Filming a documentary about Roger Stone took a toll on Christoffer Guldbrandsen’s health and nearly killed him – this is not an exaggeration in the style of Stone or Trump.
Guldbrandsen’s documentary, A Storm Foretold, is 91 minutes long and takes a surprising turn when CCTV footage captures him having a heart attack and falling unconscious on the gym floor. Luckily, a heart surgeon who was also working out at the time came to his rescue and saved his life.
At the age of 49, he was experiencing a personal struggle due to Stone suddenly stopping cooperation. Guldbrandsen, speaking over Zoom from his residence in Copenhagen, explained, “The stress from this project was the cause.” When they returned and Roger stopped supporting them, their funding was also cut off, causing a disaster.
While at the gym, I wear headphones as I walk around to make calls and raise funds for my film. If I were to have a heart attack during this time, I would drop the phone while speaking with an American financier.
However, according to Guldbrandsen who is now 52 years old, the heart attack also served as a “huge gift” because Stone showed mercy and decided to continue filming. This was a rare display of compassion from the central figure of the documentary A Storm Foretold, who was shown receiving a pardon from former president Donald Trump and promoting harmful ideologies that ultimately led to the January 6 insurrection.
Stone, 71, who claims in the film to have been smoking cigars since he was seven, earned his spurs on a Richard Nixon election campaign. He regularly gives Nixon’s trademark salute and has a tattoo of the 37th president on his back. The self-proclaimed dirty trickster has been a friend and ally of Trump for 30 years.
Guldbrandsen, who had journeyed from Denmark to create a documentary about the 2020 election, chose Stone as an entry point into Trump’s “Make America great again” movement and a concerning change in current political climate.
“The thing that surprised me was that the person who tells the most lies seems to come out on top,” he clarifies. “In politics, we expect a certain level of dishonesty, but there was a shift in this dynamic that I found incredibly intriguing. As I delved into the world of false narratives, I stumbled upon Roger and began to view the 2020 election through that lens.”
Initially, Stone was highly compliant. Similar to others in the world of politics, he enjoyed the spotlight and attention from the camera. Guldbrandsen adds, “I have also created this kind of film in Europe, particularly in European politics, and I have done so with the secretary general of Nato.”
“They are very controlled and professional politicians but the main traits are the same and the motivations are the same. It’s a mixture of vanity combined with hubris. They always think these stupid journalists, documentarians, it’s not going to be an issue, we can handle that.
“Roger is one-of-a-kind because he embraces his infamy unlike anyone I have ever known… Ultimately, he stated that if the film received 60% negative feedback, he would be satisfied. This unconventional attitude is one that I admire.”
Stone has a tendency to be unpleasant and intentionally controversial. In the beginning of the movie, while using an ice maker on a refrigerator door, he inquires about Guldbrandsen’s surname and comments, “I won’t reveal it, but you have to admit it has a strong resemblance to Third Reich, doesn’t it? It truly does.”
Stone then puts on a fake German accent and says, “Good evening, commander Guldbrandsen. Did you bring the list of Jews? Thank you.” He shakes an ice shaker and makes a martini while smiling and says in his normal voice, “It’s unbelievable. Do the Danish people know that the filmmaker comes from a family of Danish Nazis? Of course, I won’t mention it if I approve of the final version of the film. But hey, that’s politics, right?”
What was Guldbrandsen’s interpretation of this performance? “It suggests that he takes pleasure in shocking people. That was his goal: to see if he could throw me off. This ties into a larger conversation about mutual exploitation in making observational films and documentaries, where a certain level of cynicism is necessary. His outrageousness not only conveys the story but also provides an accurate depiction, in my opinion, of the entire movement.”
“I chose to include it for its shock value. The use of antisemitism adds to its audacity. However, the speaker then contradicts himself by stating that he will keep his feelings about the film a secret. This opening scene sets the tone for their approach to politics and communication, in my opinion.”
Stone discusses Trump’s admiration for the movie Sunset Boulevard directed by Billy Wilder, but he was hesitant to let Guldbrandsen record their conversations with the former president. There were indications that their bond was starting to weaken.
Guldbrandsen stated that when the camera was not recording, he would often refer to President Trump as “Mr. Ungrateful”. This was due to Stone’s belief that he played a significant role in getting Trump to the White House, yet Trump did not show gratitude. Stone considers himself an enthusiastic reader, possessing analytical skills and a thorough understanding of American political history. In contrast, he views Trump as illiterate, although he acknowledges his strong intuition as a politician. Overall, Stone does not hold Trump in high regard.
Stone, similar to Trump, was unpredictable and had the ability to alter the conditions of the documentary without warning. The experience was a constant struggle to maintain access, as his impulsive nature had to be accommodated. This project was incredibly risky, as Stone had the freedom to terminate the project and remove me at any moment since there was no formal agreement in place.
After three months of filming, Stone was apprehended in Florida for seven charges, which included tampering with witnesses, obstructing justice, and lying to Congress. This was a result of the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller on the interference of the 2016 election. As a result, it became more challenging to obtain access to Stone, so Guldbrandsen resorted to attending his fundraising events and capturing footage there.
