The Putin Interviews

Having watched the first 3 so far, this is MUST see filmmaking.

Of course much of the media (US) made up their mind on these before watching them just as they did with Platoon, JFK and anything controversial Stone has ever done, but just like the Castro docs Stone did, any sort of intelligent viewer can make up there mind themselves after viewing the material.

Stone asks all the pertinent questions. Putin gives his answers, many of them putting America in a bad light, deservedly so, but also I felt many of his answers also questionable.

My overriding feeling after the first three is that I have a much more detailed knowledge of the matter discussed, even if that knowledge makes deciding the moral rights and wrongs even harder then when I knew less. Its almost impossible to believe he's telling the complete truth about the Ukraine, but then again he may well be. The military budget another very questionable thing given the amounts prolonged of air raids in Syria
My impression is Putin is an extremely interesting character, evidently exceptionally intelligent, but carries a level of malevolence thats very hard to quantify.

There is a lot to be thankful for in our age of corporate media and partisan opinions to have Olive Stone still seeking 'the truth' and questioning everything. It feels like these days people are choosing sides without asking questions anymore of their own side just because of the hatred for the other side!

Ipso

It's hard to take Stone seriously when he brown noses people like Castro and Chavez.

Ipso

Ipso wrote: »

It's hard to take Stone seriously when he brown noses people like Castro and Chavez.

Thats exactly what people in America are saying about these interviews. Since when is asking a bunch of questions brown nosing? He's doing his job as an interviewer, not giving his own opinion but asking questions and eliciting answers from the subject. I mean he could act like a prick and ask them with an attitude, but then he'd hardly get the interviews in the first place would he? And why would he not ask them in a good natured unpartisan way? Surely thats the basis of a documentary as opposed to an editorialized interview

Ipso

Why not point out any issues he has with the US without having someone like Putin do it for him. He makes it too easy for critics who only have to point out Putin's record; freedom of the press, protests, treatement of gays, Chechnya etc
As for Castro and Chavez, there's no sugar coating dictators of failed states.

He pointed them out in The Untold History of the United States, 10 hour long episodes, a pretty exceptional piece of work.
The Putin interviews is not about the US, its about Putin and Russia and that perspective which we are not told about in our media or the US media. How can we rely on western media to understand the situation in the Ukraine for example when the CIA were active and there are the likes of John McCain and Biden are making speeches in the Ukraine parliament?

As for Castro and Chavez, what do we really know about them other then has been told by a bias US media? When Castro died there was a hell of a lot of Cubans distraught about it. There was also plenty who couldn't care less. But the point is you can't make up your mind about these people based on American media which is clearly a total shambles and has been for a while. Stone is giving their perspective, which really should be heard before making up ones mind on these matters. Actually after watching the Castro documentary I considered it a very balanced doc and came out thinking Castro had done both great things and unforgivable things for Cuba.

Arghus

I've only watched the first episode so far, but I will watch the rest.

I think a viewer has to temper their expectations when it comes to these documentaries. I don't know all the intricacies of how they came about, but I think Stone has tried to perform some sort of genuine journalistic service here. On first viewing of episode one, clearly they are very stage managed in some respects. Putin is definitely in charge and I'm sure Stone had to be well aware of where he could thread as an interviewer. So, yeah, he's not exactly nailing Putin to the wall, but that was never going to happen. I think Stone - as a Western journalist - had to take what he could get and you as a viewer have to be aware of that. But that doesn't mean that there's no merit to the excercise.

Even when Putin caresses or obsfucates the narrative to suit himself, it still interesting to see how and why he does it. It's rich and fascinating stuff and fairly groundbreaking - I certainly never heard him speak at length about anything before. You just have to wear your thinking cap while watching it and be aware of political power games and propaganda that's purring away constantly.

It reminds me a lot of Errol Morris trying to catch Donald Rumsfeld out in The Unknown Known - and Rumsfeld always being far too slick and smart to fall into that noob trap. A lot of people didn't like that about that particular film, but what made that documentary such a fascinating watch was not so much the interviewers attempts to put the heat on a slippery customer, but a study in how the interviewee themselves evaded that heat and the image of themselves they tried to project towards the camera. That's the frame of mind I try to stay in while watching The Putin Interviews: maybe it's not the truth, but it's interesting to think about why they want you think that's what the truth is.

Arghus

Arghus wrote: »

I've only watched the first episode so far, but I will watch the rest.

I think a viewer has to temper their expectations when it comes to these documentaries. I don't know all the intricacies of how they came about, but I think Stone has tried to perform some sort of genuine journalistic service here. On first viewing of episode one, clearly they are very stage managed in some respects. Putin is definitely in charge and I'm sure Stone had to be well aware of where he could thread as an interviewer. So, yeah, he's not exactly nailing Putin to the wall, but that was never going to happen. I think Stone - as a Western journalist - had to take what he could get and you as a viewer have to be aware of that. But that doesn't mean that there's no merit to the excercise.

Even when Putin caresses or obsfucates the narrative to suit himself, it still interesting to see how and why he does it. It's rich and fascinating stuff and fairly groundbreaking - I certainly never heard him speak at length about anything before. You just have to wear your thinking cap while watching it and be aware of political power games and propaganda that's purring away constantly.

It reminds me a lot of Errol Morris trying to catch Donald Rumsfeld out in The Unknown Known - and Rumsfeld always being far too slick and smart to fall into that noob trap. A lot of people didn't like that about that particular film, but what made that documentary such a fascinating watch was not so much the interviewers attempts to put the heat on a slippery customer, but a study in how the interviewee themselves evaded that heat and the image of themselves they tried to project towards the camera. That's the frame of mind I try to stay in while watching The Putin Interviews: maybe it's not the truth, but it's interesting to think about why they want you think that's what the truth is.

Just finished the 4th installment, and I think you'll notice quite a change indeed compared to the first. I think they had got to know each other better and this opened the door for Stone to push him much harder. He is much more direct, and you can see Putin becomes quite a bit more animated and fidgety.

Wonderful question Putin asks Stone at the end, i won't spoil it but we've already seen it in action in this thread!

Sad Professor

Stone trying to direct Putin in part 4 is hilarious.