Oliver Stone has faced a lot of criticism for his series of interviews with Putin, chief among them the accusation that he abstained from critical questions and only provided Putin with a platform to spread propaganda. This allegation may hold true to some effect but if you watch the series closely you will notice that besides some friendly banter, Stone also questions Putin about subjects such of the state of democracy in Russia, the rights of non-heterosexuals, freedom of religion, and other important topics. Stone could have been better prepared with regard to some questions or he sometimes missed the opportunity to counter some of Putin's arguments. After two episodes, I am interested to see if Stone will directly tangle with criticism towards Russia regarding the war in Ukraine or the annexation of the Crime. Despite Stone's neglect of some of the hallmarks of critical journalism, the real value of these series lies in showing US citizens and interested viewers around the world that according to Putin's view both superpowers should do everything to build on the existing international partnership to lower tensions regrading NATO or the US missile shield in Europe. The number of nuclear warheads on the US and Russian side alone and the potentially disastrous consequences, should give everyone pause and make him or her able to listen this central message of Stone's documentary. In my opinion, Stone is and always has been a US patriot but with the will to see both sides of the coin and the passion to promote a deeper, though sometimes not clearer, understanding of things. But for his effort to promote a new understanding of US-Russia relations, I will give him 8 out of 10, maybe a bit much but the world really needs to come together with regard to threats such as nuclear war and climate change. Putin reiterates the need for multilateral relations constantly and I want to believe that he is genuine in that regard.
48 Reviews
Very interesting to see the differences in style of self-presentation. Also, my compliments to Oliver for not being patronizing to his viewers.
sonnygoten15 June 2017
Having seen all 4 parts, the first thing that I noted is the highly interesting differences between Putin as opposed to his Western counterparts in style of presentation. I found Putin's style to be less glamorous, less glitzy, and less artificial compared to western (read: USA) politicians. There's one scene in which he sits rather awkwardly and keeps tapping his feet, so you see his knees bobbing up and down; and another in which he keeps picking at his finger. I also found that in his manner of behavior he seemed much less desperate for approval compared to USA politicians and, rather than delivering fast one- liners that sound good, he takes his times to answer, even making pauses and wearing facial expressions that (to me) seem awkward. I don't know if he's just THAT good of an actor or if it's simply a cultural difference, and I can't judge whether the USA style is better or worse than Putin's style, but the difference in self-presentation is still very striking to me and interesting to see played out like this.
Concerning the manner in which Oliver Stone conducted the interviews, I definitely liked it. They were done in a casual manner and with room for humor (I laughed my butt off at that coffee scene in the 4th part), but at the same time they allowed room for serious topics. Sometimes Oliver missed an opportunity to ask further critical questions; sometimes he tried to agree and please a bit too much to get Putin comfortable, but I liked the overall absence of any preconceived judgmental attitudes that many western journalists/interviewers have when interacting (read: arguing) with Putin. This allowed Putin to express his viewpoints in a relatively relaxed setting without the constant need to go on the defense; and it allows us viewers to make our own judgment on the man and his ideas, without being forced into adopting the viewpoint of a patronizing interviewer.
My conclusion on Putin himself: There are some points that I agree with in his vision and some that I don't, and I also think that he portrayed himself and Russia in... let's just say 'highly glowing terms that are not always deserved', but that's a given considering his current position as Russian President. I absolutely love the way he insists on calling his USA counterparts "partners", though; it feels equal parts ironic, patronizing, and yet also re-conciliatory; and I'm pretty sure Putin intended it to be that multi-layered. The man definitely has a sense of humor that I can appreciate.
Lastly, I should mention that I was rather shocked by some of the news segments interspersed in the interview, especially in the 3rd part; they were highly graphic in nature and I hadn't been notified of that beforehand. So, viewer discretion is advised. If you plan on showing this to children for educational purposes such as politics class, debate teams, etc. there should definitely be an adult present in the room; and, while I'm all pro-free-information-flow and pro- education, I would even then not show this to anyone under age ten, because it's graphic and it's REAL, not ketchup.
Concerning the manner in which Oliver Stone conducted the interviews, I definitely liked it. They were done in a casual manner and with room for humor (I laughed my butt off at that coffee scene in the 4th part), but at the same time they allowed room for serious topics. Sometimes Oliver missed an opportunity to ask further critical questions; sometimes he tried to agree and please a bit too much to get Putin comfortable, but I liked the overall absence of any preconceived judgmental attitudes that many western journalists/interviewers have when interacting (read: arguing) with Putin. This allowed Putin to express his viewpoints in a relatively relaxed setting without the constant need to go on the defense; and it allows us viewers to make our own judgment on the man and his ideas, without being forced into adopting the viewpoint of a patronizing interviewer.
