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 Ed Nilges
Copyright 1991 Ed Nilges
I want in this review to address:
* The consumerist question (eg., "should I spend money on this?
is it entertaining?")
* The art question ("is this good art?")
* The political question ("is Stone right about the assassination?")
THE CONSUMERIST QUESTION
Yes, you *will* be entertained by this movie unless you are braindead. Folks old enough to remember the terrible weekend of 1963 (I was a high school freshman) will relive the pity and terror as Costner sits in Napoleon's (a N'Awlins bar) watching the news reports, including Walter Cronkite breaking down as Cronkite is passed the news of Kennedy's death.
Folks too young will get a history lesson in the fact that the Sixties were not all sex/drugs/rock and roll...they were also an expression of cynicism in a system in which it at least appeared that a President with a demonstrated commitment to peace (as evinced by his test ban treaty and by his honorable handling of Bay of Pigs) was replaced by a President who (while committed to civil rights) did not share Kennedy's commitment to peace. It at least appeared to us antiwar protesters that Johnson was, to a greater degree than JFK, a creature of the defense establishment. This history lesson is made effectively, using a combination of newsreel footage and reenacted incidents the pacing of which keeps the attention of the MTV set.
Should you wait for the video? I think not. You may not be able to follow the important scenes that demand you close-read the grainy 8MM footage of Abraham Zapruder's film.
THE ART QUESTION
...can be dispensed of quickly. Yes, Oliver Stone knows how to make a good film. In particular, I liked the pacing in Costner's summation at the end of the trial, for it treated the audience as mature adults able to sit still for far, far more than a sound bite.
THE POLITICAL QUESTION
This is the hot potato. Having seen the film, I believe that JFK was killed in a "silent coup" by elements of the defense establishment. It is true, as an article on page 1 of the NEW YORK TIMES indicates today, that Stone could be faulted for combining "real" footage including the Zapruder film with "fictional" footage such as an imaginary recreation of the autopsy. I'd say that given the fact that the government won't release documents on the assassination until 2029, Citizen Stone is perfectly justified in reconstructing incidents, for he does not have access to the facts. That is, secrecy creates a poetic license.
Readers should note that the assassination of JFK and possible dealings in October 1980 between the Reagan reelection team and Iran mean that essentially the same elements *may* be responsible for not one but two silent coups. On the other hand, when Costner (speaking obviously for Stone) speaks of "fascism" I did reflect that it is an odd sort of Fascism in which the film JFK can be shown. Perhaps I speak too soon; perhaps there still will be a violent reaction to the film, with attempts to keep it from being seen, if the snotty and condescending tone of the New York Times article I mention earlier fails to convince people that it is unhip to believe Stone.
Noam Chomsky describes ways of Manufacturing Consent which are far more sophisticated than merely preventing a movie from being shown. For example, one troubling question raised by the movie is the fact that the day of the assassination marked the creation of a modern urban legend, that of the crazed, murderous loner. If Stone is right, Oswald was a schmoe, caught up in nut politics; but he was a fall guy, not a murderer. It is a troubling thought that almost every assassination and almost every mass murder since the JFK assassination (a sort of Ur event) has been given the following spin by the press: "folks, something terrible has just happened. A popular leader (or many people) has/have just been tragically murdered. The guy who dunnit, however, is a crazed loner or (at best) a cult leader ... not one of us or our leaders." Such is the power of the "crazed loner" theory that almost any American male is at risk for being associated with the outcast group of "crazed loners" unless he is careful to lead a circumscribed and above all married existence. Any intellectual interest outside of careerism puts one at risk for association with this outgroup. Perhaps, however, our murderers are *not* crazed loners (just as, statistically, our child abusers are upstanding married men). Perhaps our murderers are our kindly father figures like Stormin' Norman. Perhaps are murderers are the Texas schoolchildren who cheered when Kennedy's death was announced, who grew up to be upstanding members of the community (not crazed loners). Perhaps our murderers is us.
"I ask you please, who killed the Kennedys, well after all
it was you and me!"
- Sympathy for the Devil
.
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