Salvador (1986)

Just perfect...

Good concept, poorly executed.

A very feeble attempt at affirmatie action

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

I happened to stumble across Salvador while browsing the DVDs in a local charity shop. Instantly I was drawn to the text on the cover which included:'An Oliver Stone Film'"Salvador is sensational." - The ObserverNominated for two Oscars, this gripping, semi-biographical account of photojournalist Richard Boyle's tumultuous experience in war-torn El Salvador has a power you can feel!1 hour, 58 minutes after inserting the DVD into the player, I came away with a mixture of thoughts. In some ways Salvador is good, and some of the scenes work really well. The biggest issue I had was with the two main stars, Jim Belushi and James Woods. Jim Belushi is a good actor, but somehow feels poorly cast for his role, coming across as comical. James Woods just seems dated, and feels the need to act hyper all the time, which got on my nerves. For the most part, both lead actors are out performed by the rest of cast (bar Michael Murphy & the female TV reporter) who act more naturally.Salvador feels dated, at 21 years old, maybe this is to be expected. Maybe it impressed back in the day. The idea is there. While I am not in favour of remakes, Salvador is an ideal candidate, as it would be great to watch actors act in such a way as to reflect the gritty nature of the situation they report on. Sensational or gripping aren't words I'd use to describe Salvador. The subject matter the story covered was of interest.

Like most Stone movies, it's made while stoned, so the exposition is rather convoluted and not all that interesting.Early on I was bored. I know there are many good reviews for this movie, but I found it silly and contrived.The Story.A journalist, down on his luck in the US, drives to El Salvador to chronicle the events of the 1980 military dictatorship, including the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero. He forms an uneasy alliance with both guerrillas in the countryside who want him to get pictures out to the US press, and the right-wing military, who want him to bring them photographs of the rebels. Meanwhile he has to find a way of protecting his Salvadorean girlfriend and getting her out of the country.

"Platoon" and "Salvador" were both released in 1986 and both written and directed by the renegade Oliver Stone. The former won the Academy Award for Best Film, while the latter was a commercial failure. Stone found it extremely difficult to get finding for "Salvador" and it was made on a low budget. Clearly, this brave, but uncomfortable, film - an examination of the poverty and carnage of the developing civil war in 1980-81 El Salvador - was just too political and too critical of American foreign policy for Hollywood financiers US audiences.However, James Woods gives an excellent and Oscar-nominated performance as a self- centred and hard living American war photographer based on the real-life Richard Boyle who co-wrote the script. A number of the incidents portrayed - notably the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero - actually happened. The anarchic violence is reminiscent of "Missing", while the photographer-at-war theme reminds one of "Under Fire", two other political films about Latin America (it was actually shot in Mexico). The movie is fast-paced, powerful and committed with the Boyle character making something of a polemical speech - justifiably hard-hitting - in a scene set in the US Embassy in San Salvador.I first saw the film on its release in the UK in 1987. I revisited the work after I went to El Salvador in 2014, a trip which included seeing the tomb of Romero and the site of a Government-sponsored massacre. The civil war actually began in 1989, was still running at the time of the making of "Salvador", and did not end until 1992. By then, some 70,000-80,000 had been killed, including around 'disappeared'.

This is considered to be Oliver Stone's best film but I disagree , PLATOON is the best film helmed by Stone but SALVADOR is probably a fair way behind it . Unlike PLATOON which was a heartfelt movie mirroring the director's own experiences in Vietnam it's slightly difficult to connect with the characters . They're cynical and hedonistic to start with but improve as people as the film continues making the movie a slightly too obvious redemption plot , not helped with some Catholic imagery James Woods plays journalist Richard Boyle . Perfect casting by Stone which got Woods his first and last Oscar nomination for Best Actor . Woods has always been superb at playing intense , manic dangerous characters and excels at playing someone who suffers from a borderline narcissistic personality disorder who continually tells the world that whilst Sydney Schanberg was picking up his Purlitzer Prize ( See THE KILLING FIELDS ) he was the last journalist out of Cambodia . It's also interesting that Boyle's main motive for going to El Salvador is that it costs a mere $50 a month to live there whilst whores and drugs are easy to come by . Of course all this changes when Boyle gets caught up in events and becomes a crusader against human rights abuses by the right wing government The one main problem can be accused off from a moral viewpoint is one of moral equivalence . Alex Cox criticised the film where Boyle sees left wing guerrillas executing captured troops and cries that one side is as bad as the other according to Cox . I can't recall Boyle saying that but my own problem with moral equivalence is at the start of the film where Boyle self righteously proclaims he broke a story about " IRA suspects getting tortured by the Brits in Belfast " Is there any connection between the Irish troubles and what goes on in central America ? To be fair to Stone he does point out the American establishment's fear of El Salvador coming under the Soviet sphere of influence . And if Stone didn't have a deserved or otherwise reputation as a Hollywood liberal would people nitpick the film so much ?One thing about Stone's direction is how restrained it is in relation to his later work . There's a directorial technique called " Intensified continuity " which in laymans terms is MTV style film making . Stone took this to new heights ( Or possibly depths depending on your view ) with JFK and NATURAL BORN KILLERS . Here however the camera work is disciplined with no OTT flourish and Stone thankfully lets the performances , plotting and dialogue carry the film which whilst an effective political drama doesn't carry the emotional wallop of PLATOON