My conclusion on Putin himself: There are some points that I agree with in his vision and some that I don't, and I also think that he portrayed himself and Russia in... let's just say 'highly glowing terms that are not always deserved', but that's a given considering his current position as Russian President. I absolutely love the way he insists on calling his USA counterparts "partners", though; it feels equal parts ironic, patronizing, and yet also re-conciliatory; and I'm pretty sure Putin intended it to be that multi-layered. The man definitely has a sense of humor that I can appreciate.
Lastly, I should mention that I was rather shocked by some of the news segments interspersed in the interview, especially in the 3rd part; they were highly graphic in nature and I hadn't been notified of that beforehand. So, viewer discretion is advised. If you plan on showing this to children for educational purposes such as politics class, debate teams, etc. there should definitely be an adult present in the room; and, while I'm all pro-free-information-flow and pro- education, I would even then not show this to anyone under age ten, because it's graphic and it's REAL, not ketchup.
Just listen
stefanhagenbinder-4817819 September 2017
I liked those hours with Putin. You don't have to like this person nor his work, but at least you should listen to this man. He is unagitated and articulates his view and interests. Also it's an opportunity to get a few insights of a man and a country which most people will never visit and only watch in the TV or read in the newspaper. Well, you won't learn much about the country but maybe some will realize there are other countries with interests too and like Oliver Stone did it: listen to them, you don't have to agree, but dialogue is the way we should choose.
Not what you'd expect
AlsExGal16 June 2017
Director Oliver Stone travels about with Vladimir Putin and produces four hours of "interview" time. It's not really an interview, as it shows Stone doing some interviewing and also accompanying Putin as he plays a hockey game - something he said he learned just three years before this was filmed (2015) - and as he does some judo - he holds a black belt.
The thing is, Vladimir Putin comes across as an eloquent and thoughtful guy, not like the fat little dictator of North Korea who is well fed and always tries to dress "cool" but as a result just looks ridiculous. Every time Stone tries to bring up something unpleasant about either Russia past or present, Putin has an answer. Stone brings up Stalin, what a monster he was, and yet there are still statues to him. Putin brings up Napoleon and how France admits that what he did was a disgrace yet there are still statues to him. He mentions England's Oliver Cromwell and how he became a dictator and that yet there are statues to him in his home country. When questioned about gay rights in Russia, he even has a compassionate liberal answer for that. He is well versed in history and politics past and present of both the West and Russia, and never loses his cool. And remember, this guy was in the KGB from 1975 to 1990.
Stone asks Putin if he has ever seen "Dr. Strangelove". Putin admits he has not. So Putin stops and takes the time to watch the movie with Stone, although from his expression - and it doesn't change much EVER - you can tell he is probably humoring him. In spite of that, at the end, Putin makes some well thought out remarks about the film that could have been forged into a superior review.
The point is - this is not the guy I was expecting. Plus, you can tell he somewhat charmed Oliver Stone. If this is the same Putin that Donald Trump met, who apparently knows how to shift his presentation to his company, Trump could have easily been putty in his hands.
Watch it - all four hours if you have the time - I think it will be a revelation.
The thing is, Vladimir Putin comes across as an eloquent and thoughtful guy, not like the fat little dictator of North Korea who is well fed and always tries to dress "cool" but as a result just looks ridiculous. Every time Stone tries to bring up something unpleasant about either Russia past or present, Putin has an answer. Stone brings up Stalin, what a monster he was, and yet there are still statues to him. Putin brings up Napoleon and how France admits that what he did was a disgrace yet there are still statues to him. He mentions England's Oliver Cromwell and how he became a dictator and that yet there are statues to him in his home country. When questioned about gay rights in Russia, he even has a compassionate liberal answer for that. He is well versed in history and politics past and present of both the West and Russia, and never loses his cool. And remember, this guy was in the KGB from 1975 to 1990.
Stone asks Putin if he has ever seen "Dr. Strangelove". Putin admits he has not. So Putin stops and takes the time to watch the movie with Stone, although from his expression - and it doesn't change much EVER - you can tell he is probably humoring him. In spite of that, at the end, Putin makes some well thought out remarks about the film that could have been forged into a superior review.
The point is - this is not the guy I was expecting. Plus, you can tell he somewhat charmed Oliver Stone. If this is the same Putin that Donald Trump met, who apparently knows how to shift his presentation to his company, Trump could have easily been putty in his hands.
Watch it - all four hours if you have the time - I think it will be a revelation.
