Film Noir On a Grand Scale

Rating: 10/10 (11 April 2001)

Oliver Stone's interpretation of the Kennedy assassination can be found in his film JFK, a remarkable, energetic movie that may be, from a purely intellectual standpoint, total nonsense, but this in no way diminishes its stature as a film. Perhaps the best way to deal with Oliver Stone is to see him as a mad artist type. History of full of such men,--Edgar Allan Poe, Wagner, Van Gogh, Jackson Pollock, Ezra Pound--and there's no reason why the movies can't have their fair share of them as well. Once one accepts Stone as insane his vision becomes acceptable, brilliant, even comforting in a way. If we can accept Wagner seeing Jews conspiring to destroy art, why can't we accept Stone finding the CIA, with or without the help of the Mafia and the FBI, undermining the inegrity of the Republic at every turn? Wagner saw his Ring cycle as among others things a political statement. We see it as a work of art. Wagner thought of himself as a philosopher and a critic, while we see him as a composer. Stone views himself as a man with a mission. With the help of his idol, Jim Garrison, he wants to set the record straight on who was really responsible for the death of President Kennedy. Those who criticize the film JFK on the grounds that Stone has played fast and loose with the truth or that Garrison was a showman have I believe missed the beauty of this astonishing and intricately woven film, which is simply magnificent, epic in scope, committed to ideals (whether one agrees with the film on the particulars is another matter) and a shining example of the best that can be done in movies in our time. The problem with Oliver Stone is that while his sensibility is purely aesthetic, his intellect tends to drift in a political, New Leftist and paranoid direction. In this respect JFK is two movies, the poltical movie everyone argues about, and the aesthetic movie that everyone enjoys and then gets angry with himself for having liked so much, which then in turn leads to more controversy, which never seems to end. My praise is for the aesthetic JFK, the great and moving story of the death of a president and of the various controversies surrounding the circumstances of his death and those who may or may not be responsible for it. The issue of whether Oswald acted alone, had accomplices, or was merely a patsy, has yet to be resolved. JFK is something to be experienced, not debated. The acting is something to see. It's as if the various stars who appear in the film, often in nearly cameo roles, felt priveleged to be asked to be in this movie at all. As a result John Candy, Kevin Bacon, Jack Lemmon, Donald Sutherland and Walter Matthau are as good as they've ever been. In a larger role, Gary Oldman is so believable as Lee Oswald it's almost frightening. Joe Pesci is hilarious, pathetic and surprisingly convincing as David Ferrie. Tommy Lee Jones is a campy Clay Shaw, and while he is decent in the role I wish he had toned down his somewhat supercilious irony. Kevin Costner at first seems a little too simple to be Jim Garrison, but he emphasizes the heroic rather than analytical side of the man, and this is after all a movie. There's a Gary Cooper little boy lost quality to Costner that works well here, and his obvious fondness for the role and his ease in playing it is in the end a winning quality. Music is well-utilized throughout the film, as is Stone's fondness for offbeat camera angles and an editing style that seems designed to maximize the viewer's sense of dread. Essentially JFK is film noir, done in a contemporary style, on the grandest scale imaginable. It's enough to make Fritz Lang applaud from the grave.