A Controversial but Technically Brilliant Film from Oliver Stone

Rating: 8/10 (22 November 2013)

November 22, 1963 was one of the darkest days in American history. It was the day President John F. Kennedy was shot dead riding in his limousine through the city of Dallas, Texas. With today being the 50th anniversary of the assassination, I have decided to review Oliver Stone's controversial film about not only that day in Dallas, but all of the controversy and conspiracy theories that have surrounded it from moment one.
JFK is actually a movie about New Orleans D.A. Jim Garrison (played by Kevin Costner) who takes it upon himself to bring to trial the people he believes conspired to murder the president. He and his staff do not believe that Lee Harvey Oswald (played eerily similar to his historical counterpart by Gary Oldman) simply acted alone, and as it turns out everyone he talks to has a theory about what the really happened, but every time they try to formally question them the "witnesses to conspiracy" end up changing their view or end up dead. Garrison does bring a man he believes was directly involved, Clay Shaw (played by Tommy Lee Jones) to trial and tries to prove that it was all a big lie and a conspiracy exists.
The acting is full of very recognizable stars in good roles, even though some are only there ever so briefly that it works against itself, or some historically inaccurate. Costner gives a heroic portrayal of Jim Garrison, whom I think represents Stone's view of the assassination, even though most people know that his real investigation was questionable in his grounds of prosecution, and that he was extremely obsessive about a conspiracy theory. The supporting cast is great and they are great actors, but some completely disappear even though they are all supposed to be involved.
The screenplay, written by Oliver Stone and co-writer Zachary Sklar, is something of which I consider to be a brilliant mystery (something that works unbelievably well even though it really shouldn't) My major problem with the story is that both writers try to cram in way too many conspiracy theories. I myself do not believe most of these theories presented, especially when there is incontrovertible evidence against the theories Stone crams in. For example, modern computer animation by animator Dale Myers, ballistics experts, and even the evidence found in the Book Depository have proved the "multiple bullet theory" to be false. However, with these falsehoods in mind, the film does raise some eyebrows about some inconsistencies with the investigation. I hate to say, but some (a very small amount) of these theories could hold water, but we would have to fully research these ideas and think formulate our own opinions.
Like I said at the beginning of the review, this movie has been called one of (some call it the most) controversial films of all time. Many critics and people who were there believe that this movie is very manipulative and completely full of falsehoods and not one shred of truth. I think that people have blindly seen this movie without educating themselves about either the theories or what happened during the actual assassination. Instead of blindly believing everything the movie throws at us, we really have to look into it and study it for ourselves.
But the way the film is executed and filmed is what makes this a classic, and one of the reasons why it appears on my all time favorite films list. The cinematography is so amazing and beautiful that sometimes you question whether or not it's real (another reason why it seems manipulative) Director of Photography Robert Richardson uses the same kind of film stock and cameras that existed in 1963 and before to frame the story in the best way possible. And then there's the editing, which best sums up the feelings of the assassination, which is truly chaotic. The editing is so great in that it forces us to look at all the details and try to keep up with what's going on. Joe Hutshing and Pietro Scalia did a fantastic job with it and kind of set a standard for kinetic editing that hasn't really been matched in recent years. It also makes sense that both these areas won Academy Awards.
Oliver Stone considers this film to be greatest personal achievement. I, in all honesty, would have to agree with his sentiment. Many think that Stone has tried to manipulate people to match his now ultra-radical views, but he does what a director should be allowed to do. I think what Stone is trying to do is present his anger and confusion about someone who represented the hopes and dreams (his dreams as well) of America being madly gunned down like that, in a way that is more personal and daring than directors and producers were willing to go at that time. Every director should have a view of things and an opinion to present, not to follow the norm or keep quiet.
This film is amazing to watch and is one of those rarities for me in Hollywood, a film to challenge us, make us think, and research about what is presented to us. Some have and will continue to blindly accept what they see in this film and others as fact, which can be dangerous, but still, we have people who are smart enough to know what is true and what is "Hollywood." For many people, the movie JFK truly represents the lack of closure and anger we still feel for what happened 50 years ago today.