Very very interesting
matthijsalexander16 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Putin is a mystery to us all. Surely he is controversial, surely he is a target of our media time and time again.
I read many comments saying Stone is not 'on the ball' and too soft. Which makes perfect sense. If one does interviews over a period of time one should not press too hard or otherwise the project may cease to exist.
Though I am a big fan of Colbert, I think Colbert in his interview with Stone about these interviews made a huge mistake. Colbert somehow assumes Stone had to be tougher on Putin and ask tougher questions while clearly Stone is not one to judge but tried to carefully paint a picture to the world.
As far as I am concerned Stone did an amazing job. He interviews Putin as if he wants to paint a picture about his life, ideology and equally discusses political and historical events. Stone presses on issues sometimes, but never hard. He gives Putin a voice and a fair chance to explain himself.
When watching this, do understand it is not Stones' DUTY or TASK to hammer or judge Putin. Why should he? He merely offers insight into the mind and life of a controversial world leader. We all know the human rights violations are going on in Russia, we all know the opinions of CNN and Fox, we all think we know that Russia is to blame for everything that goes wrong. But are our truths the truths of others? Often times it is perspective and a matter of which side of the fence we exist that determines our reality.
I read many comments saying Stone is not 'on the ball' and too soft. Which makes perfect sense. If one does interviews over a period of time one should not press too hard or otherwise the project may cease to exist.
Though I am a big fan of Colbert, I think Colbert in his interview with Stone about these interviews made a huge mistake. Colbert somehow assumes Stone had to be tougher on Putin and ask tougher questions while clearly Stone is not one to judge but tried to carefully paint a picture to the world.
As far as I am concerned Stone did an amazing job. He interviews Putin as if he wants to paint a picture about his life, ideology and equally discusses political and historical events. Stone presses on issues sometimes, but never hard. He gives Putin a voice and a fair chance to explain himself.
When watching this, do understand it is not Stones' DUTY or TASK to hammer or judge Putin. Why should he? He merely offers insight into the mind and life of a controversial world leader. We all know the human rights violations are going on in Russia, we all know the opinions of CNN and Fox, we all think we know that Russia is to blame for everything that goes wrong. But are our truths the truths of others? Often times it is perspective and a matter of which side of the fence we exist that determines our reality.
Very well done.
mikefifield15 June 2017
This documentary is very well-done and shows a side of Putin and Russia that is rarely seen by people here in the US. The mainstream media and most people here in America have a strong negative association to Russia, often times without actually even knowing very much about Russian history. It's refreshing to see someone taking the time to try to understand rather than simply condemn Putin and the Russian people. Highly recommend It.
Let's hear the other side!
mile-vuna12316 June 2017
I was kind of expecting in what direction this movie was going to go! Given that i have seen some movies from Mr. Stone and his documentaries, i knew this wasn't going to be attack as the Western journalists do. I saw it as a chance given to someone to explain himself without the need to battle with the journalists. After all when you get accused of something an go in front of a court, you are given a chance to tell your version of a story. Innocent until proved guilty! If you want to see both sides of the story, you should definitively see it! After that make your own opinion!
If the world is a chess game, we are in deep doo doo.
ratherbebocce16 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
That's the feeling I have after watching Oliver Stone's marathon (4 hrs.) series of interviews with Vladimir Putin on Showtime. I'll have to watch it all again. It's way too much to take in the first time around ( at least for me). That is due in part to the subtitles, but also the sheer volume of information imparted. The main impression I got is that Mr. Putin is one very intelligent man, a consummate statesman and a patriot. Another is that the man seems very reserved. I think that is a good quality to have when you are at the helm of a nuclear armed country. One thing I learned for sure is that my own ignorance of other cultures and Russia in particular is just stunning. So I'll thank Mr. Stone for this effort towards greater understanding of our neighbors on the other side of the world and ideological fence.
**** SPOILER *****
One part that made me cringe tho, was when he convinced Mr. Putin to watch "Dr. Strangelove". Even though I liked the movie as a cautionary tale about the danger of nuclear war being initiated by a rogue general, I don't think the humor translated too well. This may have more to do with my own experiences recommending movies that fell flat than anything else. Mr. Putin made some comment about the technical accuracy of the movie. OK, that's my 2c.
**** SPOILER *****
One part that made me cringe tho, was when he convinced Mr. Putin to watch "Dr. Strangelove". Even though I liked the movie as a cautionary tale about the danger of nuclear war being initiated by a rogue general, I don't think the humor translated too well. This may have more to do with my own experiences recommending movies that fell flat than anything else. Mr. Putin made some comment about the technical accuracy of the movie. OK, that's my 2c.
