Subject: Stone's history: so banal, and yet so offensive Posted By: J-.J. (norsemen@club-internet.fr) Date Posted: 1/12/2010 12:27:06 PM Number Of Times Message Viewed: 89

Though not laudatory, this is funny, thoughtful and therefore worth reading: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/6967126/Oliver-Stones-history-so-banal-and-yet-so-offensive.html EXTRACT: Oliver Stone's history: so banal, and yet so offensive Harry de Quetteville wonders why Oliver Stone feels the need to describe Hitler as "the product of a series of actions". "I have not pushed an old woman under a bus but judging by the opprobrium being heaped upon him, Hollywood director Oliver Stone may as well have done. Talking to critics, Stone explained that Hitler had been “an easy scapegoat throughout history” and that his new series would put things into their proper context. “ Now, joking aside, there are two things that are grim about this. The first is the obvious gripe about gross moral relativism. It seems to me to be fairly clear that moral absolutes do exist, and herding off millions of people to gas chambers or gulags puts you beyond them. Secondly, it is shocking that Stone feels it necessary to explain that history needs context – as though this fact has escaped his less beady-eyed peers. Ian Kershaw, whose superlative biography of Hitler is divided into two volumes, the first entitled “Hubris: 1889-1936” may feel he has spotted the link, as Stone so eloquently puts it, between “cause and effect”. If America really does need enlightening on this fact then we are all in trouble. But in the meantime, Stone’s real achievement is to have said something so banal and yet so offensive." This message currently has had 2 reply messages posted. RE: Stone's history: so banal, and yet so offensive -- 1/12/2010 3:06:23 PM posted by Alci RE: Stone's history: so banal, and yet so offensiv -- 1/12/2010 12:49:34 PM posted by dan