JFK - The Movie (1 Viewer)

[Jack Briggs]

Tyler: I just read your most recent post here. Do NOT venture into the territory you clearly want to move in. My earlier post was written with you in mind but intended not to single you out. Now I can't avoid it. I trust you read the posting guidelines before signing up at HTF? JB

 

[RobertR]

Whaddya guys want?

I don't know, Jack.....maybe point to the old thread? It seems impossible to discuss the film as purely a film, and it seems....inefficient to rediscuss certain things that have been covered at length.

 

[Tyler Gagnon]

Sorry Jack, It will not happen agian.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Quote:

Not a SINGLE shred of evidence? That seems pretty extreme. Gotta be at least ONE shred, doesn't there?

 

[Nathan V]

There's far more than a shred. I can't for the life of me believe that the lone gunman idea. There's just no proof. Of course, there isn't hard proof for the conspiracy ideas, but the sheer amount of coincidence and overwhelming reasonable doubt and thousands of "mini-facts" are what I base my opinion on. For anyone who wants more info, check out "Crossfire: the plot that killed Kennedy," which is several hundred pages worth of interviews and document analyses and other reports on EVERYthing remotely connected to the assassination. You'll find out what Oswald's mom's sister's hair color was, and what type of green onions Hoover liked. The nice thing about the book is that it doesn't force a conclusion on you (I don't hink); you can make up your mind. Also recommended is "The Killing of a President," which is every single photo of the incident and tons of visual analyses and info on stuff surrounding it.
Anyway, I think the movie is absolutely incredible. The atmosphere is so "cool" ( I can't think of another word right now), the editing (both film and sound) absolutely rocks, and the cinematography's is effing amazing. A must own for any movie fan. Sure, Silence of the Lambs is great, but JFK got the shaft. Bigtime.
Let's see how long we can keep this thread up before the first personal attack.
Nathan

 

[David Von Pein]

It would worry me if you *did* believe it was one superhuman shooter from a window.

Start worrying then. I'm in the "one shooter (Oswald)" camp.
Nothing "superhuman", though, about Oswald's having done it alone. Lee had ample training in the Marines and had practiced with that Carcano for months before November 22nd rolled around. PLUS: He more-than-likely had 8 seconds to accomplish the shooting, rather than the 5.6-second shooting window. (First shot missed at approx. Zapruder frame 160, allowing Lee two seconds more to re-aim.)
As for the movie....I have to say I like it very much. And a great DVD presentation to boot.
Sure, its theories proposed within are pure out-&-out hogwash (IMO, that is), BUT, it IS pretty accurate from the standpoint that it's showing the events of 1963-1969 from the viewpoint of (mostly) not Oliver Stone, but Jim Garrison.
Of course, Stone couldn't resist embellishing Garrison's theories, and stepping them up a bit. But, it's basically Garrison's story that we see on screen (with some exceptions, including that of Stone's mysterious "Mr. X", who was thrown into the mix to heighten the drama [and fiction!]).
Stone's 3 shooters/6 shots scenario just cannot possibly be reconciled as fact (IMO)! For how, if true, could ALL these other bullets & fragments just have vanished without a trace, with NO Parkland doctors having seen any of these other non-Oswald missiles in either JFK or John Connally?
Then, too, add in the overwhelming earwitness evidence of over 50 Dealey Plaza witnesses that had some opinion as to the number of shots fired; and you'll find that a huge preponderance of them (91%!) heard less than four shots. And the majority of that grouping heard EXACTLY three shots.
HOW could 50% of the shots in a 6-shot scenario possibly not be heard by nearly everyone in Dealey Plaza?!
It's absolutely amazing how the subject of the JFK murder can elicit, four decades later, such spirited conversation and debate. It's literally the subject that, it appears, will never die.

 

[David Von Pein]

For those interested, a great on-line resource on the subject of the JFK assasssination resides at www.jfklancer.com.
Some lively discussion can be located in their "Forums" section.
"Lone Nutters" beware .... They don't take too kindly to us "outsiders"! 99% of the members adhere to some sort of conspiracy theory or other. With several being created monthly from pure wholecloth.

 

[Jack Briggs]

I wish more people had a better understanding and memory of the entire Kennedy presidency rather than how it ended; much happened during the man's thousand days, which affect the geopolitical situation to this day.

At any rate: Let's try to make this more a discussion of the film. You can try relating the film to the historical context, no matter how tenuous that connection is. If people want to talk about the assassination itself, start a new thread in After Hours.

(I may be one of the very few posting here who actually was alive during the Kennedy Administration. Context is good.)

 

[Tommy Ceez]

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anyone interested in the historical accuracy of the film could read this page for hours

 

[ArmandV]

Start worrying then. I'm in the "one shooter (Oswald)" camp.

Same here. I went to Dealey Plaza back in 1984 and I was actually surprised how really short the distance between the 6th floor window and the street actually was. To me (as an experienced target-shooter), it was not that difficult a shot for a guy with Marine training (plus a scope).
As for JFK, the movie was simply thought-provoking entertainment. Yes, there was a lot of fabricating in the film, but interesting nonetheless.