A must must watch, a masterpiece for everyone
sweetromantic16 June 2017
This is really interesting, to know the Russian perspective, and the struggle of Russia since 1990s to have friendly relations with the USA...it shows how many times Russia tried to join USA in different fields to be part of the block and not be considered a threat or an outsider.
It shows how the US denied Russia of becoming part of the NATO, and then surrounding Russia by all the NATO allies countries situated in close proximity with the Russia, establishing military bases in those countries which will always posses a threat not only to the Russia but to the whole world. This also shows that the US might also make Afghanistan a part of the NATO and establish military bases there for long term, which is also in close proximity with the Russia and Iran,China, Pakistan.
This is really important to watch for those who don't know much about Russia and their point of view about the world.
It shows how the US denied Russia of becoming part of the NATO, and then surrounding Russia by all the NATO allies countries situated in close proximity with the Russia, establishing military bases in those countries which will always posses a threat not only to the Russia but to the whole world. This also shows that the US might also make Afghanistan a part of the NATO and establish military bases there for long term, which is also in close proximity with the Russia and Iran,China, Pakistan.
This is really important to watch for those who don't know much about Russia and their point of view about the world.
To be avoided
temp-id-fu16 June 2017
Oliver Stone's The Putin Interviews is
garbage. Stone, though respected as a filmmaker, at least for some of his earlier works, loses all credibility with this attempt at a "documentary". This four-part series is not a documentary, and it cannot be called journalism either. Is just a platform that Putin uses to justify to the world his policies, in his own manner of course: politically correct at times, even diplomatic, but with some subtle/not-so-subtle references, even irony when needed. Stone as an interviewer is practically useless. His questions are at times obviously ill-prepared, but, more annoying is his way of asking something by providing the way in which the question could be dodged. Not that Putin needs help with that. He has a lot of practice with his annual Valdai Club's meetings, Direct Lines and call-in shows. All of this while witnessing Stone's anti-Americanism and admiration for everything that is Russia or Russian. In the end we do not learn anything new. To be avoided.
Worth watching, with a grain of salt
MisterHOH18 June 2017
Oliver Stone is a good filmmaker. I wish I could say I enjoyed these interviews, but I mostly did not.
What I liked is that Oliver Stone understands subtlety and tries to have a cohesive and meaningful dialog above the black and white views and opinions, so heavily polarized in the media today. He's trying to understand the current state of the world as a multitude of multifaceted and complex issues that can't be addressed with just simple answers and demagogy. I respect that.
What I really disliked is the fact that talking with Putin about these issues felt like talking with a robot, programmed to deliver the same answers with different words each time. Oliver Stone's questions, however pertinent they were, their answers always fell short, dissimulated, meaningless and mostly boring. His courtesy, joviality, towards Putin, made me a bit uncomfortable and I had to ask myself several times "Does he know with who is he speaking?". I mean, it is pretty clear by now that Putin sure as heck isn't an angel, with many people arguing that he's exactly the opposite with other worrisome adjectives added to his title. Yes, I can understand that he needed to be polite, otherwise he would probably never finish the documentary, but honestly, sometimes it felt like a bromance between the two.
Digging a bit deeper in the analysis of the film, I felt it had several missed opportunities to convey a counterpoint or a different narrative using the most important toolkit a director can have, the visual language. Oliver Stone opted for some oblique footage (which are part of his visual style) used infrequently and some horrific footage of executions and other war related events, that apart for their shocking value, bring nothing else to the main story. There are some low angle shots that try to capture some body language from Putin, but I don't think they work very well in this context. I feel bad for criticizing such a great filmmaker, but I really think that there was more potential to create a more compelling story on the screen. One directorial device that I think would have worked better would have been to use the language barrier between the interviewer and the interviewee and rely more on the translator and give him a more important part to play in the dialogue and then emphasize the subtle changes between the translator and the subtitles, creating a small psychological dissonance for the viewer, which in turn would convey the complexity and ambiguous nature of Putin. I think the best example here would have been the director Claude Lanzmann, which heavily relies on spoken language as an integral part of his documentaries, especially considering that his films are also centered on very difficult and unpleasant subjects.
Even though I admire Oliver Stone and I understand and respect the importance of what he's trying to do and also the difficulty of such a task, I believe that this film only hit some minor goals, but overall, missed what I consider to be the main mark, which is a genuine attempt at a characterization of Putin, with all the good and the bad that entails. However, dealing with such complex issues, I do recommend that this film should be seen, because these issues will sooner or later affect all of us and there can't possibly be just one right answer, or just one objective conclusion.
