Oliver Stone on ‘The Putin Interview’: The Russian President ‘Is a Smart, Soft Man’

12putinreview master768 Oliver Stone on The Putin Interview: The Russian President Is a Smart, Soft Man

Putin and Stone: an unstoppable force meets the guy who directed Natural Born Killers. Sho

“I would have voted for Le Pen in a second. I could have: I have a French passport—my mother was French,” Oliver Stone recently told me. There’s a scene of déjà vu in the Putin Interviews, starting Monday, June 12, on Showtime in four one-hour daily installments, where the diminutive president makes a misogynistic remark to Stone who, trying his best Billy Bush, laughs and tells Putin he just has lost half of the American population. “Do you ever have a bad day?” Stone asks Putin. “No, I’m not a woman,” Putin says.

So much could be written about the dual purpose of the body of the king. Stone, who is not that tall in person, towers over Putin in the documentary, so it is fair to conclude that, for all his monumentality, Putin is very short. In the art of politics these two attributes are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but in the life of a macho, they make you look like a joke.

“How’s the swinging life?” Stone asked me.

“I’m not into that shit,” I told him.

“I heard you made condescending comments about someone who had many mistresses,” he said, referring to someone we both know. Later, he told me, “I question your virtue barometer on the subject. Someone is not an asshole because he has three girlfriends.”

In the Putin Interviews, a homophobic comment by Putin is met with giggles. Stone asks Putin if a straight sailor in the VМFRF could take a shower with a gay one. “I would rather not shower with him,” Putin answers. “Why provoke him?” Were the anti-Semitic and Islamophobic answers also left on the editing room floor? We see Putin in his dacha, and he seems very proud to have his own personal place of worship. Christianity played a very important role in the rise of the Front National in France and strangely enough the massive rallies of support following the terrorist attack on the Islamophobic Charlie Hebdo were mainly deprived of minorities and located in parts of France that had lost the grip of Catholicism.

“Putin bankrolled many neo-Nazi parties in Europe,” I told Stephen Cohen, one of the foremost Russia analysts in the world—or at least its Occidental part.

“Stop it with the use of these words, you don’t know what Nazism means,” he answered abruptly.

“Le Pen, who Trump supported,  said a month ago said that the French state didn’t help the Nazis deport hundreds of thousands of Jews. That’s not a neo-Nazi comment?” I asked him.

“Part of her discourse is Islamophobic,” he retorted. “There’s no Islamophobia in Putin’s talk. It is unfortunate that he received Le Pen at the Kremlin during the French presidential campaign though, but she was the only one of the candidates who flew to Moscow.”

“Wasn’t the war in Chechnya violently Islamophobic? It was a war of attrition, a crime against humanity,” I said.

“It certainly wasn’t,” he said. “Yes, Putin destroyed Grozny, but Russia has been fighting in Chechnya since Tolstoy. The war did create Islamophobia in Russia, but Putin is nothing of the kind. He built the biggest mosque in Moscow.”

“Isn’t there a gay pogrom going on in Chechnya condoned by Moscow’s puppet, this insane Kadyrov?” I asked.

“Putin is trying to rein him in, and this mass killing of gays is being investigated as we speak. There are questions regarding its veracity,” he answered.

“Putin is a smart, soft man,” Oliver Stone told me.

And indeed, we see them high-fiving at a hockey game, driving a car and sitting next to each other having a Blockbuster night, watching Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove, a film about a lunatic with his fingers on the atomic bomb button—so it must be true. Putin finds the Kubrick film pretty accurate, proving once again that we have entered the age of epistemology. “We must respect the voice of the people and the sovereignty of states” would have been a scary sentence had it been uttered by Peter Sellers, but in Putin’s mouth, since he clung to power thanks to massive voter frauds and almost started WWIII in Georgia and Ukraine, it actually becomes funny mainly because Stone enables him.

“I wanted the West to hear Putin in his own voice,” Stone told me. “The rare times he’s interviewed in the West, they always dub him, like on Charlie Rose, with the worst actor they can get, a kind of angry bulldog kind of voice.”

“And usually with the worst translation,” I told him.

Stone’s new documentary is such a vanity project replete in political science tourism that, if he had set out to fluffer the courtisants in the eastern corridor verified industry who think their Times and Post apps are their personalized PDBs and get into levitating daily trances onboard the Acela because an unwashed is in the White House, he wouldn’t have done it any differently. And how could he? He brought with him to Moscow a copy of this epitome of profundity that is Foreign Affairs to introduce the “other side” in the discussion, whatever that is.

Power produces Knowledge, they are both interrelated, Michel Foucault said, which could in part explain why the best part of Oliver Stone’s Putin Interviews is in fact an answer Putin gave to Megyn Kelly on NBC’s Sunday With Megyn Kelly regarding the oppression of dissent in Russia.

“Our police don’t use clubs or tear gas like yours does in the States,” an obviously annoyed Putin says. “Look at what happened to the Occupy movement—where are they now? They were beaten, infiltrated and disbanded by your intelligence services.”

We never saw this exchange on NBC because Kelly’s producers left it on the editing floor with the segment where Putin scolds Kelly at the SPIEF for not having read the Paris Climate Agreement, but Russians saw it since the unedited version of the interview was shown on primetime Russian state TV. Kelly didn’t expect Putin to answer, “Yes, here we kill our opponents.” All she wanted was passing her pledge and showing the frats back in New York that she too belonged in the boys’ club. But Putin’s answer is indicative of how out of touch the European leader is. He could have hit stateside pretty hard by mentioning the killings of unarmed blacks by cops, but he strangely picked Occupy, which did suffer from CoIntelpro, but its relevance to history might have more to do ultimately with Hillary Clinton’s defeat than with its infiltration and demise that was mainly self-inflicted.

