Fidel Castro, Vladimir Putin and Edward Snowden…producer Fernando Sulichin has met them all. The Argentinean-born maverick has been working with Oliver Stone for going on 20 years. He has enabled Stone to make documentaries about some of the most colourful and contentious figures in contemporary world politics.
One of his latest projects with Stone, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, screened in Doclisboa a few days ago. The pair are working on a new film together too, chronicling the current maelstrom in Brazil following Lula de Silva’s political comeback and Bolsonaro’s rise to power.
Where did it all start? “It began with my wish to make a movie with him [Stone] about Pablo Escobar,” Sulichin remembers. This was long before ‘Narcos’ was on Netflix or other filmmakers had tackled the story of the notorious Colombian drug baron. Stone, though, refused. “He told me ‘I already did that in Scarface [the gangster classic which he scripted for Brian De Palma] and so why would I do it again,’” the director informed the producer. “Let’s do something more fun,” Stone added. That was how they started work on the first Fidel Castro documentary (Comandante, 2003).
It was the beginning of a beautiful friendship which has seen them work together on multiple projects. For Sulichin, Stone is one of the very best directors currently working.
“Let’s be clear, the name of Oliver Stone is a big door opener,” the producer explains just how they’ve managed together to secure audiences with some of the inaccessible political leaders on the planet. “He [Stone] is one of my gods in terms of movies I like to watch. Obviously, I had to put a lot of sweat, tenacity and charm [into it]. Bottom line is [that] it’s a lot of asking.”
It helps, too, that the filmmakers are honest. It’s a source of pride that they have never misled any of their subjects about their intentions. “We show the truth that sometimes people don’t want to watch in a very unfiltered way.”
Audiences occasionally recoil at what Stone’s subjects have to say. The US filmmaker has been criticised for giving tyrants a platform. His producer responds that these viewers are too addicted to the “pre-digested points of view” given by major news organisations. Stone always goes beyond such platitudes. “In our documentaries, we let the subject speak…and we let the people decide.”
Would it be useful for people to watch Stone’s Putin documentary again given what has happened since February 24 when the Russian leader launched her horrific invasion of Ukraine.
“Of course,” says Sulichin. “Any kind of war is an atrocity. But in the Putin interviews, especially in the third part, we go very thoroughly into that.” The producer makes it clear he’s a pacifist and condemns all war. At the same time, he draws attention to the current lack of dialogue with Putin and the absence of any mention on the word, peace.
What did the producer make of Putin? “I was filming. Obviously, I am not the meat in the hamburger. Oliver Stone is. I am supporting Oliver Stone. [But] he [Putin] was very open and cordial with us. We confronted him. Questions were tough and not scripted. He answered them in a very thorough manner.”
Sulichin speculates that there are cultural differences between Russia and the western world “that we don’t understand. We need to stop looking at it [the conflict] through western eyes.”
The producer insists he is apolitical. However, he is quick to point out that the western invasion of Iraq was conducted under flawed pretences – there were no weapons of mass destruction. “But what I know is any kind of conflict is terrible. I would like people to go into peace as fast as they can because the world after Covid can’t afford this kind of tension.”
True to form, Stone’s latest film Nuclear has provoked a mini explosion of controversy. In the film, the director makes the case for nuclear power. Detractors have accused him of getting the science wrong, a charge the producer denies. The film, he points out, is based on an exhaustively researched book, A Bright Future, by scientist Joshua S Goldstein.
“Cynicism doesn’t solve the climate change disaster we are experiencing now,” Sulichin says, citing recent catastrophic weather events from Pakistan to Florida.
There’s more to the producer than his work with Stone. He has also worked with other filmmakers like Spike Lee, Harmony Korine and Larry Clark. “I believe in destiny,” he says of how he came into the business in the first place. He had originally planned to become an architect and retains his love of architecture but he is equally passionate about cinema. His curiosity was fired when he was a student in LA and encountered professor (and leading Hollywood producer) Peter Guber.
“I truly enjoy manifesting the ideas of directors. It could be political ideas with someone like Oliver Stone or someone [from the arts] like Jim Jarmusch, because I did a film on the Stooges and Iggy Pop. My job is to support them, to have their vision [realised] on the screen.” He is not scared of difficult projects. “I am scared of undifficult projects,” he jokes.
One film idea which didn’t come to fruition involved him venturing deep into the desert with actor-director Sean Penn to meet Mexican drug kingpin El Chapo. “Listen, I could say my life in film has been a big adventure…if not I get bored.”
There have been debacles along the way. For example, he was involved in the ill-fated Martin Amis adaptation, London Fields, starring Amber Heard. “From my point of view, it was wrong from the beginning. I just supported my friends, producers Chris and Roberta Hanley…they are super artists. They got into a mess. And then that mess became another mess with the Amber [Heard], Johnny [Depp trial].” He was an investor but had no involvement on the creative side.
Sulichin took the film’s failure in his stride. He is also philosophical about the hostility which Stone still faces in his various searches for the truth. The producer bemoans cancel culture and the cynicism of the mainstream media.
“Let me tell you something important to stress…it is very difficult to make a film but it is very easy to criticise a film.”
As for the great documentary versus fiction debate, he uses a travel metaphor to explain the attractions of the former. “It’s easier to finance a documentary than a $70 to $80 million film. You can do a documentary like [driving] a bus. You can start, you can stop, you can edit, you can go back. In a [fiction] film because of the budget and the schedule, it’s like a train – [there are] not too many stops!”