I think that this film is a solid 7, but not much above that.
What I liked is that Oliver Stone understands subtlety and tries to have a cohesive and meaningful dialog above the black and white views and opinions, so heavily polarized in the media today. He's trying to understand the current state of the world as a multitude of multifaceted and complex issues that can't be addressed with just simple answers and demagogy. I respect that.
What I really disliked is the fact that talking with Putin about these issues felt like talking with a robot, programmed to deliver the same answers with different words each time. Oliver Stone's questions, however pertinent they were, their answers always fell short, dissimulated, meaningless and mostly boring. His courtesy, joviality, towards Putin, made me a bit uncomfortable and I had to ask myself several times "Does he know with who is he speaking?". I mean, it is pretty clear by now that Putin sure as heck isn't an angel, with many people arguing that he's exactly the opposite with other worrisome adjectives added to his title. Yes, I can understand that he needed to be polite, otherwise he would probably never finish the documentary, but honestly, sometimes it felt like a bromance between the two.
Digging a bit deeper in the analysis of the film, I felt it had several missed opportunities to convey a counterpoint or a different narrative using the most important toolkit a director can have, the visual language. Oliver Stone opted for some oblique footage (which are part of his visual style) used infrequently and some horrific footage of executions and other war related events, that apart for their shocking value, bring nothing else to the main story. There are some low angle shots that try to capture some body language from Putin, but I don't think they work very well in this context. I feel bad for criticizing such a great filmmaker, but I really think that there was more potential to create a more compelling story on the screen. One directorial device that I think would have worked better would have been to use the language barrier between the interviewer and the interviewee and rely more on the translator and give him a more important part to play in the dialogue and then emphasize the subtle changes between the translator and the subtitles, creating a small psychological dissonance for the viewer, which in turn would convey the complexity and ambiguous nature of Putin. I think the best example here would have been the director Claude Lanzmann, which heavily relies on spoken language as an integral part of his documentaries, especially considering that his films are also centered on very difficult and unpleasant subjects.
Even though I admire Oliver Stone and I understand and respect the importance of what he's trying to do and also the difficulty of such a task, I believe that this film only hit some minor goals, but overall, missed what I consider to be the main mark, which is a genuine attempt at a characterization of Putin, with all the good and the bad that entails. However, dealing with such complex issues, I do recommend that this film should be seen, because these issues will sooner or later affect all of us and there can't possibly be just one right answer, or just one objective conclusion.
I think that this film is a solid 7, but not much above that.
Candid and Revealing
igor-antunov16 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
With every subsequent hour, Oliver Stone's questions get more and more contentious. Putin manages to answer every single one (except those bordering on highly classified territory). He does so in detail, and sometimes from different perspectives.
This documentary offers revealing insights into the mind of Putin, his words, his body language, his tendency to play with the sofa stitching as he talks. From geopolitical issues, sensitive domestic Russian affairs to Putin's personal life; it's all there.
I will state an interesting observation; what rustles Putin's jimmies the most is the topic of NATO encroachment toward Russia's borders, and the US administration's stationing of ABM systems in eastern Europe. The only time during the interviews you can see Putin's expression change to one of barely veiled annoyance is when the conversation veers in this direction.
Another thing of note is Putins very academic answers to a variety of topics. Stone asks him about the prominence and rise of the Russian Orthodox Church during his tenure. Putin answers by stating that after the fall of communism and its associated ideology, civil society had nothing else to grasp onto, but the centuries old traditions that the Church provides. Putin says he supported this to give people something to believe in after the traumatic turmoil that was the 90's. To provide stability in their lives. A very practical answer, and it even leads onto more sensitive questions, such as the treatment of homosexuality in Russia. And Putin answers this candidly as as well. Even jokingly sometimes to highlight the absurdity of Russian culture in regards to such topics. This is the theme throughout. There is very little dodging or political wordplay. Most of his answers are formed on the spot, and seem to come from him directly.
It is obvious Oliver was charmed during the filming of this. It is apparent Putin humored him on many occasions and that he has a very powerful ability to charm those he talks to. We see a controversial leader (at least from a western perspective) give very direct, apolitical answers to every question that the typical viewer might want to ask such a public figure. In this regard Mr Stone did very well.
It becomes patently obvious as to why Russians would express such far ranging support toward Putin. He's very convincing and obsessed with practicalities. But of course; you be the judge. It's a very informative, revealing 4 hours and definitely worth your time.
This documentary offers revealing insights into the mind of Putin, his words, his body language, his tendency to play with the sofa stitching as he talks. From geopolitical issues, sensitive domestic Russian affairs to Putin's personal life; it's all there.
