JFK: Is it THE TRUTH, or "the truth"?

Remember, there's THE TRUTH (Shakes head with a menacing look) and "the truth". (Shakes head with a happy look on his face)
- Lionel Hutz, "The Simpsons"

We all know what happened on November 22, 1963. It has become as much a part of American society as July 4, 1776 or December 7, 1941 or September 11, 2001. Like these other dates, it is significant because it marked a turning point for our nation. On the day President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, the American public was cast into a shadow. A young, idealist, energetic and hopeful president had been killed. American innocence was shattered, in what seemed like the beginning of a tumultuous violent and cynical time for America: Following Kennedy’s assassination- though not necessarily linked to it- came such things as the escalation of Vietnam, the upheaval and hatred shown during the Civil Rights movements, the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Bobby Kennedy, Watergate, Nixon’s resignation, the energy crisis in the 1970s…the list goes on.

JFK’s assassination also became engraved in the public consciousness for another reason: The seeming ease and quickness by which a government commission- led by Chief Justice Earl Warren- issued a report that closed the federal case on the assassination. The American public, generally, was willing to belief the commission so they could move on with their lives. However, the report left many questions unanswered, and provided unsatisfactory answers to other questions.

Among those unsatisfied was district attorney Jim Garrison, whom proceeded on an independent investigation to bring some of the alleged perpetrators to justice and, more important, provide logical solutions to how and why the assassination took place. In 1991, his investigation (Covered in the book On the Trail of the Assassins) was adapted by Oliver Stone into JFK.

To open this review, I post this quote from Taxdawg, whom wrote a review on the Internet Movie Database on November 4, 2001

“Ultimately, it does not matter whether JFK's conclusion is correct, and I am even willing to give a little more license than I normally would to more-substantive, as well as less-important, inaccuracies, although I have my limits here too. But this movie's significance is just that it was made. For although other films had chronicled the events surrounding the assassination, none had in any substantial way sought to discredit the Warren Commission, as was so absolutely merited.”

I could not have said it better. JFK is not a movie about facts. Indeed, it can be best interpreted as just a massive, well-researched and thought out theory into how the assassination took place (Oliver Stone himself apparently once said that the movie was "intended as counter-fiction to the Warren Commission's fiction.") What makes it so great is because it dares to question and dares to speculate further into the events. As Roger Ebert basically stated in his book The Great Movies, JFK speaks for everyone whom feels uncertain and uncomfortable with many facts of the case. Were there multiple shooters? Did the CIA, the military, the FBI, the Cubans and the Russians want Kennedy dead? Were there multiple Lee Harvey Oswalds? (Better yet, who really was Lee Harvey Oswald?) Could Oswald have fired those three shots in six seconds? Who, if anyone, was on the grassy knoll? Could the “magic bullet” have really worked? If Oliver Stone had made a straightforward movie showing what the official report was, nobody would have argued or called the movie controversial, but nobody would remember it, either. JFK is controversial because it is different, because it brings all of these theories and presents them out and because it dares to go against the status quo, which is usually why ANYTHING is controversial.

JFK is a dynamic piece of film work. A movie that covers so much and includes so much information, facts, figures, speculation, theories, conspiracies and anything else you can name could get bogged down and become disjointed. Stone, though, keeps his focus on Garrison and on his investigation: The movie is about Garrison’s obsessive ness and his passion for the case. By keeping that as his main focus, everything else seems to flow along smoothly. The editing and cinematography is simply mind-blowing, with black and white and color and varying types of film sizes and photographs being used.

JFKhas a huge cast, and it is stocked full of reputable, major stars; some in just mere cameos. Sissy Spacek plays Garrison’s wife whom seemingly represents a micro-casm of the American public in wanting her husband to just move on in life. Ed Asner plays a businessman- and former intelligence agent- whom worked with Oswald, while Jack Lemmon is his assistant. Joe Pesci is Dave Ferrie, one of the key members in the movie linked to Oswald and the assassination. Tommy Lee Jones is Clay Bertrand/Shaw, the businessman whose trial is Garrison’s showcase in the movie. Walter Matthau is Senator Long (Interesting trivia note: This is just one of several movies featuring both Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, but the only one in which neither actor is on screen at the same time). Kevin Bacon is a male prostitute and inmate, whom formed a connection to Clay Shaw. John Candy is an attorney whom was hired to represent Oswald, but keeps tight lipped out of fear of what could happen to him. Gary Oldman is chilling as Oswald. Donald Sutherland is the mysterious "Mr. X", who's part I shall talk about more in a bit. Michael Rooker, Jay Sanders, Susie Metcalf and Vincent D’Onofrio play key roles as Garrison investigators. Garrison himself even shows up, playing a cameo as Chief Justice Earl Warren. Kevin Costner provides the likeability needed to make his portrayal of Jim Garrison, while also lacking the huge big name so he’s able to slide into the role (It should be noted, though, that JFK came out while Costner’s star was still on the rise- with Bull Durham, Field of Dreams and Dances with Wolves already made and huge hits- before we saw that star promptly crash in Waterworld and The Postman).

