Great movie but bad history -- RE-REVIEWED

Rating: 4/10 (27 August 2002)

"I don't want to quibble over details. Read Gerald Posner's _Case Closed_ for the (probable) truth of the matter, but as a film, you may never see anything more dynamic and manipulative.
"Like 'Birth of a Nation' (1915), this is history 'written with lightning,' and as Wilson intended, that can be taken as either a positive comment or a negative one. Like Griffith's racist tirade, 'JFK' is full of misconstructed and ill-conceived ideas, and tells its warped story in a way many another filmmaker would envy. Stone is controversial -- as Griffith was -- and for good cause. But he's a dynamic, original talent. All his films -- 'The Hand' excluded -- bear witness to this. 'JFK' may be his piece de resistance." -- 2002
In the six years since I wrote the above comments, I have done more reading on the assassination of John Kennedy. Of course, in assessing a film it must be remembered that even the most documentary-like of documentaries is a fictional construction. In other words, the truth of what the film is depicting should not be brought in to the discussion.
For example, you can't fault 'Pearl Harbor' (or 'Tora Tora Tora,' for that matter) for getting the history wrong, because it is only an entertainment, and cannot ever hope to emulate the reality of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Writers and directors make choices about what they present us, even if it's only one take rather than another. Furthermore, feature films are, on some level, an art form, even the really bad ones like 'Pearl Harbor.'
That being said, the truth of what happened in Dallas just after noon on November 22, 1963 should not, by rights, be allowed to influence one's perception of a feature film.
But because 'JFK' was and remains so popular, the reality of the case should be mentioned in any responsible discussion of the film.
From the beginning, there have been people who believe there was some sort of conspiracy involved in the murder of JFK. The simple fact is, there was not. Read Gerald Posner's 1993 _Case Closed_ for a relatively easy restatement of that, with convincing details... or if you're ambitious, and can stand his sarcasm and condescension, read Vincent Bugliosi's recent _Reclaiming History_. Bugliosi has a substantial chapter about this film that refutes the crap Stone presents as fact. Everyone one who believes in this movie's conclusions should read this chapter, if not the entire 1,600 page book.
Frighteningly, 'JFK' had a 'study guide' prepared for its use in classrooms. The fact that Stone is glorifying a DA who not only abused his power in an effort to get and remain in the public eye, but was also possibly insane, should preclude this film being used in anything other than a film theory class. It is NOT history (although it's probably a good version of how Jim Garrison himself might have remembered his 'crusade' against Clay Shaw), it is a tour de force of the filmmaker's art. Even the acting is good... one just wishes an 'A-list' director would film the JFK assassination without the conspiracy crap to both muddy the waters and confound the viewer.
Conspiracies are fun to believe in, but they're not a part of what really happened that day. I have downgraded my rating of 'JFK'. Despite its technical mastery, the way this film has warped the public's perception of JFK, Jim Garrison, Lee Harvey Oswald and Clay Shaw, I cannot honor this film with a high rating, any more than I can honor Leni Riefenstahl's Nazi propaganda piece 'Triumph of the Will'. The shear evil of the latter film knocks at least three points off it. 'JFK' loses two points and now gets a '4'. 2 February 2008