Conversations avec monsieur Poutine

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.