Technically Masterful Manipulation of Historical Fiction

Rating: 5/10 (14 July 2007)

The most important thing to remember about Oliver Stone's JFK is that it's a work of "What If?" type speculative fiction based on a historical event. The film also has a thesis -- that JFK was murdered by a conspiracy hatched within the government -- and uses all of Oliver Stone's cinematic skill to manipulate it's audience into agreeing with his conclusions. Is that wrong? No, but it might be irresponsible considering the extreme nature of some of Stone's conclusions. Most notably the idea that Kennedy was killed in a coup-de-tat takeover led by Lyndon Johnson. Oh, really?
He may have been, who knows. Like many other humans I am fascinated by the story of the Kennedy assassination and would love to get to the bottom of it, have spent my fair share of time reading both online & off since a young age about the history of the event augmented by various conspiracy and anti-conspiracy theories, and have managed to keep an open mind on the subject. Like a vast number of Americans I believe that Lee Oswald did not act alone in murdering John Kennedy, which in itself implies a belief that there probably was a conspiracy: The literal meaning of the term is that more than one person is involved. Lee Oswald is a fascinating & frightening figure from history mostly because of what a complete enigma he was in real life. I am of the opinion that he probably did shoot Kennedy from the TSBD window and was subsequently silenced by Jack Ruby (who died the day before my birthday, a fact that has always made my hair stand on end) so that the details of the plot would die with him.
Beyond that who knows, or rather we will have to wait until at least 2017 -- just 10 years from now, actually -- to find out what more information there may be socked away somewhere, though if you ask me it won't end up solving a damn thing. Like Joe Pesci's David Ferrie says in a totally fictional scene that was created by Oliver Stone from whole cloth, "It's a mystery wrapped up in a riddle hidden inside of an enigma. Even the shooters don't know who killed him -- don't you get it, man?" That might be the most telling line in the whole film.
And what a film it is. As a Syracuse University student studying video, film and media studies in the arts at the time of it's release I marveled at Oliver Stone and his cinematographers work, blending different movie stocks with television clips of historical films and present day recreations. The manipulation of reality is quite stunning, and so well done that there are times when one isn't entirely sure of what they are seeing or what it all means (which is exactly in step with Stone's comment that reading the Warren Commission reports was akin to "drowning" in information). But what concerns me this day as a post-9/11 viewer of the film, is how much are audiences aware of the extent to which the film blurs the line between history and fiction? It's a movie, with all of the implications of such a term. JFK is an entertainment, not a documentary, using a historical subject as a departure point for it's undeniably entertaining & involving plot line. My concern is that there are people whom I know personally that are convinced that JFK is in reality showing what really happened, by whom and why. It is exactly what they wanted to see, an their inability to distance themselves from the subject matter is exactly what Oliver Stone had in mind, and that is what I mean by "irresponsible" rather than his toying with factual data.
The movie should almost be shown with an accompanying disclaimer saying "The facts and events being depicted are a fictional re-creation and should not be seen as the only possible conclusion of the events being depicted: Independent thinking is advised." But it's still a great movie, one of the best contemporary detective stories to find it's way into the cinema, and if nothing else spurred a public re-interest in the subject that led to an amendment of the date when the sealed records of the event would be opened to the public. I honestly don't believe we will ever know exactly what happened and for that matter Stone's conclusions are as valid as anybody else's, and he did make a marvelous, ingenious movie about the subject that I would encourage anyone with an interest in it to see, especially to experience Stone's masterful manipulation of the different media techniques he uses. Just remember though, that when all is said and done it is a manipulation itself, like JAWS or STAR WARS, designed to influence the viewer and entertain them, and while it's departure point is a chapter from history the end result is primarily a work of speculative fiction.
5/10, which is the grade I usually assign to work that is immune to criticism but technically brilliant. You can't evaluate the movie without dealing with it's politics, which sort of stacks the deck unfairly for those who happen to agree with the conclusions made. Therefore I am only grading the movie on it's technical accomplishment, which is exactly 1/2 of the loaf, or 5 out of ten.