I will state an interesting observation; what rustles Putin's jimmies the most is the topic of NATO encroachment toward Russia's borders, and the US administration's stationing of ABM systems in eastern Europe. The only time during the interviews you can see Putin's expression change to one of barely veiled annoyance is when the conversation veers in this direction.
Another thing of note is Putins very academic answers to a variety of topics. Stone asks him about the prominence and rise of the Russian Orthodox Church during his tenure. Putin answers by stating that after the fall of communism and its associated ideology, civil society had nothing else to grasp onto, but the centuries old traditions that the Church provides. Putin says he supported this to give people something to believe in after the traumatic turmoil that was the 90's. To provide stability in their lives. A very practical answer, and it even leads onto more sensitive questions, such as the treatment of homosexuality in Russia. And Putin answers this candidly as as well. Even jokingly sometimes to highlight the absurdity of Russian culture in regards to such topics. This is the theme throughout. There is very little dodging or political wordplay. Most of his answers are formed on the spot, and seem to come from him directly.
It is obvious Oliver was charmed during the filming of this. It is apparent Putin humored him on many occasions and that he has a very powerful ability to charm those he talks to. We see a controversial leader (at least from a western perspective) give very direct, apolitical answers to every question that the typical viewer might want to ask such a public figure. In this regard Mr Stone did very well.
It becomes patently obvious as to why Russians would express such far ranging support toward Putin. He's very convincing and obsessed with practicalities. But of course; you be the judge. It's a very informative, revealing 4 hours and definitely worth your time.
Stone's strange love for the bad guys
Fenrir_Sleeps10 May 2022
For all the insight it offers on Russia's current head of state, "The Putin Interviews" are a noteworthy document. Only someone like Oliver Stone could let a man like Vladimir Putin feel so at ease and speak at such length in front of an American filming crew. For that, we are thankful to him, as all of his fellow journalists, who also had the chance to talk to Putin, always seem more worried about setting him on edge than properly interviewing him.
Unfortunately, for all its (seemingly) candidness, this four-hour documentary has little interest for the non-American viewer, as most of the time it dedicates for discussion of then-current affairs circles around the 2016 U. S. presidential election and American-led military operations.
Watch "The Putin Interviews" for a non-hysterical, lengthy account of a man that is bound to become one of the center figures of the 21st century. It is quite unlikely that any Western interviewer will ever be granted the kind of access Mr. Stone had to the Kremlin in order to film this. So, for that alone, "The Putin Interviews" are one of his most remarkable achievements (and the "Dr. Strangelove" segment is, by itself, worth your time investment).
It goes without saying that viewer discretion is advised, of course. But Oliver Stone assumes you are, at least, a minimally informed citizen and you will not take everything that Putin says at face value. Sometimes, he flags what he perceives as a less-honest utterance from his interviewee with a shrug of his bushy eyebrows towards the camera, and that is as patronizing as he ever gets during the "The Putin Interviews".
Unfortunately, for all its (seemingly) candidness, this four-hour documentary has little interest for the non-American viewer, as most of the time it dedicates for discussion of then-current affairs circles around the 2016 U. S. presidential election and American-led military operations.
Watch "The Putin Interviews" for a non-hysterical, lengthy account of a man that is bound to become one of the center figures of the 21st century. It is quite unlikely that any Western interviewer will ever be granted the kind of access Mr. Stone had to the Kremlin in order to film this. So, for that alone, "The Putin Interviews" are one of his most remarkable achievements (and the "Dr. Strangelove" segment is, by itself, worth your time investment).
It goes without saying that viewer discretion is advised, of course. But Oliver Stone assumes you are, at least, a minimally informed citizen and you will not take everything that Putin says at face value. Sometimes, he flags what he perceives as a less-honest utterance from his interviewee with a shrug of his bushy eyebrows towards the camera, and that is as patronizing as he ever gets during the "The Putin Interviews".
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
rpessm29 May 2020
If I were to rate this on candor, I'd have to put it closer to a 1 or a 2. I will give it a 4 just because Stone captured a record of what spews from the subject's mouth. I read the transcript, then I watched a bit of the show, then I looked at specific parts of the transcript. This is a "snow-job." Putin is cunning. He presents his circumstances and his views in a noble fashion here. But, these philosophies are contradicted by his actions -- his alleged killings of his perceived opponents -- some living in exile in foreign countries, no less -- by extremely dangerous and reckless means ((Polonium-210, Novichok nerve gas, etc.) causing injury to innocent bystanders (citizens of foreign and sovereign nations). So, what's his excuse? If he ordered the hits of Litvinenko, Skripal, and others, then everything he says is garbage, because he doesn't believe what he says. If he didn't order these hits, then he does not have control of the State apparatus; he would lack integrity, thus credibility, and therefore may just be incompetent. Either way, how can this fabricated persona be meaningful?
