discussion of the conspiracy is being held. If you are discussing the *movie*, feel free to change the followup line to rec.arts.movies. -Moderator]
JFK
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1991 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: This is Oliver Stone's biography and defense of New Orleans D.A. Jim Garrison attempting to discredit the official explanation of the Kennedy assassination. While not always convincing in it ambitious conclusions, it will cause people to question the Warren Report. Rating: low +2 (-4 to +4) (Minor spoilers in review)
It is difficult to evaluate a propaganda film--that is, a film intended to convince the viewer of a particular political point of view. How strongly do you weight your agreement with the political message? How strongly do you weigh whether the filmmaker played fairly and honestly? How strongly do you consider whether the film was convincing or not? How important are traditional values such as plot and technique? Is Leni Riefenstahl's TRIUMPH OF THE WILL a good film because of the beautiful filmic technique or a bad film because it deified Adolf Hitler? How good were Einsenstein's BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN and ALEXANDER NEVSKY? How good was Z or MATEWAN or ROGER AND ME? What about MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON or ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN? I take the amoral--hopefully not immoral--view that what is important are traditional film values plus whether the film makes a good argument. I divorce myself from my own political viewpoint. Nor will I strongly consider if the filmmaker is being fair unless it hurts the argument being made. I would claim TRIUMPH OF THE WILL is much better propaganda than television's M.A.S.H. in spite of the fact I agree much more with M.A.S.H.'s politics.
That stated, I can now begin to discuss Oliver Stone's JFK. Is it a good film from the traditional viewpoint? It does hold the viewer's attention and it does have some good performances, and some wooden ones also. Overall it is an enjoyable film. Is it convincing? That depends on what you think it is trying to convince you of. If it is trying to convince the viewer that the Warren Commission's official explanation of what happened is wrong, it succeeds beautifully. It is difficult to believe that earl Warren himself could see this film and not question his own commission's findings. On the other hand, the film darkly implies that this might have been a huge governmental conspiracy--essentially a coup d'etat-- with the express goal of precipitating a war in Vietnam. For this conclusion the evidence is sketchy at best. Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone essentially show tens of thousands of people who had a motive to murder Kennedy and a few people who might have been involved with pulling the triggers. There is not much connection in between. That is where the film falls down.
JFK is structured as Kevin Costner, in the role of Jim Garrison, presenting the Warren Commission's findings and knocking holes in them. This is followed by a speech on the implications to American democracy of the government's cover-up and these pieces are preceded by a docudrama prologue that tells how Garrison got involved and what he discovered in his investigations. Of course, we see this prologue first, but the real heart of the film is the rebuttal.
The prologue does not really have much of a plot any more than ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN did. Instead, we just follow step by step the investigation. Other than the obvious dramatic impact of the puzzle getting solved, there is a minor melodramatic sub-plot of Garrison alienating his family and his staff over his monomaniacal approach. This sub-plot is superficially added and resolved just as superficially. The detail of the investigation is well told, though its impact depends a great deal on the viewer's interest in revelations about the assassination. Stone makes a safe bet that most of the public, and certainly most who would come to see the film, have a great deal of interest in the Kennedy assassination. The chase after information is at least as interesting as the similar chase in ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN.
Kevin Costner brings a good deal of his Elliot Ness portrayal to his Jim Garrison. Sissy Spacek plays Mrs. Garrison exactly the way she played the Southern housewife in THE LONG WALK HOME. Joe Pesci is good playing one more and different breed of low-life. Edward Asner is notable as a gruff, bullet-shaped, bigoted conspirator. There are quite a few notables in the cast, perhaps to make a political point. Jim Garrison himself is along as Earl Warren.
As with many docudramas, JFK may not play exactly fair. It mixes together newsreel footage, fake newsreel footage, dramatization of events that happened, dramatization of events that may have happened, dramatization of events that did not happen but that improve the story, even mental images and supposed memories. This is, of course, a questionable strategy, but with a little thought the viewer knows what is being shown. It does shed some question on some of the assertions made.
This is a film that will change some minds and provoke argument. 73% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy and that percentage is likely to go up with this film. I give it a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Mark R. Leeper
att!mtgzy!leeper
leeper@mtgzy.att.com
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews