Stone's "Jawbreaker"
Two observations about Oliver Stone's Jawbreaker, his Paramount project about this country's response to the 9/11 attacks with the invasion of Afghanistan and hunt for 9/11 maestro Osama Bin Laden. One, the source material and choice of screenwriter indicates the film will be more critical of the Clinton team's anti-terrorist efforts than that of the post-9/11 Bushies, which is surprising given Stone's lefty leanings. And two, Jawbreaker sounds a lot like the "fascinating procedural" about a hunt for terrorists that Stone spoke of five years ago during a public discussion at Alice Tully Hall .
As Variety's Michael Fleming reported, the Jawbreaker screenwriter is Cyrus Nowrasteh, whose teleplay for the ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11 was said to contain unfair allegations that tarred the Clinton adminstration's handling of the Mideast terrorist threat in the mid to late '90s.
Plus the script is based "in part" on a memoir of the same name by Gary Bernsten, a senior CIA operative during the invasion who coordinated various efforts to put an end to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Fleming writes that Bernsten's book is about how he felt "stymied by bureaucrats in President Bill Clinton's administration who prevented operatives from engaging a growingly malicious Al Qaeda and Bin Laden presence.
"While Bernsten describes how he and his cohorts were stunningly told to stand down when they had Bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora, he writes approvingly of President George W. Bush's handling of the invasion."
Fleming quotes Stone as saying that "Gary might be a defender of the administration, but he certainly had very clear criticisms of bureaucratic snafus in Afghanistan.'"
Jawbreaker was foreshadowed by something Stone said during a panel discussion on Saturday, 10.6.01, at Alice Tully Hall called "Making Movies That Matter: The Role of Film in the National Debate."
What politically-challenging movie would Stone like to make, he was asked, if he had his way?
"I'd like to do a movie on terrorism," Stone said to the audience listening to the discussion. "It would be like The Battle of Algiers in which you'd just go in and show how it works. And it would be a hunt -- people looking for them [the terrorists] while they're about to do this. And perhaps it's an old formula, but if it were done realistically without the search for the hero, which is often required, if could be a fascinating procedural.
"If it's well done and real and accurate, you would see the Arab side, you'd see the American side...people will respond and they will go."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 16, 2006 at 9:26 AM
comment #1
Nicol D
says ...
Can't. Wait.
I love Stone (even his lefty films) and it seems as former conservative icon Clint Eastwood drifts left in his autumn years, Stone seems to be embracing a more realistic, dare I say, conservative approach to the world.
The Path to 9/11 was one of the best films I've seen on the subject. Of course Clinton hated it, it showed he did not take the threat seriously. It also critiqued Bush in the second half.
Now before everyone defends Clinton, lets be honest; in order to believe Clinton's side of this, you would have to believe he was willing to carry out the same sort of Black Ops/assasination missions that Reagan was known for in the 80's in Latin America.
Do you really believe that?
Isn't that why the left loves him so much...he was the 'All you need is love-Beatles-Fleetwood Mac' president. That he was the anti-Reagan?
The left did not take the threat seriously and paid. They were also bogged down in neo-Marxist, we're the bad guys, political correctness up the wazoo.
Bush has made mistakes a plenty and is not blameless, but only the least sophisticated of observers of world politics could believe Clinton's take on events.
Stone is not conservative but he takes the military seriously. He won't kiss Clinton's ass to save his legacy. Glad to see Stone is back in the ring. He is a master.
Posted by Nicol D
at October 16, 2006 10:39 AM
comment #2
NYCBusybody
says ...
I agree with most of what you say, Nicol, but Eastwood has never really been a "conservative", at least not socially conservative. He's a definite Libertarian.
Certainly more conservative than most of Hollywood, but that's not hard to be, if you're anywhere near moderate.
If you're referring to someone who happens to be a "conservative icon", I'd say John Wayne still looms much larger than Eastwood ever could.
http://www.self-gov.org/celebrities/clint-eastwood.html
Posted by NYCBusybody
at October 16, 2006 10:47 AM
comment #3
Nicol D
says ...
