5

In 2015 - Netflix released a documentary called Winter On Fire - on how a civil rights movement erupts in the Ukraine after a peaceful student protest quickly morphs into a violent revolution.

Winter on Fire was criticised saying:

Winter on Fire is an "accessible film, with greater TV appeal, but it’s also more limited by its insistence on shoehorning everything into one perspective, albeit a perspective shared by many"

Another commentator wrote:

What is so striking about Winter on Fire is not how it whitewashes the story of Maidan but the fact that Afineevsky, the director, brazenly admits it. An interview with US-funded Radio Free Europe brought up the claim that the film “glossed over” Right Sector, a neo-Nazi organization that played a prominent role in Maidan and was later accused of torture, among other crimes, by Amnesty International. “You know what? Right Sector, they actually fought for everything like everybody else. They were a part of these people,” scoffed Afineevsky. What Afineevsky meant by this answer is unclear, much like the statement that he is “a filmmaker not a journalist,” which Radio Free Europe said he gave in response to charges that he oversimplified the narrative.

In 2016 - Oliver Stone relased a documentary called Ukraine on Fire the 2014's Maidan Massacre and the overthrow of Ukrainian leader Viktor Yanukovych.

When this aired on REN TV - the network had to step up security due to threats.

This had a delayed release in the English speaking world due to Oliver Stone struggling to get a Western Distributor.

My question is: What are the reasons Oliver Stone's documentary 'Ukraine On Fire' had trouble getting a US distributor?

  • 1
    Perhaps the reason might be as simple as it not being seen as a profitable film? – jamesqf Jan 14 '18 at 3:17
  • 5
    Also, the original source said "Rumours say Stone is struggling to find a western distributor". The question presents this as incontrovertible fact instead. – user4012 Jan 14 '18 at 18:13
  • 3
    How can a question about a Hollywood director looking for a distributor be answered at Politics.Stack Exchange? Does any "government, policy or a political process" affect his search for a distributor? – bytebuster for Long Usernames Jan 14 '18 at 23:17
  • 1
    @bytebuster, Re "Hollywood": ...you might notice is a bit of a kingmaker nowadays. Two American Presidents hosted prime-time TV shows, which made them more electable. Censorship of political discourse is one of the most central of governmental problems. Whether a government directly appoints it's own censor, or a government benefits from and provides impunity to the de facto censorship imposed by a government approved media monopoly, makes little difference, (except that there's probably less public oversight for the monopoly's censors). – agc Jan 15 '18 at 2:58
  • 6
    Despite the 3 close votes, I think there's an interesting question in here on whether politics plays a role in movie distribution. It might take an insider to know, but I think the gist of the question is fair. It's also 100% possible that this was never a marketable film and it was entirely a profits decision, not a political decision at all, but asking if there was political muscle blocking the film is a fair question. I'll add to this, that Oliver Stone's accuracy has been questioned more than once. He's not a pillar of truth himself. – userLTK Jan 15 '18 at 7:18
8

The distributor they ended up getting in the West (two years after getting a Russian distributor) was CinemaLibreStudio.com (a small independent distributor).

James DiEugenio writes:

Ukraine on Fire, a new documentary about the Ukraine crisis, might change how people in the West perceive the conflict, but it’s unlikely to get much distribution since it contests the prevailing narrative, writes James DiEugenio.

...

Stone’s interviews with Putin and Yanukovych are also quite newsworthy, presenting a side of these demonized foreign leaders that has been absent in the propagandistic Western media.

  • This answer does not explain why running against the prevailing narrative would make distribution hard. – Frank 2 days ago
  • 3
    @Frank It's the same as a "documentary" that tries to prove Earth is flat. Distributing nonsense is hard. – Sergey Podobry 2 days ago
-3

Because in the West, the media (and narratives) are tightly controlled by an elite few. I don't need to list all the examples of the so called 'conspiracy theories' from WMD to coordinated misinformation about Jeffrey Epstein etc, or the debunked Russian collaboration hoax about Trump.

The owners of these media corporations literally sit down with senior politicians and work out what mass social manipulation they will engage in. Rupert Murdoch made a fortune selling services of that nature for example.

At the time, the neocons were destabilising Ukraine because they were interested in Crimea , where the Russian navy has access to to the Mediterranean via the Bosporus. This was while plans were laid to expand their Iranian and Libyan military destabilisation into Syria. The Russian response was to give up Kiev to pro West control but annex Crimea. The western media was directed to portray that as Russian aggression, which it was not. It was a Russian response to neocon military aggression in the middle East and political destabilisation of Ukraine.

The Ukrainian leadership change was unconstitutional

  • 3
    Great answer - got any references? – hawkeye 2 days ago
  • 1
    @hawkeye I will try and compile stuff when near a pc. The fact that answers like this require any burden of proof at all is testimony to the power the western media have – Frank 2 days ago
  • 5
    "The Russian response was to secede Ukraine but annex Crimea" Ukraine has been an independent country since the dissolution of the SU (on paper it was independent way before it, as it had its own seat at the UN). The post is lacking in facts and heavy on unsupported conspiracy theories ("the neocons were destabilising Ukraine because they were interested in Crimea"). Grammar is suffering, too ("to secede" in an intransitive verb, you do not "secede Crimea" but "Crimea secedes (from Ukraine)", no doubt as a victim of your twisting of reality). – SJuan76 2 days ago
  • 1
    @hawkeye 5 mins on adding some links, will add more as time permits. I think people need to be informed of what actually went on. This idea that the USA actually supported an insurrection (as opposed to some powerful factions in the US helm) is bad for both the USA and the...others. – Frank yesterday
  • 1
    @SJuan76 These are not unsupported conspiracy theories at all - the neocon direction of the Ukraine revolt and use of Nazi groups in an unconstitutional coup is a given fact. What I would appreciate from you, and the likes of you, is to dig up links in support of this, so that you might a) falsify your own twisted view of things and b) help me add links to this post. – Frank yesterday
-4

I'm sure it's because "Ukraine on Fire" is not a real documentary but a propaganda movie made to justify Putin's war against Ukraine. StopFake made a debunking of it: Russian Disinformation Film Made in the USA: StopFake with Marko Suprun (No. 250)

New contributor
Sergey Podobry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
  • 1
    Does that link you provided also present a propaganda? How do you divide what is propaganda, and what is not? By your liking/disliking? And also, I don't saw any fact checking/fake undercovering in that rant video from your link.) – user2501323 yesterday
  • 1
    I know nothing about the film, and have no interest in watching a video about it. Please include some more information from it in your answer, especially given that videos are taken down all the time. – Bobson yesterday

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .