Irresponsible

Rating: Null/10 (18 March 2002)

God, I remember how highly I thought of this film when it came out. Being 19 years old at the time, I suppose my interests toward "important" issues were evolving into a more relavant, adult and analytical perspective. I wanted information. I wanted to know who was pulling the strings behind the secure illusions of my youth (those comforting magical walls that all seem to crumble in the turbulence and onset of higher education and young adulthood). But of course, as a teenager, I was certainly more influenced and impressed than I am now with the flash and fervor of those who truly create a lot of attention through their work -- entertainers. As unfortunate as it may seem, we cannot easily dismiss the stranglehold that all forms of media and pop culture have on our thinking and opinions in this country. Indeed, when "JFK" was released in 1991, it was preceded and followed by an onslaught of assassination conspiracy coverage in which a massive amount of unchallenged accusations and other preposterous information was given an air of seriousness by the public, myself included. "JFK" also should be given credit for sparking interest in the house passing legislation that released an unprecedented amount of previously classified files regarding the assassination. I would applaud the film for at least opening this dialogue. But the predominant public opinion that there was a conspiracy still persists. Much of this speculation is rooted in the same low standard of proof that this film depicts. It should therefore share some of the responsibility for the continued popularity of these views.
In Roger Ebert's new book ("The Great Movies" I think), he still insists that the inaccuracy of this film (which is largely outdated and discredited at this point) doesn't matter. Film should not be held to the same standard of truth, as journalism is, but is instead about depicting feel and emotion, he claims. I agree with him in that the movie is a conglomeration of conspiracy theories and feel -- specifically the paranoia the country felt after the assassination, of which I shared at one time. We want to think that JFK died for something more important than a lone crackpot's disturbing and dillusional political fanaticism. We want to know that JFK died for a reason. The movie dramatizes this desperate mood surrounding the search quite well. I truly disagree with Ebert's assertion that films have absolutely no responsibility to get their facts straight. First of all, I think some events, such as this one, deserve a higher standard of accuracy in thier cinematic treatments. I would mind less, and I think most people would, if say a film like "Ed Wood" was further from the facts than "JFK." Secondly, Oliver Stone does not present this story as mere speculation, but as historic revision (regardless of what he may claim he intended, this is certainly how the film was presented and preceived. One merely has to review all of the college lectures Stone gave, and still gives, in an attempt to achieve credibility and excite outrage). From the opening documentary footage (which is sprinkled with recreation footage, by the way) and somber Martin Sheen voice over to the inclusion of mostly fact-based characters and the exhibition of the Zapruder film, Stone is certainly making a real accusation that falls short (wisely, in my opinion) of presenting us specific any conclusions. What should have Stone done then? I would never argue that this film shouldn't have been made, or worse yet, censored in some way. I just feel that this is a really lousy, innaccurate, and largely irresponsible jumble of fact and fiction that attempts to exonerate an assasin, exalt a dishonorable and harrassing politician (Garrison), further tarnish the reputation of an deceased innocent (Shaw) and avoid the logical and reasonable information that explains the Warren Commission inconsistencies and other seemingly "mysterious" evidence. Acting wise, Costner, Pesci and Bacon all give hammy, way over-the-top performances and the story-telling is simply confusing, vague and disjointed. I could go on and on (haven't I done that already?) about the specific evidence that completely refutes what Stone has depicts, but this isn't exactly the forum. I strongly recommend that anyone interested in keeping an open mind toward reason and facts surrounding these nagging issues and debates (the pristine bullet, altered body, Oswald FBI/CIA connection, et.al.) read "Case Closed" by Barry Posner. The information is exhaustively and professionally researched with an academic approach of the highest standard and integrity. This is a very special and important book that does not ignore Oswald or Ruby's stories, for they are integral in understanding how this tragedy came to be. Nor does Posner ignore the arugments, put forth by completely rational people, that lead one to mistakenly conclude the existence of a conspiracy.