Yes, I know of Eastwood's self professed Libertarian status, but he still has been worshipped by the right for decades. He is a registered Republican probably cut from Schwarzennegar cloth.
Remember that the left only started respecting Eastwood as a director in the past 10-15 years. Conservatives were with him when Pauline Kael called him a facist.
He only started getting squishy when the French started liking him in Cannes.
Posted by Nicol D
at October 16, 2006 10:59 AM
comment #4
jeffmcm
says ...
Nicol is an idiot.
Posted by jeffmcm
at October 16, 2006 11:00 AM
comment #5
jeffmcm
says ...
(The word is spelled 'fascist'.)
Posted by jeffmcm
at October 16, 2006 11:01 AM
comment #6
Nicol D
says ...
Thanks JeffMCM, we can always expect a clever and witty retort from you to liven our days.
The notion that when people write posts on a blog they don't always spell check, write too fast and sometimes make typos never occured to you?
No, I guess not.
Now satiate your own little, insecure existence by calling me another name usually reserved for fights between students in elementary school at recess time...or university. He he.
Posted by Nicol D
at October 16, 2006 11:23 AM
comment #7
D.Z.
says ...
Nicol: "The left did not take the threat seriously and paid."
So the Republicans were the ones who wrote a report entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack", and then waited almost a year for his cronies to smash their plane into a building? And the Dems let Kim Jong Il have nukes despite referring to N. Korea as a member of the "axis of evil"?
Posted by D.Z.
at October 16, 2006 11:32 AM
comment #8
Nicol D
says ...
DZ,
I've never said, nor do I believe that Bush and the right are blameless.
I just find it preposterous that we are never supposed to fault lil' Hollywood hound St. Bill.
Posted by Nicol D
at October 16, 2006 11:39 AM
comment #9
Argen
says ...
Zzzzzzzzzzz. . .
Not sure what's more boring: this project or this thread. Let's call it a draw.
Posted by Argen
at October 16, 2006 11:53 AM
comment #10
T. S. Idiot
says ...
While Pauline rightly called Dirty Harry a fascist movie, I don't think she said the same of Clint.
Posted by T. S. Idiot
at October 16, 2006 11:59 AM
comment #11
storymark
says ...
"While Pauline rightly called Dirty Harry a fascist movie, I don't think she said the same of Clint."
Who needs context when you can just cherry-pick talking points?
Posted by storymark
at October 16, 2006 12:31 PM
comment #12
Nate West
says ...
//NICOL:...you would have to believe he was willing to carry out the same sort of Black Ops/assasination missions that Reagan was known for in the 80's in Latin America.//
Any assassinations in Latin America ordered by Ronald Reagan would have been in direct violation of his own Executive Order 12333. So which persons in Latin American did Reagan have assassinated? Are you talking about priests and nuns?
Posted by Nate West
at October 16, 2006 2:18 PM
comment #13
Nate West
says ...
//Conservatives were with him when Pauline Kael called him a fascist. He only started getting squishy when the French started liking him in Cannes.//
In Magnum Force, Dirty Harry was the anti-fascist. That was 1973.
Posted by Nate West
at October 16, 2006 2:22 PM
comment #14
Min
says ...
This smacks of agents trying to cash in. Smells like Swift-boat Perry money and a needy Brad Grey. Christ, is Paramount so bad off? The book "Jawbreaker", though written by a conservative I respect, will now be forever tainted by the hands of a writer who's a proven liar and more notably a really shitty writer. Exhibit A=Cyrus Nowrasteh and his resume.
The writer, the money and Paramount are whores. Whether Stone sold out is yet to be determined.
Posted by Min
at October 17, 2006 2:41 PM
comment #15
Cadavra
says ...
You're all assuming Stone isn't going to rewrite it to more accurately move the blame from Clinton to Bush, where it belongs.
Posted by Cadavra
at October 17, 2006 3:54 PM
comment #16
Dave Polands Gut
says ...
Too bad Clinton didnt do anything while in office besides get busy with fat interns or we wouldnt have half these problems and Stone could still be busy making crappy Vietnam flicks.
Posted by Dave Polands Gut
at October 18, 2006 8:39 AM