Movie Good, Facts A Tad Off (But Not Totally)

Rating: 8/10 (21 January 2003)

As strictly a film, JFK is pretty much a hit. Oliver Stone is pretty much a director I can live without, but this was definitely a hit. He took a solid premise and ran with it, intertwining authentic video with re-creations. Of course, being Oliver Stone, he definitely used some embellishment for "art's sake", but that came off as heavy handed and quite unnecessary. For instance, the Clay Shaw character, while well-played by Tommy Lee Jones, really was nothing more than a red herring. He had nothing, repeat, nothing to do with the assassination, and was merely put in there as a foil for Jim Garrison. Kevin Costner plays Garrison ably enough, though there really aren't many layers to the man. Come to think of it, maybe that's why the part was perfect for Costner! While the movie is overly long (it could have been trimmed by about 40 minutes), two parts stand out and are must-see moviemaking -- the exchange between Garrison and Mr. X (Donald Sutherland)explaining the backdrop and set-up of the assassination, and the climactic, heart-pounding courtroom scene. Even if you have no knowledge of the case, the courtroom scene especially is one of the most gripping pieces of cinema you'll ever see. The acting is outstanding, especially Gary Oldman as Oswald, and the cinematography definitely gives you the feeling you're back in 1963.
As a fact-finding mission, which Stone purports that is, the movie fails on a few -- but not all -- levels. His habit of filming things documentary style gives rise to the belief that this is indeed a documentary, when it's anything but. He also has so many wild scenarios and plots that, even though one is very close to the truth, the viewer is compelled to dismiss most. You don't know which one to believe. When doing a film of this magnitude, Stone could have done a much better job had he gone with one premise and stuck with it. While rightly showing that Oswald was not and could not have been the assassin, he does little to put together anything coherent as to what actually happened. He ventures closest to the truth in the aforementioned scene between Sutherland and Costner, which implicates the military structure of the United States. Some of it is fabrication, but much of it hits very, very close to the truth. The simple fact of the matter is that the military machine was worried that Kennedy would disarm and pull out of Vietnam, and they didn't want that. So they did something about it.
For those folks who have recommended Posner's "Case Closed" as the definitive work on this subject, let me suggest anything by Harold Weisberg, David Lifton, Mark Lane, or, especially, "Assassination Science" and "What We Know Now That We Didn't Know Then", both by James Fetser. They will show that Posner's book is not only a fabrication, but like the Warren Commission before it a document that worked backward -- it had a conclusion in mind and set out to prove it, dismissing witnesses and interviews that said otherwise.
Really, if you want to learn about the doctored autopsy photos, the doctored X-rays, the fact that much of the Zapruder film isn't authentic, the bullet count, the impossibility of Oswald as the shooter and more of the TRUTH about the Kennedy assassination, check out the titles above. And yes, I do own "Case Closed." It's one of the funnier books I've had the pleasure to read.
Open your mind and figure things out on your own. Don't buy into the government's cut-and-dried response on this case. After all, that same government is most likely the one that took this leader away. I'd recommend the movie, though, for the reasons stated above and because it is likely to spur debate and make you think. And isn't that what good moviemaking is about?