Wall Street (1987)

Wall Street seemed to be perhaps the first movie to take the America of the 80's through the angle of stock exchanges, brokerage and capitalism as whole. I am not sure but it serves as the basis of making cinema on real topics and just not a fiction. The story, co-screen written by Oliver Stone and directed by him, is by far a simple yet complete procedure of getting the viewers into the market realities during its time. The subject, the processes, the characters seems to be thoroughly studied, revised and polished before presenting them to the viewers.

Gordon Gekko, brilliantly portrayed by Michael Douglas is not the protagonist in the movie. Michael Douglas won the Academy Award for the Best Actor in Leading Role in this film. His character shows what kind of people are there in the world. Selfish, opportunists, who justify all their means to be at the top. But the character of Charlie Sheen, Bud Fox represents the millions who get trapped in the dilemma of honesty and success. Perhaps, the beauty of the movie is that in whichever profession you may remain, such a situation might come to your life. Wall Street is just one place where it happens.

I think there are topics and then there are masterpieces of Oliver Stone on those topics. The pace of the movie is terrific. The music and the OSTs are good. Good actors and taut performances by them. I saw it in 2003 for the first time. I could not understand all of it, then. I have seen the movie at least 3-4 times since then. It just looks like a good research work on the screen and I like it every time I see it now.

My rating: 7.3/10

Salvador (1986)

Salvador is written and directed by Oliver Stone. It will be evident from the movie that this is the work of the same screenplay writer who gave us Midnight Express (1978), Scarface (1983) and later improvised his direction by winning Academy Award, thrice. Salvador looks more of an attempt of a screenplay writer into mainstream cinema. Yes, there is some commercial overtone in it such as the love interest of the character Richard Boyle and Maria. But then I think that is what Oliver Stone learned when his directorial venture failed with The Hand (1981). It took him five years and some strong screenplays such as that of Scarface to develop Salvador. And there after, it seems he has not looked back. Not for at least 10 years or so.

The good thing about refined screen writers is that they they can develop the characters on screen, the way they want and it reached to the viewers in the same fashion. Richard Boyle is marvelously played by James Woods who wants to enter into controversial arenas, always hoping to hit big. He is an escapist or perhaps a loser too, who has been going lucky around all these years. But there comes a time when he realizes that whether pushing it too far or not, he is going to do what he is supposed to do. That transition in the character of Richard Boyle is shown swift and eventful.

Photography for Journalism is one of the means in this project of Oliver Stone to show a controversial matter happened most recently during the making of the movie. It takes much of the nerves to pick a country such as El Salvador to portray some reality for the viewers. And I think Salvador paved the way for Platoon (1986) which earned Oliver Stone an Academy Award. Two movies in the same year with the shades of war and battles, that is tough I must say. Still, the best thing about Oliver Stone is that essence of naturalism in his work. You see Salvador and you feel you are there, in that small country in Central America. The sets, the people, the language everything is very real. And same is felt in Platoon, perhaps more refined.

Salvador is perhaps an artistic way of delivering a documentary in a commercial style, for the beginners. It gets more elaborate in Platoon.

My rating: 6.95/10

The Contender (2000)

The Contender is a work of art, a story where the director of the movie is on the driving seat and Rod Lurie, a budding name ten years ago, has shown his hard work in this movie by revealing characters in a layer-by-layer approach. I can't remember watching such a thrilling drama or such a dramatic thriller in recent times. The movie urged me to think, when a movie is described thriller? When there is some fast paced action? When the viewers constantly crave for what happens next?

What happened while watching 'The Contender' was getting that repeated feeling of 'why'? The characters in the beginning are shown just like onions with their skin on. As the movie proceeds, we can see the peeling of their covers and their true identity being revealed. I understood, an intriguing drama is a thriller. In the beginning of the movie, I felt that I have an understanding of the suspense but then that was just a small piece of the pie. Overall, the character development process is remarkable. Most of the human beings, learned, educated and professionals are complex in nature, in terms of their behavior, in terms of how they overall carry themselves. I don't think that we can draw a few lines and then relate them to any human nature. Say, this line represents this person and that line, that person and so on. People are far more diverse on their surface as compared to what they are beneath them. I suppose most of us do reach to a point where we start believing in something and stick to it. Perhaps, the path beyond that point becomes clear, even if not easy to tread upon. But for those who constantly doubt, the future is shaky, risky.

I suppose, the director has tried to show some clear traits on principles, loyalty, hypocrisy and other behavior in this film. Joan Allen, if is shown firm along with Gary Oldman then Jeff Bridges is way vibrant. I have seen three movies out of the six directed by Rod Lurie and I find all of them as a measure to dig deep in the abilities of different people, given a test of time and situation and perhaps not far from common man's perspective, too. Among these three, The Contender is so far, the best.

My rating: 7.2/10