For those aware of history, politics and culture, we need to step back and see what our world really is. You will have both sides praising and condemning this series. Conservatives are angered by an unpatriotic view. Revisionists are pleased by a view but claim it is told and unoriginal.
Exactly what does untold mean? Some people scoff and say, well it has been told enough. But the definition of untold isn't "never told". Perhaps "Less So Stories" might come to mind. Less Told is the meaning in this case. If you were driving a car and met in an accident, of course, it's the other guy's fault. You don't tell the other driver's story. Thus, Stone offers instead an apologetic version of history.
In the world view, however, this film isn't really leftist or liberal, but probably slightly left to the center. Most Americans are on the right. Just like Saudi Arabia is on the right economically and socially, the US is far right economically and slightly left socially. Left socially and left economically are, for example, Scandinavian countries. Australia is socially on the left. China is economically right (like US, very capitalistic).
In the world view, this series is actually slightly left. Not much off the center, really. Most people in the world will see this as fairly accurate but it's hard for traditionalist Americans to swallow.
But it's also has some small lumps that make it sometimes hard to swallow. For one, Oliver Stone comments on a traditional political leadership history, not a social or economic history. For the most part, this series is quite truthful although just like any version of history, it represent opinion and conjecture. Some historians like to view history as a series of movements or struggles. Stone views history as shaped by powerful individuals. But often, it isn't single figures but movements that shape the world.
Another lump. Stone also uses his familiarity of movies as his comfort zone. Showing clips of films to depict history may not be the best way to suggest actual political course of events but how we interpret them. History and films, after all, are merely opinions and interpretations of events. Oliver, nice effects to show those clips, but they are movies. Give a few more facts to back up the argument.
I wish Stone took this one step towards understanding movements. He makes the case at times for that. Celebrating Wallace or JFK as a hero for the common person and for world peace. But what drove Truman or Reagan the other way? As Stone mentions, it's often who one listens to. Advisors and those closest to power often help shape history as presidents cannot entirely shape policies on their own.
Stone may well do one step better by focusing on the influence of movements. How the wealthy classes or hardliners/militarists shape American foreign policy. Noam Chomsky who was cited in this series, often depicts history as class struggles. At times, the common man seeks redress from oppressors and at other times, the wealthy classes dominate control. Historically, due to American capitalism and lack of upheaval, it has been the wealthy classes that control the nation's direction. The recent electoral victory of Trump over Clinton confirms the power of wealth. Stone's historical message is: those who are closest to power and wealth wield greater influence and will seek to protect their interest. Those who don't want change and stand to lose the most, will resist the changes sought by the middle and lower classes. Stone implies JFK made enough enemies and mysterious assassinations of the 1960s were instigated by those resisting change.
But Stone brings up excellent points of what truly is important: the welfare of ordinary people around the world. Therefore, he vilifies Nixon for getting more Americans killed than Johnson in Vietnam. He points out that Johnson dropped more bombs on Vietnam than the US did on Germany in WW2. Some estimates as many as 1.5 to 3 million civilians died in Vietnam. The same is true for the US invasion of Iraq by G.W. Bush were again, nearly a million were killed.
Do American presidents have their priorities wrong killing people in a third world country that cannot hurt the most powerful country? Is it really for the protection and security of America?
In summary: a brilliant, provocative, slightly flawed series worth seeing with an open mind.
Exactly what does untold mean? Some people scoff and say, well it has been told enough. But the definition of untold isn't "never told". Perhaps "Less So Stories" might come to mind. Less Told is the meaning in this case. If you were driving a car and met in an accident, of course, it's the other guy's fault. You don't tell the other driver's story. Thus, Stone offers instead an apologetic version of history.
In the world view, however, this film isn't really leftist or liberal, but probably slightly left to the center. Most Americans are on the right. Just like Saudi Arabia is on the right economically and socially, the US is far right economically and slightly left socially. Left socially and left economically are, for example, Scandinavian countries. Australia is socially on the left. China is economically right (like US, very capitalistic).
In the world view, this series is actually slightly left. Not much off the center, really. Most people in the world will see this as fairly accurate but it's hard for traditionalist Americans to swallow.
But it's also has some small lumps that make it sometimes hard to swallow. For one, Oliver Stone comments on a traditional political leadership history, not a social or economic history. For the most part, this series is quite truthful although just like any version of history, it represent opinion and conjecture. Some historians like to view history as a series of movements or struggles. Stone views history as shaped by powerful individuals. But often, it isn't single figures but movements that shape the world.
Another lump. Stone also uses his familiarity of movies as his comfort zone. Showing clips of films to depict history may not be the best way to suggest actual political course of events but how we interpret them. History and films, after all, are merely opinions and interpretations of events. Oliver, nice effects to show those clips, but they are movies. Give a few more facts to back up the argument.
I wish Stone took this one step towards understanding movements. He makes the case at times for that. Celebrating Wallace or JFK as a hero for the common person and for world peace. But what drove Truman or Reagan the other way? As Stone mentions, it's often who one listens to. Advisors and those closest to power often help shape history as presidents cannot entirely shape policies on their own.
Stone may well do one step better by focusing on the influence of movements. How the wealthy classes or hardliners/militarists shape American foreign policy. Noam Chomsky who was cited in this series, often depicts history as class struggles. At times, the common man seeks redress from oppressors and at other times, the wealthy classes dominate control. Historically, due to American capitalism and lack of upheaval, it has been the wealthy classes that control the nation's direction. The recent electoral victory of Trump over Clinton confirms the power of wealth. Stone's historical message is: those who are closest to power and wealth wield greater influence and will seek to protect their interest. Those who don't want change and stand to lose the most, will resist the changes sought by the middle and lower classes. Stone implies JFK made enough enemies and mysterious assassinations of the 1960s were instigated by those resisting change.
But Stone brings up excellent points of what truly is important: the welfare of ordinary people around the world. Therefore, he vilifies Nixon for getting more Americans killed than Johnson in Vietnam. He points out that Johnson dropped more bombs on Vietnam than the US did on Germany in WW2. Some estimates as many as 1.5 to 3 million civilians died in Vietnam. The same is true for the US invasion of Iraq by G.W. Bush were again, nearly a million were killed.
Do American presidents have their priorities wrong killing people in a third world country that cannot hurt the most powerful country? Is it really for the protection and security of America?
In summary: a brilliant, provocative, slightly flawed series worth seeing with an open mind.