A true masterpiece

Rating: 10/10 (25 February 2001)

I was fourteen or fifteen when I first saw JFK, and its passion gave me a passion not just for the assassination conspiracy but for history in general. I'm now writing my dissertation on Kennedy as part of my history degree and there was an irony in seeing the film again - the film that had got me interested in the first place - because I couldn't help finding fault with some of its conclusions.
JFK argues that Kennedy was killed because he had wanted to pull America out of Vietnam and ease relations with the Soviet Union, something that the military-industrial complex simply wouldn't allow. It was this idea that I had problems with because it was Kennedy who had sent over 15,000 American troops to Vietnam, and who may have provoked the Cuban Missile Crisis because of overt and covert moves against Castro. I was worried that this would ruin the movie, but historians argue so endlessly and I've changed my own mind so often that I just ignored the would-be niggles. Besides, if the facts don't necessarily support this idea of Kennedy now, it was undoubtedly the perception at the time so may well have been the motive behind the assassination.
There are further problems that pedantic historians have complained about; a number of composite or fictional characters, genuine testimony transplanted to fictional locations, and the use of both real and recreated archive footage combine to undermine its credibility. These, too, can be forgiven because JFK has a responsibility not just to provide facts, but to provide a coherent narrative, and it would have been impossible to have uncovered every word that was spoken during the Garrison investigation or kept them in their original context. A degree of manipulation and invention was necessary. Without these compromises, JFK would have lost much of its atmosphere and been a far weaker film, so I was happy to let them pass.
Even with these criticisms, JFK remains a masterpiece, by far the best film from occasional genius Oliver Stone. I can't think of any movie that has the same sense of urgency, of outrage and passion, and such determination to convince. Adapted from two books, the screenplay is perfect and is testament to Stone's skill that he could take the masses of evidence and turn it into a coherent script, with co-writer Zachary Sklar. Following District Attorney Jim Garrison, the only man to ever bring a suspect to trial in the murder of the President, the film is utterly convincing in its criticisms of the Warren Commission Report and in its presentation of the conspiracy behind the assassination.
It boasts perhaps the greatest ever ensemble cast, including Kevin Costner, Tommy Lee Jones, Kevin Bacon, Joe Pesci, Walter Matthau, Sissy Spacek, Laurie Metcalf, Ed Asner, Jack Lemmon, Gary Oldman, Brian Doyle-Murray, Wayne Knight, John Candy, Donald Sutherland, Bob Gunton and Jim Garrison himself. The last name, in the role of Earl Warren, should prove that, contrary to popular belief, Stone has a fine understanding of irony. The weakest link in the stunning cast is Costner, but he gives his best performance in the lead role and manages to avoid his wooden delivery for most of the mammoth running time. Even when he stumbles, he carries the movie perfectly.
His performance is certainly enough to make the final forty-five minute courtroom scene the greatest and most electrifying I've ever seen. We are bombarded with evidence of the conspiracy, of the Warren Commission cover-up, of the convenient deaths of witnesses and critics, and are shown the notorious `magic bullet' theory and the terrible footage taken by Abraham Zapruder.
Within his air of excitement at revealing the conspiracy and his determination to find his truth, Stone never forgets the truth that everyone can agree on; that Kennedy was not just a President, but a man, who was murdered as his wife sat next to him. Whether you believe the Kennedy legacy or not, it is a hard heart that doesn't break to see the final bullet strike him, to see his wife reach out across the boot of the car to rescue the debris, and to see his young son salute his father's coffin as it passes. The respectful tone that is taken throughout is perfect.
Historians should be grateful to Oliver Stone for bringing history to a wider audience, one that a documentary simply would not have reached. Its flaws are necessary to this end, and when Stone himself talks of his film in terms of a counter-myth, you realise he was not merely in search of the truth, but in search of other people who seek the same; this should be the only starting point. JFK is a film that should make you angry and make you ask more. For me, at least, it did both.