For Those That Saw Oliver Stone's 'JFK'... A Couple Of Questions...

[WillyT]

First of all... Stone never claimed it to be a documentary.

Second... When I watched it... I was shocked... not just in the things I thought I knew, and not just in the stuff Stone included in the film that I did ot know, but because he put ALL the theories in the film...

And lastly... because I was so blown away... I went out and bought both Garrison and Marr's books...

And while Garrison's book was a sort of Novella,

JFK is a 1991 American historical political conspiracy legal thriller film directed by Oliver Stone. It examines the events leading to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and subsequent cover-up through the eyes of former New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner).

Garrison filed charges against New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw (Tommy Lee Jones) for his alleged participation in a conspiracy to assassinate the President, for which Lee Harvey Oswald (Gary Oldman) was found responsible by two government investigations: the Warren Commission, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (which concluded that there could have been another assassin shooting with Oswald).

The film was adapted by Stone and Zachary Sklar from the books On the Trail of the Assassins by Jim Garrison and Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy by Jim Marrs. Stone described this account as a "counter-myth" to the Warren Commission's "fictional myth."

The film became embroiled in controversy...

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_%28film%29

What did you think ?

[MADem]

1. Stone always takes too large a bite of his apple...

He simply doesn't know how to edit. What might be a "Hmmmmm....." reaction often becomes a "Oh, come ON...." exercise because it's always just a bit ... too much.

If he took his "final cut" of pretty much anything he does, and then dialed it back a notch or two, he'd probably get a better reception.

[Wella]

2. Time Magazine spent an ENTIRE issue debunking the film when it came out

That made me wonder if the thing wasn't mostly truthful.

[daleo]

3. Interesting point

The phrase "me thinks they doth protest too much" comes to mind.

[Wella]

4. Exactly.

Wish I had saved the damned thing.

[CK_John]

5. All the pictures of Oswald in the US shows him in teeshirt and cigarettes rolled up in the sleeve,

typical '59 street kid.... but all the pics in the USSR show him in a suit and expensive overcoat more like a Yale student.

IMO, there were two Oswalds.

[noise]

6. For me the historical

takeaway has been the gross conduct of the US mainstream media. Anyone who looks at the assassination without an agenda will rightly conclude that there is not a chance in the world that the Warren Commission was honest in its conclusions. Yet the US mainstream media had a field day bashing Stone for distorting history. Stone's real crime was to make a film that dared to suggest that high level government officials were corrupt.

[MinM]

7. JFK v J Edgar

Jim DiEugenio has an excellent critique of JFK. Jim also makes the point that no other movie has ever been subjected to the historical scrutiny that JFK was. Clint Eastwood's whitewashed wikified version of J Edgar is a good recent example of that.

From my own point of view the Clay Shaw trial dragged on a bit too long. Especially considering that Jim Garrison's investigation had been compromised from the start...

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2922632

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/MinM/300

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/MinM/250

[Johonny]

8. Great movie, the camera work and acting is out of this world

the feeling of paranoia produced is unlike most movies. It is up here with 7 days in May and Manchurian Candidate in what it does in politics.

Is it true? I read Marr's book too. It has so many theories as to the killing but most are mutually exclusive. Anything that helps the conspiracy is taken as truth. Any fact that disproves one theory or another is taken as part of the conspiracy. It is classic conspiracy thinking. If you look for it then it starts to wear on you after a few showings.

There are also lots of things that bug you if you watch it enough:
1) The critical film at the end is consistent with a head shot from behind.
2) The movie humorously never really gets around to explaining the protagonists actual role in the shooting.


I think the most interesting thing in the movie is Oswald who had an extremely odd life no matter what you think.

I don't think Stone wins on the truth (he thinks Aids was created by the CIA; listen to his voice over on the DVD) but man is it great on movie making. I think Nixon, though, is much more accurate on the facts and also captures the feel of the Nixon white house. IT might be a better movie overall. His Bush movie is good too, but Bush is so dull the movie wears on you.

[KingCharlemagne]

11. To me, the most compelling part of the movie was the performance of Donald

Sutherland as the D.C. insider who meets with Costner's Garrison in D.C. (I think the Sutherland character may be modelled on Fletcher Prouty, but not sure I'm remembering correctly.)

The theory laid out by Sutherland -- that a cabal of Big Oil Execs, CIA and military types conspired to take out JFK b/c they opposed his 'decision' to withdraw from Vietnam (and not to invade at the Bay of Pigs) -- fills our deep psychological need to have JFK killed, not by a small-time drifter and vagabond like Oswald, but by a cabal equal to or surpassing the JFK of record and his potential.

That makes JFK great drama. Even though I now think LHO was the lone assassin, I still get goose bumps watching Stone's film.

[H2O Man]

13. Mr. X was Prouty. n/t

[MohRokTah]

9. Stone went so far over the top he became a caricature of himself.

It's the nuttiest movie ever.

[BootinUp]

10. Just so I understand...

you are actually using that movie as a source of factual information?

[H2O Man]

12. I liked it.

There are critics who say, "Stone implies that EVERYONE was involved in a grand conspiracy." And, if one lacks insight, it could appear that way. But of course, that was NOT his message. At all.

Rather, he showed that there were many, many people who both wanted JFK out of office, and/or who benefited from his death.

A major point is made in the wonderful scene with Mr. X in DC: it isn't as important to identify either "who" or "how." The real question is "why?" And Stone's film does explain why. Exactly why.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. You make some good observations about the reactions to the film, which is a movie about Jim Garrison

not about JFK, and a story about not knowing and needing to know, rather than a story that claims to know. It's all questions. And that bothers people. Which is why it I think it serves the purpose it was intended to serve.