Prostration that exposes the private parts of some sick societies

Ukraine was not under fire from the Russian neighbor after the famous American director Oliver Stone completed his documentary film (Ukraine Under Fire) in 2016. It was rather still in the phase of transition and political recovery that followed the so-called “Maidan” revolution of 2014, in which the director opens his film With his events, he relies on it as a pillar through which he later shares his visions and express general message for this film.

It is a revolution that began with popular protests in protest against the unwillingness of former Ukrainian President Yanukovych to sign an association agreement with the European Union, which strongly supports the people for fear that it will affect its trade agreements with Russia. It was also known as the “Ukrainian Dignity” revolution, with the participation of various people, including the “bad guys”, according to the director, before suspicious elements that changed the course to a bloody revolution were inserted among his masses.

As (and always talked about the film) riots and “systematic” violence led to chaos, and at the time more than 100 civilians and riot policemen were killed. , educated and “Western” funded elements planned to deliberately kill, in order to change the regime and overthrow President Yanukovych, who sought asylum in Russia and is still there.

U.S. director Oliver Stone, who has won three Oscars, is known for his sharp criticism of U.S. government policy and his admiration for a number of leaders and leaders of authoritarian countries. In this film, Stone does not deviate from his political tendencies, but as a veteran filmmaker he has professionally succeeded in weaving a coherent film rich in historical information. However, this is a film that is relatively far from the supposed objectivity of the axioms and foundations of making any documentary film.

In quick cuts rich in visual documents and elegant and a look at voiceover, Stone revises the history of Ukraine as an ancient country known for its beauty, sacrifice and historical heritage, taking into account that “the tragedy of the Ukrainians lies in the geopolitical position of their country as a path that paved the way for the military ambitions of the East and West at all times and especially during the two world wars, describes Ukraine In the “destined” place where East and West meet strategically.

Ukraine is the “prize” that many countries have tried to possess, and for this purpose much blood has been shed. And because the Ukrainian people had to pay the price each time for the conflict of the great powers that surrounded them, the director believes that the Ukrainians need “cunning” to survive, and therefore the art of changing attitudes has the art that most are mastered.

The director will later translate his vision of this sharp political tension that the country has undergone by focusing intensely on the “black spots” of modern Ukrainian history, such as the emergence of the extremist Ukrainian nationalist movement in the west of the country. loyal to Nazi. Germany in that era and its most prominent leaders, who were hostile to Semites and Communists together ”and according to historians exterminated between 100,000-200 thousand Jews, the director recalls their cruel images in the most famous and horrific massacre in the Babi Yar area at the end of 1941.

They are “black dots” that are almost no country in the world without history. It is a “shame” that the director intends to highlight, even though Ukrainians today are ashamed of it and do not deny it in their history. In addition, granting a large amount of film time to these transgressions and atrocities committed by the historically extremist Ukrainian nationalists seemed like a media gift given to the Russian regime, which has long focused on and repeated it, and used it as one of the pretexts to justify its invasion of Ukraine on February 24 last year, or what he called a pretext – “Denization”.

At the same time, the director emphasizes the Russian side as a dove of peace, meek, flawless in its history, while all the sins, transgressions, violations and historical atrocities and all the disasters and disasters of the universe were committed by the Only West, Ukraine , America and Europe. All the documents that the director carefully and thoughtfully chooses for his film also represent to the viewer the right of the Russians on the Ukrainian land and the legality of the possession of his people, his history and economic resources, the importance of the correction of history and the mistakes of some Soviet leaders, the reversal of those unjust historical treaties in which Moscow was forced to abandon Ukraine and the importance of restoring them.

Did not President Putin repeatedly talk about correcting the mistakes of history to justify his recent invasion of Ukraine?

At a time when President Putin has appeared more than once in the Oliver Stone movie, he is informative and expresses his wise political views and the official Russian stance on everything related to the Ukrainian issue. Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and his interior minister appear completely “innocent” of any offense. The director deliberately emphasizes all documents that particularly condemn the West and the Americans and their “blatant” interference and financing of NGOs in Ukraine responsible for “political chaos”, without any condemnation of the Russian regime in its support and financing of Ukrainian separatist.

Some non-governmental organizations spread around the world, whose mission – according to the film – is to train local elements and ignite “colored revolutions” in an allusion to the so-called “Arab Spring” revolutions, which the director believes, according to his vision, that has been achieved as a result of the incitement, funding and training of these organizations for carefully selected local elements and activists and as a “facade” for the US government whose ultimate goal is to bring protest and deliberate chaos to to set fire to with the aim of overthrowing regimes.

To support his opinion, Oliver Stone presents in his film the late American investigative journalist Robert Parry, best known for his role in covering the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s. Which in turn will expand in the same context and blame the Americans for everything that happens in the world of popular unrest or revolutions of protest, which Barry classifies with the director – albeit indirectly – within a “conspiracy theory”.

They are revolutions – according to Stone and Barry – that have never been spontaneous, such as Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Syria and Lebanon. It is clear that Stone misread the Lebanese political scene, as he believes that the Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri, offered as a “sacrifice” to ignite the “Cedar” revolution. If the director had waited a few years, he would have discovered the opposite of what was later proven by the International Tribunal for the assassination of Hariri the father.

The director quotes the phrase “by Mark Twain” more than once in his film, one of which says, “If you do not read newspapers, you are ignorant, and if you read them, you are deceived.” Based on Mark Twain’s opinion, the film, regardless of its gender, is classified as a drama, documentary or propaganda, within the media aimed at influencing the audience.

In his film, Oliver Stone’s message was very clear, and demonized everything that is only related to the West and the Western lifestyle that the Ukrainian people seem to long for, according to the film’s documents. In other words, Stone deliberately wanted to lead his audience according to what he liked, and not according to the objectivity that historical documentaries presuppose.

But Stone returned and gave a brief opinion after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, saying: “There are many attacks and wars in America’s conscience, but that does not justify Russia’s mistake.” Perhaps Oliver Stone, the creative and capable, knows that if he did not live in the West, which gave him freedom of expression, he would not have been able to achieve this film that criticizes his country, and perhaps he knows in his heart that if he were a citizen of those countries – admired by them and their leaders – the matter would have been different in Absolute.

Leave a Comment