Sure, JFK could also be just seen as Oliver Stone posting his political viewpoints for all to see, but never is he telling us to believe him either; he just wants us to take it all in and decide for ourselves. JFK presents together almost every theory and belief that people have presented following the assassination, and the scary thing is that it does so with such conviction (Stone apparently released a copy of the screenplay after the movie’s release with annonatations done to prove his theories and facts). Much like, though, how the American public was so willing to swallow the Warren Commission, so too should we be hesitant to digest everything that Stone is presenting. The character of “Mr. X” presents a picture of President John F. Kennedy akin to Julius Caesar from Shakespeare’s tragedy: He has angered many people- from businessmen due to canceling Operation Mongoose (Formed as a second attempt on Castro after the Bay of Pigs) to military officers for defense cutbacks and wanting to withdraw from Vietnam- and is only naturally going to get killed as a result. X provides logical questions about the parade route, the lack of security and why open windows were around the buildings overlooking the plaza. His later statements concerning Johnson, though, seem to be more of a presentation of Stone’s viewpoints of the military industrial complex (Though “Mr. X” was based on retired Air Force Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, one of the film’s technical advisors). By movie’s end, pretty much everyone in the government- notably the military, the CIA, businessmen and the white house- are linked somehow to the assassination. The argument has been made by critics that “too many people would know to keep it a secret”, when actually, in Stone’s scenario, everyone would only know a little part, or not know anything at all. At the same time, that is also what makes it hard to accept. Stone also basically states that the famous Life magazine photo of Oswald holding the rifle was forged: While it is true that the shadows and cropping on the picture are a bit suspicious, as someone I know once remarked, “You would assume that professional photo forgers [in the government] would be a little more careful then that”.

It can be also hard to believe that this small group of independent attorneys in New Orleans can be able to at least see the extent of the vastness of the assassination. The fact is that they don’t, however. Garrison’s trial at the end is more of a “show trial” then anything, as that is what his case had become by movie’s end: Not only did Garrison not have a clear cut motive for the shooting (Due to there being several motives), but most of his key witnesses were either dead, not credible or refused to testify. Garrison’s depiction of the shooting itself as he explains in court is also best taken as an educated interpretation (Though, if you’re not one to mind conspiracy theories or the idea of multiple shooter theory, it is one of the most complete. It should also be noted that, while several groups are implicated by Stone, none of them are ever fully connected. As Dave Farrie said, “The shooters don’t know whom did it!) One other gripe is the depiction of Garrison himself as a family man. Certainly, Garrison was a good man and loved his family like everyone does, but his relentless pursuit and obsession with the case led to his separation from his wife and children. I suppose, though, that a depiction of Garrison like that would not have boded well with an actor as likeable as Kevin Costner.

Is Oliver Stone stating the facts as they happened? Most likely not. There is only one real fact on this event: EVERYBODY has there own theory and belief on what happened (Someone I know once presented the theory that the assassination was the result of a rift in time caused by people from the future coming back to prevent World War III from happening. Sounds unbelivable, but then, so does the magic bullet theory). Heck, I’m sure a very convincing, satisfying movie could be made about the Warren Commission’s report. All Stone is suggesting is that people should be willing to question and be willing to think for themselves. If you have your doubts about JFK the movie, that’s exactly what he wants! He speaks for the people whom have always wondered, debated and argued that there is more to the assassination. Was it a huge government conspiracy, even a coup d’etat? To some people it was, and this movie is their logical defense of that. For others, JFK has stirred up controversy for over a decade. Regardless of your opinions on the event, though, JFK does stand definitely as a reminder of the traits that makes humanity great: Our logical abilities, our curiosity and the traits of thinking and questioning. As Mr. X says at one point to Garrison, “Don’t take my word for it. Do your own work, your own thinking.” You can at least give that much: Not just for the Kennedy Assassination, but for anything in general.

Now living in another era where people are beginning to wonder about our government’s cleanliness and integrity, JFK is made relevant again. Watch it not for debate over whom was responsible for Kennedy’s assassination, but as proof that people need to be reminded that there is always more to the stories that they are told, and they should keep their eyes open so they can start to see beyond the lies presented to them. Mr. X says at one point “The organizing principle of any society, Mr. Garrison, is for war. The authority of the state over its people resides in its war powers.” Don’t you think that President Bush has that belief written down somewhere?

[On a sidenote, for the fortieth anniversary of the assassination in 2003, a computer game was made called JFK: Reloaded. This game basically challenged gamers to recreate the events using a maximum of three shots- like what Oswald supposedly did- and to recreate as many of the wounds as possible. Players were encouraged to post their top scores, which were based on accuracy and closeness to the Warren Commission, and the top player won a cash prize. Naturally, when word came out about this game, it was met with intense resistance and was called vulgar and in bad taste. I never played the game myself, but from what I read, it really doesn’t sound all that bad. Players are actually deducted points if they fire off more then a couple of shots or hit other people in the game; it is nothing like the games made about the Columbine shootings or after September 11 that encourage violence. The makers intended for it to be their own quirky way of having people do their own historical analysis and open up their own questioning about the Warren Commission. They learned, however, much like Garrison and Stone both did, that doing so can be treading on thin ice.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Garrison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Clay_Shaw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Reloaded