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?

DVP's BLOGS
DVP's VIDEO PAGE

David Von Pein

It's a bit eerie to see how little Dealey Plaza, Dallas, has changed in nearly 40 years. ........

DVP's BLOGS
DVP's VIDEO PAGE

Anthony Neilson

JFK is a tremendous technical achievement. The writers and editors out there will know just how difficult it is to structure that density of information into a compelling narrative. This film (and SALVADOR, imo) is incontrovertible proof that Oliver Stone is one of the great film-makers, and it grieves me that he seems so under-appreciated. The attacks on him by the American press, and the constant attempts to undermine him, are a disgrace and undoubtedly politically motivated. I hope to God that Stone's recent quiet is not a sign that he has finally been worn down by all of this.
When people look back at how film-making changed in the early 21st Century, I believe Stone - and JFK in particular-will have to be taken into account.

The DVD is very good, I agree, but I'd love to have seen an extensive doc on the making of the film itself. This is a film that would really lend itself to lavish treatment.

By the way, does anyone know where I can get some decent screenshots for JFK ? I can't seem to find any.

I\'ve been going to bed early . . .

David Von Pein

Ditto that!

While I love the treatment the film itself received on the 2-disc Warner Brothers DVD, IMO that 2nd disc of bonus material is pretty weak. Most of Disc 2 is as dry as the Mojave!

A "making of" would be greeted most enthusiastically by this writer.

DVP's BLOGS
DVP's VIDEO PAGE

DeeF

JFK is such a frustrating film to talk about. It is so good that it had an undeniably huge impact, and that impact is perhaps inappropriate. Roger Ebert, of all people, should know that films presented on the big screen with Hollywood production values and charismatic stars in sympathetic roles are going to be received as truth with a capital T.

I agree with a number of you in citing JFK as Stone's best film, and also the best film of Kevin Costner. It is dramatic, emotional, involving, and ultimately hugely complex without being mystifying or stultifyingly boring. It is the ultimate murder mystery, the ultimate courtroom drama, the ultimate action film.

And yet, I can't help think that all parties involved should be ashamed for presenting it this way. Garrison and his book are quite laughable and simplistic in their presentation of the case, the facts twisted into a story barely resembling history.

I don't think JFK can be compared favorably with Citizen Kane, another movie which fantasizes a historical character for dramatic effect. The audience is never confused during Citizen Kane that this is drama, not history. The audience for JFK feels quite illuminated as to the facts of the case, and this is not appropriate, even reprehensible.

There should be a way to present Garrison's book so that the audience understands it as a possibility, not as a truth.

In Case Closed, Gerald Clark mentions that the impact of Kennedy's assassination was so huge, on so many millions of people, that we refused to believe a single anarchist could have achieved it. Nazism = most evil organized social group, brought about Holocaust = most evil terrible event in history. These match up in their extremity. But Death of JFK = most extreme publicly-witnessed event in history, killed by LHO = small time anarchist disgusted with his life, don't match at all in extremity, and therefore, we cannot believe he did it alone (despite the obviousness of it) -- SOMEbody must have helped him carry out this terrible, huge tragedy.

My trouble with conspiracies, particularly the one presented in this movie, is that they simply cannot withstand the pressure of media exposure, or celebrity. Someone will talk, for notoriety sake. JFK couldn't even keep his extramarital love life secret during his lifetime (neither could Clinton, LOL). And yet, here we have this huge conspiracy, going all the way up to LBJ, and it's all presented (in the book and movie) as perfectly coherent, a fact of life as constant as sleeping. Our lives in the 20th and 21st century are too complex and too convoluted to have absolute control over every aspect of our lives. Perhaps a small conspiracy may survive, but one as huge as presented in JFK, it's ridiculous to even consider.

Almost every case of assassination in history is known to be the work of a lone assassin, or someone who led his own, very small, conspiracy. Big governments are too clumsy, and big businesses too slow-moving, and big crime syndicates too smart. Note how well the US achieved the deaths of those ultimate evil guys, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. We don't even know if they are dead or not.

Anthony Neilson

First of all, audiences NOW may not be confused about KANE, but I'm not sure that was true at the time. Hearst was pretty damn confused, that's for sure, and I would've thought that the well-documented attempts to suppress it, and the subsequent treatment of Welles would bear that out.

Secondly, Stone was always quite explicit that his aim was to create a "counter-myth". He doesn't believe the official story but at no point does he specifically present a theory as to who the guilty party was. Pesci tells us that even the shooters didn't know who was behind it - the mystery wrapped in a riddle wrapped in an enigma speech. This is what JFK's about, imo, not who actually did it ; the frightening idea that the truth can simply be lost amidst a welter of claim and counter claim, in the cacophony of media that surrounds us. The fact is that anyone could leak the truth now, just as several people have come forward with their bizarre claims about Roswell - we simply wouldn't know who to believe. This frightening use of misinformation by governments (practiced today more than ever) is what JFK so accurately pinpoints, and why its constant shifts in media and frantic editing-style are so integral to the film (unlike some of his later work).

Thirdly, we have to be very careful not to get into patronising territory. People are not stupid. They know when they're watching a film and when they're watching news or documentary. Those that believed the Warren Commission
going in to JFK, probably still believed it when they came out again - and vice versa. If it didn't change your mind, DeeF, what makes you think it changed anyone else's ?

I do, though, completely agree with your last point, and it's my major problem with Conspiracy theories. Essentially, they reinforce the power of the State. "Yes, we have satellite technology and we know exactly where Bin Laden is and we could take him out any time but we don't because" . . insert conspiracy theory. This is far less frightening than the thought that our hardware is limited and the people operating it couldn't find their arses with both hands.

What we need to fear are Vested Interests. No shadowy meetings need to take place. Half the time our leaders don't even want to admit these interests to themselves.
Which is why we talk about Weapons of Mass Destruction when we're really talking about Oil.

And that's where I'll end this post, I think, lest I am carried off by the Great Administrator Bird

I\'ve been going to bed early . . .

RobertR

This is not the same thing as saying there's no such thing as objective truth. There is, and Stone's attempt at "myth creation" doesn't change that fact. I also remember that the marketing for this film did NOT emphasize "myth making", but claimed the movie would tell us the truth. It was only after many people talked about how little truth there was in the film that Stone did his "golly gee fellas, it's only a movie" act.

Cary_H

For another take on this event, get your hands on a copy of this book. Mortal Error, by Bonar Menninger.