|
Well, on CP's suggestion, I watched JFK again last night. It's one of my favorite films, and well deserving of that status.
Firstly, we don't have to agree with its politics for it to be a great film, but that helps. But it's a virtuoso piece of filmmaking. Of course, I happen to agree with its politics, and I don't find anything in it not backed up by fact and truth.
Sure, I suppose there are other verions of Garrision's story that differ. But this is Garrison's story as told by him. Maybe he's lying. But it's HIS story, and I think he's entitled to tell it the way he wants. Stone's film is based, in large part, on his autobiographical accounts.
As I've also alluded to, but will NEVER delve into on the internet again, my completely non-exhaustive research has led me to less than a handful of contradictions with any of the assassination-related material in the film. In fact, I was amazed at how much veracity was in this picture. Tons of little throw-away details could have been dramatized, but they were presented as actually happened.
(As for whether it's accurate vis-a-vis Clay Shaw, I have no idea ... and will have to defer to flippyshark's verdict of decidedly not.)
In any event, whether you believe in the conspiracy of the assassination or not, whether you believe in the justice of Garrison's quest to prosecute some of those allegedly involved ... it's still a fantastic bit of filmmaking that stands out stylistically and editorially. And it's a moving piece of work.
|