Or that’s what the Huffington Post, in (increasingly) typical aggrandizing fashion, would have you believe. Richard Dreyfuss appeared on The View recently, where he discussed, among other things, Oliver Stone’s working methods (“imagine working for Sean Hannity,” and “you can be a fascist, even if you’re on the left”) and the final cut of W. “It’s about 6/8 of a good movie,” he says, which is pretty much the party line. But instead of being pleased that someone is talking honestly and off the cuff about their job, the HuffPost paints those statements as slams.
I’ve always been under the impression that film directors have to be fascists to some extent, especially when you’re working towards a very strict deadline, as Stone was (for better or worse) with W. I’ve worked with kind, cuddly directors — small time guys — and there was a reason they were small time. Almost to a one, they sucked. Couldn’t make decisions, couldn’t make their days. The word has such a negative connotation that many directors aren’t going to accept the tag, but calling a director a fascist just seems appropriate.
The W material really starts at 3:30, but check out the lame Holiday Inn commercial joke at about 1:40. It’s…unfortunate.
3 comments
Why didn't Devin get to interview Dreyfuss for W.? I want a rematch!
Agreed with your comments re: the need for fascism in a director, Mr. Fischer. However, do you not think that when a major actor of his generation, one who has worked more intimately with more prominent directors than (I venture to assume) either of us put together; that when that man rises to say that a particular director distinguishes himself* with his fascistic dictator tendencies, that that is still an indicator that that particular director may be a particular brand of difficult?
But I'm sure we've both read Killer Instinct, this is no revelation.
He's right and then he's wrong. We don't see joe plumber much, but we DO see the scenes where Bush talks to the wounded war vets. If they aren't representing the innocent people this guy's hurt, who else does? The war room scene goes on way too long, and the flashbacks can get tiresome, but otherwise it's a masterfully crafted film. I guess being so closely associated with it has given Dreyfuss some grievances. I don't know about all that, but I consider it mission accomplished as far as exposing the competitive nature of W and why he decided to do all that shit after 9/11 is concerned. I believe it's really just a movie about a man trying to get out of his father's shadow and ultimately failing due to his inability to accept who he is, not his poppy. Not that hard to see. I don't know what kind of movie Dreyfuss really wanted.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.