JFK

“A good deal of tyranny goes by the name of protection”…Crystal Eastman

“A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on”….John F. Kennedy

Oliver Stone is the standard bearer for historical revisionists.  His films, including my beloved “JFK” and “Nixon” require vigorous scrutiny after a viewing to confirm or repudiate, the claims made in each.  For some reason, I am inclined to give Stone a pass for this historical delinquency.  It’s probably because he is a fantastic filmmaker, who is not afraid to stir up controversy, and offer his unpopular opinions on matters that mean much to him.  I applaud Stone for this.  He makes his most spectacular assertions and implications in the politically and culturally shocking film, “JFK.”

This movie is not a biopic that focuses on the life of the title “character.”  It is, however, an imaginative procedural that examines in great detail, the investigation into the assassination of the 35th president, conducted by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner).

The Kennedy Assassination is perhaps the most fascinating singular event in U.S. history.  It has things in common with 9/11, in that people who were alive at the time, will be asked by the curious: “where were you?”

This is a movie that I would never have had seen, if not for the wonders of the premium channels, and the naiveté of my parents.  The footage of the Zapruder Film is enough reason to keep the very young from seeing this movie.  “JFK” is an important movie, because it renewed the dialogue about the assassination, and raised consciousness about the theoretical “shadow government.”

Stone is fond of blending news footage with dramatic footage.  I know some people who are irritated by this style.  I think it’s fantastic.  It has the psychological effect of making it difficult for the audience to argue with Stone’s conjectures.  It’s true, that this is borderline deceitful, especially when dealing with a topic of this kind.  Some would regard this as blatantly intellectually dishonest. Fair enough.

Stones’ thesis, is that due to the military industrial complex, a massive conspiracy involving virtually every level of our government, the mafia, and anti-Castro Cubans, resulted in the murder of John F. Kennedy.  In Stones’ mind, and many others, Kennedy was a threat to the status quo, because of his perceived softness on Communism, and tacit hostility to other powerful interests.

In my mind, most conspiracy theories are baseless paranoia, and childish.  However, some of the claims and questions that “JFK” puts forward, seem to be logically sound.  If Lee Harvey Oswald was the only shooter, why wait for the motorcade to move into Dealey Plaza?  Because, Oswald was not the only shooter, it was an ambush, so says Stone.  Why are people afraid to testify about the murder? Because they are afraid for their lives.

Stones’ claims also strain credulity and reason.  He uses flashbacks to tell the stories of the people being investigated, and uses them to make some very bold implications.  Stone seems to believe that in exchange for escalating the Vietnam War, Lyndon Johnson essentially turned the other way while government entities actively participated in the execution of the president.  There is no compelling evidence of this at all.

Stone weaves a very complex, but understandable web, to make these claims.  He essentially conceals the entire truth by dramatically emphasizing part of the truth.  “JFK” is perhaps the ultimate example of the power of cinematic propaganda, however noble the propagandist believes he is.

If you have read any of my other blurbs, then you will know how important details are in filmmaking.  “JFK” is full of details that make us say things like: “who was that guy?…..what are they doing?…..is that true?….oh my god.”  It’s a perverse blast.

The two most important decisions made by Stone in the movie, I believe, are the usage of overhead lighting in many scenes, and the documentary style of the camerawork.  The overhead lighting emphasizes the idea that this entire movie is an interrogation.  The camerawork emphasizes the idea that Stones’ claims are valid.

Another great strength of “JFK” is the ensemble cast.  We are treated to fantastically authentic performances by, Gary Oldman, Kevin Bacon, John Candy, Jack Lemmon, Tommy Lee Jones, Donald Sutherland, and Joe Pesci as the violently homosexual, murderous, right wing militant with a wig and phony eyebrows known as David Ferry.  Pesci has a frightening monologue where he rants about his disgust with Castro, and his desire to kill the President.

The one truth “JFK” illuminates is that during the Cold War, there was a large and powerful faction of our system, for whom co-existence with the Soviet Union, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and North Korea, was completely unacceptable.  Kennedy was not a member of this sect, in my opinion.

For many, the question of who killed Kennedy has not been adequately answered.  When I was much younger, and much more arrogant, “JFK” answered the question for me.  I don’t feel that way anymore.  Despite the historical revisionism in “JFK,” it is a movie that forces us to question things and may spark an interest in one of the many important people and events of US history.  As Garrison says at the end of the film: “It’s up to you.”

- Magistrate Dunham