 

[BrianShort]

After looking at the site that Tommy Ceez posted, I'm moving myself into the lone gunman camp as well. Before, I was in the "I think there was more than one shooter but it certainly wasnt the uber conspiracy presented in JFK" camp.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

As for JFK, the movie was simply thought-provoking entertainment. Yes, there was a lot of fabricating in the film, but interesting nonetheless.

Indeed. While I intensely dislike the way Stone manipulates the material, I do like the fact that it engenders interest in the subject. I've not done a lot of digging into the matters, but I'd probably not have checked it out at all had JFK not piqued my interest. I just wish Stone had actually bothered to try to make things a little closer to reality...

 

[Holadem]

I don't know, Jack.....maybe point to the old thread?

Ze olde thread.
--
Holadem

 

[Brendan Brown]

Politics aside as a film in and of itself I consider it a masterwork of cinema. When I want to impress people with my setup I usually load up the opening sequence of JFK (the one in the windowbox) and perhaps even the courtroom monologue.
I would love to be an editor so talented as to compress about eight hours worth of information into a little over three like Joe Hutshing and Pietro Scalia.
Anybody ever watched Thirteen Days and JFK back to back? It's an odd experience.

 

[Brian_J]

What ever happened to "Innocent until proven Guilty in a court of law"

You realize we are not in a court of law right? There is no law that says that we must believe that somebody is "innocent until proven guilty" ONLY that the government must prove so before depriving someone of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Its really that simple.

OJ's a murderer, Scott Peterson's a murderer and Oswald killed Kennedy. Works for me...

Brian

 

[Jack Briggs]

The transfer on the most recent DVD edition is indeed excellent. Love how clearly we see the color gradually fade in throughout the course of the film, from near black-and-white to fully saturated chroma levels. A very cinematic DVD presentation.

If that old thread has not been locked, why not go there and post your feelings/beliefs/opinions regarding the tragedy of Nov. 22, 1963?

 

[David Wilkins]

I remember reading a statement by Ebert, that "JFK" will be studied in film school thirty years from now, regarding the aspect of editing alone, and the masterstroke of compiling so much information, clearly, into the narrow span of time required to show the film. I believe he is correct.

Regarding the assassination, I don't think there are many people who understand the absolute boiling cauldron that was this nation, both politically and socially, during that era. It was, one of the most, if not the most, dangerous time since the Civil War. It's not the least bit difficult to believe that the power base, which at the time was very much an "old boys club", felt very, very threatened by the changes at hand. Kennedy was outside of that structure and his policies had potential grave consequences for the traditional power brokers. The power structure had, and has, many resources at its disposal, some of them quite dark and "un-American", as we interpret that word.

I think that very much of Stone's information WAS founded in fact. Though, much of it was tailored for film and dramatic effect. Most of the facts that make so many of us uncomfortable, can be accessed through various sources, or at least kernels of facts, that shed a very troublesome and dirty light on places most people don't want to visit in their mind. It's simply rejected out of hand, because they can't allow themselves to accept it. There are some very, very dark, dirty fringes in this country. Most of us live in a reality that has a bright, shiny surface. But, hey, we live in a super-power state, where challenges and ugliness do exist, even if outside the apparent view of most all of us. This ain't no Norman Rockwell painting. Thing is, it never was. That was another beautifully crafted, bright, shiny image.

It's truly amazing that our country and its way of life survived, in tact, the past few turbulent decades, especially the 50's and 60's. Some extraordinarily potent forces were at work, especially those that brought us the trio of POLITICAL assassinations of the 60's--JFK, RFK & King. To deny a potent political connection to these events (though it may be shadow politics), is to live with one's head completely in the sand. I think Stone did an admirable job of bringing such a controversial and unknowable event into the mass public psyche. True, his material was highlighted, punctuated and rearranged for dramatic effect, not all of it provable or even factual. The overall message, I believe is his point. Things aren't always what they appear to be on the surface. His use of Jim Garrison as a central figure, as he states, was because Jim Garrison is the only man ever to bring criminal charges regarding the assassination. Personally, I think Stone could have done better working from a different point of focus.

That's all.

 

[ArmandV]

David Wilkins wrote:

It's not the least bit difficult to believe that the power base, which at the time was very much an "old boys club", felt very, very threatened by the changes at hand. Kennedy was outside of that structure and his policies had potential grave consequences for the traditional power brokers.

The movie Executive Action explored this theory a whole lot better than JFK. Executive Action is one film that should be put out on DVD. It was well done (well, maybe except for the Mustang driving down a Dallas street in 1963).

 

[Louis C]

David, I couldn't have said it better.

 

[David Von Pein]

With the 40th anniversary of the assassination approaching this coming November, I was curious if there just might possibly be a theatrical re-release of Oliver Stone's film soon, to co-incide with the anniversary? Anyone know? I don't believe the Director's Cut ever was shown in theaters, correct?