Outstanding non partisan documentary leaves you to decide
gtd-0231216 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Many of the media hawks would have you believe Stone has made Putin look good here. But they are just exercising their bias without critically reviewing the material.
The fact is all the tough questions are asked, and Putin answers them. Whether you choose to believe his answers is the choice of the viewer. Similar to the doc on Castro.
Putin is obviously a very clever man, and appears to be very logical in his answers. Probably the problem for Americans is that their country does so many bad things around the world, it feels like an anti American piece because nobody other then Stone really highlights these methods.
I for one believe a lot of what Putin is saying, but at the same time I would be very cautious to believe everything he has said regarding the Ukraine. And as far as only a $60 billion military budget per year compared to the US's $660, that doesn't really add up. If your flying 70 bombing missions a day into Syria, that's a lot of planes and a lot of bombs and a lot of cash.
Overall its intriguing to hear Putin without the paradigm of a partisan media forcing innuendo's down our throat for whatever agenda their corporate owners have. Probably Stone has got as deep into Putin as anyone will ever get, and its an interesting challenge to decide if Putin is telling the truth or not about a lot of things....
The fact is all the tough questions are asked, and Putin answers them. Whether you choose to believe his answers is the choice of the viewer. Similar to the doc on Castro.
Putin is obviously a very clever man, and appears to be very logical in his answers. Probably the problem for Americans is that their country does so many bad things around the world, it feels like an anti American piece because nobody other then Stone really highlights these methods.
I for one believe a lot of what Putin is saying, but at the same time I would be very cautious to believe everything he has said regarding the Ukraine. And as far as only a $60 billion military budget per year compared to the US's $660, that doesn't really add up. If your flying 70 bombing missions a day into Syria, that's a lot of planes and a lot of bombs and a lot of cash.
Overall its intriguing to hear Putin without the paradigm of a partisan media forcing innuendo's down our throat for whatever agenda their corporate owners have. Probably Stone has got as deep into Putin as anyone will ever get, and its an interesting challenge to decide if Putin is telling the truth or not about a lot of things....
Finally a neutral in-depth extensive interview with President Putin
ilcool9018 June 2017
Oliver Stone is getting a lot of heat for this mini-series. The reason he gets all that heat is because western critics of president Putin can't live with the fact that the President is finally presented as a human and not as Dr. Evil like the western media usually does.
Stone talked about every subject that the west is obsessed with and The President gave clear logic answers. President never badmouthed his western critics.
This documentary also shows all the good things that President Putin did for his country and that he does everything with Russia's interests on the Nr. 1 spot.
I am pretty sure that many people after watching this series will watch the news networks and talk shows with a huge brick of salt when the subject is going to be Russia and / or President Putin.
Stone did a great non partisan job.
Stone talked about every subject that the west is obsessed with and The President gave clear logic answers. President never badmouthed his western critics.
This documentary also shows all the good things that President Putin did for his country and that he does everything with Russia's interests on the Nr. 1 spot.
I am pretty sure that many people after watching this series will watch the news networks and talk shows with a huge brick of salt when the subject is going to be Russia and / or President Putin.
Stone did a great non partisan job.
Putin the man the myth
glenn-whitelaw18 June 2017
I really enjoyed this. I thought President Putin was both intelligent and amusing. I laughed at the DVD part after they watched Dr Strangelove but also I noticed he was emotional when asked about his own family and being a father and grandfather admitting he didn't spend the time he had hope with both children and grandchildren. This was a view seldom seen but as a person I found myself very interested and liked what I saw. I think they will both remain friends after this. If you are looking for more on Russia watch Brian Cox's Russia. This gives an insight into our fellow human beings in the country and I thought to myself the Russians are alright. Don't believe everything you hear. Make your own mind up.
