Stone. The contributors to this special issue of Film &Historyhave examined Stone's perspectives on history and his role as a social critic. They have asked: How did Stone's personal experiences and interests affect his interpretations? To what degree did he apply highly biased perspectives? How have historians, film critics, and the public responded to his movies, and how has Stone replied to his critics? Has Stone been a perceptive observer of American society and its problems? Have his movies delivered important insights concerning American society, politics, and foreign policy? How has Stone dealt with history? Has he exercised artistic license responsibly? Should we praise him for using information imaginatively? Criticize him for fictional excesses ? What should we seek insights similar to the kinds we obtain from reading? More? Less? Something different? Surely each of us can raise objections to Stone's handling of controversial subjects and his treatments of the past. We may not like the suggestion of conspiracy theories. Some will object to the juxtaposition of real...