As sickening as the Putin Interviews is, Stone’s Untold History of the United States—also produced for Showtime but this time written with the historian Peter Kuznick—is actually the best documentary of these last years. Forget the Koch brothers: The Dulles were the true matrix of the American evil empire, and the series for the first time exposed an American audience to the kind of history that will never be written in text books mainly published out of Texas.

If Putin is really competing in the Best Tyrant category, he has a lot of catching up to do as the U.S. has been in the tyranny business for more than a century. And he’s not even good at it if one considers what happened with Margvelashvili and Yushchenko. When the U.S. made a move on Mosaddegh or Allende, they were gone, none of this half deposed or half poisoned razzmatazz.

gettyimages 610097194 Oliver Stone on The Putin Interview: The Russian President Is a Smart, Soft Man

Director Oliver Stone (R) reacts as Joseph Gordon-Levitt (L) smiles during the Snowden Press Conference. Photo by Andreas Rentz/Getty Images

It is of course easier for the Cold War hacks, washed up neo-cons and deep-state sycophants in D.C. who never read Antonio Gramsci to believe that Comey, Wikileaks and the Kremlin brought down the American democratic system.

“I’m so tired of being attacked. I don’t know if I’m going to survive this Putin thing. I’m getting too old and tired for movies,” Stone told me. “I’m gonna make TV now. Actors don’t even respect me anymore. Gordon-Levitt on Snowden wasn’t even listening to me. He met with Snowden and had a very preset notion of what to do—Snowden being so worshiped by people his own age, I couldn’t bring him to do anything risqué. It was a very difficult shoot for me.”

The fact that Snowden was a right-wing freak who didn’t believe the elderly should get their Social Security checks was not mentioned in Snowden probably because the young left was now embracing him as their newfound hero after Obama had become the fly on the soy milk and deported one too many Hispanics. “Putin’s comments on Snowden are mind-blowing and very different from what we hear here in the West,” Stone told me.

Like when Putin tells Stone, “I’m against what Snowden did.”

It is pretty remarkable that when the civil war in Ukraine broke, very few news organizations reported on the West’s support of neo-Nazi groups in Kiev and its push to include Ukraine in NATO, which Putin rightly saw as crossing a red line.

“Putin is not a nationalist,” Cohen, a good friend of Stone, told me. “Oliver showed me the Putin Interviews. He should have asked Putin about Alexei Navalny. He didn’t—that’s too bad. He doesn’t know about Navalny, and that’s unfortunate because Navalny is the real nationalist in Russia right now, not Putin.” Never mind the anti-fascist Putinjugend

“Why didn’t you bring Cohen with you to Moscow?” I asked Stone.

“Nah,” he said. “Stephen is too academic…You can’t do these interviews like this…by categories. I’ve done something more popular.” A frat bro.

When Putin took power at the beginning of the century, he really saw himself as a true European. Contrary to what The New York Times says with its daily shameless promise to deliver the Truth, he didn’t start out by only enriching himself and his cronies. It was only after he tried to tax the oil oligarchs that he realized it was either him or them. The same happened with world leaders who never accepted him as one of their peers. Europe’s rotten patricians never got over the death of the tsar, and since 1917, they see everything coming from beyond the Ural as tacky even if the Russians saved Europe in WWII. The breaking point happened in 2011 in Libya when Putin felt betrayed after having been promised that Gaddafi would not be bombed out.

“All these people here in the government, like this idiot at the U.N., Nikki Haley, or James Comey, who was out of his mind, the same with the CIA, they are stuck in the 1950s,” Stone said. “I grew up in the 50s. My father was very anti-Russia, very republican, very conservative. All we had was the menu, this diet. It was everywhere: in the schools, Russians are invading Europe…You heard nothing but this crap—you had to believe it. I love Russia, I love going there, it is a really special place. Snowden got me there nine times. I introduced him to Gordon-Levitt, and then during the shooting of Snowden, I got to meet Mr. Putin.”

There is no question that America has to engage Russia as we are so close to a nuclear catastrophe, with or without Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

“Didn’t you make a massive casting error there with this goober Gordon-Levitt that nobody cares for?” I asked him.

“Yes, I realize this now,” Stone told me.

There’s a gentle touch emanating from Stone who has this humanistic approach to life so visible in the Putin Interviews, but the fact that he can swing from Putin to a D-list actor in the same sentence might be why the Putin Interviews are such a bloody disaster. It is pretty clear by now that Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer lied to us—Gone With The Wind doesn’t exist. Stone is fascinated by hard power, until now mainly from the left with Castro and Chavez. But, it is soft power that makes him come to life, and Putin has all the softness of the banality of evil we can spot in that mental short man at the gym bench-pressing with a thousand-mile stare, the bureaucrat ready to shut the doors of the train of no return on your grandma. A bureaucrat using Chechnya as a laboratory of horrors and a murderous Pretorian guard.

Foucault used to warn against revolutionaries who fight Power with the only intent to take it. It must be hard to live in Hollywood, as I experienced last year, where every New Yorker article is your next sure-bet script. What New York never told L.A.— because why break the simulacra of suspension of disbelief cycle?—is that these articles are written ready-made to be shot.

“I love when you write articles. You’re like a knife,” Stone told me, “but your screenplays are dreadful, full of platitudes.”