Then Stone pulled the plug without warning, apparently because he had a better offer from a rival documentary team. Guldbrandsen’s project appeared dead and he returned to Denmark empty-handed. He recalls: “It was extremely devastating but it’s his right and it’s not unusual when you do these long-process observational documentaries that access becomes a challenge in the process.
It’s not uncommon, but I’ve never had anyone sell the rights to my film to another person. This was a major issue and a disaster. However, I take responsibility for it. It was a double disaster because it was also a professional failure on my part to take this risk and misjudge the situation.
Stone ultimately informed Guldbrandsen that the competing documentary was never produced because the team had assumed he would be incarcerated, which he was ultimately able to avoid due to Trump’s decision to commute his sentence and grant him a full pardon.
The ongoing stress reached its peak when Guldbrandsen suffered a heart attack. “It was a harrowing experience, but I was lucky enough to have a heart surgeon working out in the gym next to me who was able to save my life.”
I am still trying to comprehend the fact that I was lucky enough to survive that day, especially since I am young and have never experienced illness. It’s hard to believe that my life could have ended then, and I am grateful to still be here, even if it was only by a small chance.
The director, who typically stays behind the camera, had a tough choice to make when deciding whether or not to include this scene in the documentary. Although it goes against their usual style, it was a valuable contribution to developing Stone’s character. While he may seem jaded in most of the scenes, this particular moment revealed a surprising sense of empathy that the director found necessary to include in the final film.
After Guldbrandsen’s heart attack, Stone warmly greeted him and filming was able to continue. This decision proved to be significant as it coincided with Trump’s loss to Joe Biden in the November 2020 election and his subsequent incitement of a mob to invade the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Stone was close to the extremist rightwing group the Proud Boys, including its leader, Enrique Tarrio, who would eventually be sentenced to 22 years in prison for his part in the failed coup attempt. Guldbrandsen says: “It’s an established fact that Roger’s role in the eyes of many Proud Boys members is as an ideological figurehead for them.
”
Roger strongly urged for a forceful response in the event of an election loss, and he did so to those individuals who were in close proximity to him up until January 6 and even afterwards. While Roger Stone did not personally engage in any violent actions, he instigated and motivated the most aggressive groups who were at the forefront of the January 6 attack.
I believe that his significant involvement with the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys has not received enough attention. He played a crucial role in instigating their actions. While it is still uncertain to what extent there was coordination and planning prior to the attacks, he was undoubtedly the inspiration for the Proud Boys due to his strong ideological beliefs.
What was Stone’s response to January 6th? “Upon returning to Florida, he was filled with fear. He was convinced that his arrest was imminent and I observed him texting with Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers. Rhodes was on the run with Joshua James, who was in charge of Stone’s self-proclaimed Oath Keepers security team. There was a frantic energy fueled by a genuine fear of arrest. The atmosphere was tense and unusual.”
Eventually, Rhodes received a prison sentence of 18 years for charges of seditious conspiracy and other offenses. James admitted to seditious conspiracy and, as part of the deal, promised to assist with the government’s ongoing investigation.
Regarding Stone, the film A Storm Foretold portrays him in the rear of a vehicle, angrily cursing into a phone and referring to President Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, as an “abortionist bitch” after being denied a second pardon. He goes on to caution Guldbrandsen, “If you dare to use any of that, I will harm you.”
After three years, with another election approaching, Guldbrandsen argues that the impact of the “stop the steal” movement is still present. This movement influenced the Republican leadership and convinced many Americans to doubt the validity of democratic elections. This is more concerning and egregious than the violent events of January 6. In a broader context, Guldbrandsen believes that this individual holds significant responsibility for these actions.
He continues, “The events that transpired between November and January will be difficult to reverse, as the consequences have already been implemented and are not limited to just America. It is alarming.”
Guldbrandsen is still paying a personal price for his relationship with Stone. Making the film was so costly that he is being forced to sell his house. When Guldbrandsen attended the final congressional January 6 committee hearing, where some of his footage was shown, Stone posted on social media that he looked forward to the film-maker dying from a second heart attack when Stone sues him for $25m.
However, despite everything, Guldbrandsen saw the intricacies in a notorious figure of American politics who is often seen as beyond redemption. “He has the ability to charm others and possesses vast knowledge and intriguing perspectives. I gained a great deal of insight, even though it may drive Americans crazy, into American politics from him. He has witnessed presidential politics for many years.”
The film’s main focus is to encourage engaging in conversation with those we strongly disagree with and making an effort to include everyone in the discussion. This is the underlying philosophical concept of the film. While it may seem obvious, it’s worth noting that the problematic and controversial actions of the main character are just one aspect of his personality, and there are many other facets to him.
The speaker explains that social media has posed a challenge for journalism and documentary-making as it can be unforgiving and dehumanizing. They admit to feeling tempted to use similar tactics when promoting their film.
“When I use social media, I notice the underlying systems at work. However, it remains crucial to refrain from dehumanizing one another, even in light of the events on January 6. While Roger Stone played a harmful and destructive role, I am hesitant to take drastic action.”
-
.
The film, A Storm Foretold, is currently showing in certain theaters in the United States and will become available for digital release soon. A release date for the United Kingdom will be announced at a later time.
Source: theguardian.com