Interview with a real life "Bond villain"
RussHog19 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
To fully appreciate the scope of this interview it may be necessary to first watch Oliver Stone's documentary The Untold History of the United States, which sheds mission critical insight behind the United States and Russian relationships over the last century. Both countries have worked together in times of war against greater evils (nazis, terrorism) but at the same time both countries have an adversarial relationship. Oliver Stone is a genius who uses his unique voice to create some of the greatest stories ever told. This film ranks up there as one of his most fascinating. It is a four hour interview with perhaps the most powerful and interesting man in the world - Vladimir Putin. Putin is what I as an American would see as a "Bond villain." He is genius. Has an thick accent. Lives in many castles. Owns millions of dollars and many weapons. Wields an elite security force. And practices judo. But he is also a complex statesman who uses his interview with Stone to talk about his family, watch Dr. Strangelove, explains his social views on civil liberties, and discusses the last thirty years of foreign policy. It struck me that many of our American politicians focus on the 'now' - while Putin delves deep into history to explain the complex origins of his opinion and how he takes actions to shape the future of his country in order to leave it better off than it was before. Only time will tell how the world will view Putin but this documentary made me understand the complex global situation a lot better. Must watch for history and political buffs!
There's multiple sides to every story.
richytibor9 May 2022
Warning: Spoilers
People writing that what Putin was saying was all lies, what made you believe the western media and you didn't believe Putin? Tell me if most of the things he said about the western countries were lies?, most of us have been bamboozled into believing the western propaganda against so many countries around the world, the media is another form of religion, the opium of the people, the inability to perceive and experience is a huge challenge for most people.
Unexpectedly good series
alberthansa12 July 2017
I expected to see a lot of negative and biased stuff about Russia and Mr Putin especially. To my surprise it was quite opposite - the Russian president had an opportunity to speak his mind (and he does it very openly and in intelligent manner) and he was listened to. I give my respects to Mr Stone for his good work.
A must-see for everyone.
A must-see for everyone.
Oliver Stone Is a Putin apologist
cma21138 June 2022
Stone basically throws Putin a bunch of softball questions the entire time, allowing Putin to shape the entire conversation and give him a platform to defend his anti-democratic approach with distortions and lies. None of it gets fact checked, it's totally one sided and serves as anti-NATO propaganda. The man poisons and murders his detractors, meddles in foreign elections came censors adversaries, do we need to go on? The headline: "America bad = so I can be worse." When did two wrongs ever make a right? Get off your soapbox Stone, I can't believe the studios let this trash fly..
Up close and politically correct
dohertyeamonn22 June 2017
Enjoyed this immensely. Great to hear another side of recent history from one of the protagonists. Probably wouldn't go for drinks with Putin but he certainly knows how to explain his point of view within the current world order. So refreshing for a leader to explain his political position/opinions with historical references and not needing to hide behind tweets to defend decisions that have little thought behind them and even less support. Mr. Stone, although not a heavyweight interviewer, manages to cover areas of interest to the American media/audience while at the same time allowing Putin to give an insight into the problems facing his country and how absurd he considers the time wasting and unfounded accusations leveled at Russia for meddling in the 2016 US Presidencial Election. Well done Mr. Stone.
I didn't know Putin till I watched this documentary.
41916 July 2017
Thank you Oliver for this professionally shot honest documentary. it's actually 8/10 but added two more stars because of your brave questions. we hear lots of stuff about Putin, most of them ain't good. That he is dictator and things like that. Well we shot his aircraft and he didn't act like an idiot and went into war, even god knows he could beat Turkey. But instead he had diplomatic move instead of idiotic one. as I Watched your film, I understood he is much more professional and good leader then I thought. His answers are great and he seems cold(typical Russian) but honest which what makes your doc looks like a propaganda. as I film maker myself, I can understand what is propaganda what is not. this one isn't. I've watched him on hard talk after this. He is same as here. cool and slow.
Watching in light of ukraine
fopfopfop6 April 2022
So this is excellent in terms of understanding putin. But what it also reveals is what a pathetic kiss ass oliver stone is and how blind he was to putins true nature. I'm curious in light of what ukraine has shown the world about putin, if stone realizes his folly.
Watch it, you may learn something
obucinac2 September 2017
This is like a question/answer session paired with beautiful views of Kremlin inside and history lessons, presenting RF President's view of many hot political issues. While you may see that Mr Putin is well prepared, there is no doubt that he is presenting us dangerous reality we live in today.
People like me, interested in foreign policy and following it on daily basis, will be familiar with many of presented views. People, like me, who had the unfortunate opportunity to see and feel some of the things they are talking about (destroying government structures, devastation of country's economy, economic sanctions, tycoons, inflation, unemployment, bombing, colored revolutions...) know why it is important to hear what this men have to say and think about it.
People like me, interested in foreign policy and following it on daily basis, will be familiar with many of presented views. People, like me, who had the unfortunate opportunity to see and feel some of the things they are talking about (destroying government structures, devastation of country's economy, economic sanctions, tycoons, inflation, unemployment, bombing, colored revolutions...) know why it is important to hear what this men have to say and think about it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
