Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor
Finally, finally saw Oliver Stone's JFK. Wow.
Whether you've seen it before or not, now's a good time to visit it. The film hasn't aged at all and makes points that are just as important today, if not more so. I wonder how I would have reacted to it in 1991, or 1996, or 2000, or 2003...but today I see it as an especially timely, dire warning about militarization.
|
I was mightily impressed with
JFK on first viewing, but I regard it with a leery eye these days. For a movie that shakes such a big moral finger about truth, it sure is chock full of bullsh!t, albeit brilliantly directed and edited.
I'm not about to launch a defense of the Warren Report here. Like Bull Durham (another memorable Costner role), I do think Oswald acted alone, but that isn't the main reason I find
JFK galling. Instead, I think it makes its biggest mistake in turning Jim Garrison into a hero, and I believe it wrongly vilifies Clay Shaw. (As did Garrison.)
I'm no expert. I read, and found convincing, a book called
False Witness by Patricia Lambert. She tells a fascinating story (one that would make a great movie!) about a very different Garrison, an out-of-control maverick who would stop at nothing to get a conviction on Shaw, even after it should have been clear that Shaw was innocent, and Garrison was chasing shadows. This book portrays Shaw as a respected New Orleans shop owner who was participating (as were most other shop owners) in government security programs, but he was no agent or CIA operative, or anything like it. (He was also a fairly successful and well regarded playwright, and of course, a closeted homosexual, which fact is presented as something Garrison knew about and hated Shaw for.) The main idea is that the jury in Shaw's trial was quite correct in quickly finding him not guilty, but his life was ruined by the suspicion just the same. Garrison was widely regarded as something of a paranoid loony at the time, and his investigations (and subsequent books about them) were a terrible place for Oliver Stone to turn to as a basis for his film.
As I said, I found this book quite convincing. Even if the assasination was part of a conspiracy, it doesn't seem as if Garrison was anywhere near the right answer. Garrison did not present the Zapruder film in court, (most of his talking points about it were actually first published in LOOK magazine) and his very weak case hinged on testimony from some absurdly unreliable witnesses.
One of the most dramatic head-slappers in the book, for me, was the revelation of a photo that, in Stone's film, shows Clay Shaw cavorting in drag alongside his gay pals. The actual photo that inspired this bit in the movie is, first of all, nothing like that, (no one is in drag) and secondly, Shaw isn't even in the picture. It's somebody else. It miffs me a bit that Stone engages in unsubtle homophobia to make Shaw look worse. (And Tommy lee Jones performance is pretty insulting, in light of what I learned from Lambert's book.) The historical Shaw was reportedly a staunch democrat, and an ardent fan of John F. Kennedy. He also rubbed elbows with Tenessee Williams and other notables. To the extent that this is true, I really detest what Stone has done to him.
It is certainly possible that my faith in Lambert's reporting is misplaced, but as I said, I found it compelling and recommend it to anyone who holds Garrison in high regard only on the basis of the Kevin Costner character in Stone's movie. I have read a couple of articles defending Garrison and poo-pooing Lambert's book, but I did not find them persuasive. I am sure mileage will vary for others, and of course, I am just as susceptible to persuasion as anyone else.
But, anyway, conspiracy or no (and I am willing to entertain evidence about it),
False Witness has made it impossible for me to watch JFK without getting really angry.
On the whole, I generally like Oliver Stone as a filmmaker, fwiw.