MOVIE/DVD REVIEW -- Oliver Stone's "JFK" (Pert-Near 100% Lies And Distortions All The Way Through)
David VP
THE "PATSY" PLOT IS JUST FLAT-OUT LUDICROUS!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his landmark 1991 film about the assassination of President Kennedy
-- "JFK" -- Oliver Stone has just about everybody east of the Rocky
Mountains involved in one way or another in the elaborate "plot" to
assassinate John Kennedy. This film is a veritable "Melting Pot of
Plots".
A logical question to ask would be: How could so many different people,
agencies, and organizations possibly ALL be involved in such a massive
assassination plot and never have anybody from any of these agencies
leak any information? Such widespread theorizing is utter nonsense,
IMO. I guess Mr. Stone just wanted to touch every possible base, and
throw in the kitchen sink, to boot. :-)
There's a point in the film which has Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) and
his staff, while eating dinner in a restaurant, coming up with
conspiracy theories seemingly out of thin air and off the tops of their
heads. Mr. Garrison seems to be taking assassin Lee Harvey Oswald at
his word when Oswald shouted "I'm just a patsy!" to the waiting press
in the Dallas Police Department hallways. Of course, just exactly WHY
this known liar (Oswald) -- who told one falsehood after another to
both the police and the anxious press at the police station -- would
suddenly be looked upon as a TRUTHFUL person by the conspiracy
theorists, who believe he was telling the truth when he uttered his
famous "Patsy" declaration after his arrest, is a mystery to me. Most
curious indeed.
"JFK", which premiered in U.S. movie theaters on December 20th, 1991,
might very well make some people think twice about what really happened
in Dallas on November 22, 1963. But when weighed against all the
evidence in the case, you soon begin to realize that the film is
designed ONLY to make you think like Oliver Stone WANTS you to think.
And I would also ask those conspiracy theorists who take this movie to
heart to consider the rationale and logic that would have been
exhibited by any "plotters" who were attempting to "frame" their lone
"Patsy" PRIOR to the assassination. Because placing your faith in the
boobs who supposedly cooked up the kind of PRE-assassination
"Let's-Frame-Oswald" plot that is proposed by Mr. Stone in this film is
akin to drawing to an 'Inside Straight'! I'd sooner believe the sun
will rise in the west tomorrow.
In other words -- In order to accept the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald
was the "Patsy" he said he was, and in order to buy into Oliver Stone's
3-Gunmen, 6-Shot "Triangulation of Crossfire" conspiracy theory that is
the central "shooting plot" as depicted in this motion picture, anyone
who accepts this film's proposed shooting scenario as "fact" MUST,
therefore, also be of the opinion that these "conspirators"/"plotters"
had no hesitation whatsoever to green-light and proceed full-tilt with
a "Patsy" plan that would involve the POTENTIAL final results of having
the one and only target (John F. Kennedy) being hit with UP TO SIX
SEPARATE BULLETS fired from the guns of THREE different snipers (one of
which was firing from the front, the exact OPPOSITE direction from
where the ONE "Patsy" was supposedly firing in the Texas School Book
Depository Building, which was located to the REAR of the President's
car).
Even in a 'perfect conspiracy world', how in the heck could these
covert "plotters" possibly have thought (on November 21st, the day
before such a nutty plan would be taking place) that it was a GOOD idea
to utilize three different assassins, who would ALL be drilling JFK's
body (potentially) with many bullets in just a short 6-to-8-second time
period -- with several of these missiles coming from OBVIOUS non-Oswald
(non-"Patsy") locations?
Were these conspirators of the opinion (somehow) that JFK would be
pronounced "dead" right there in the limousine, right there in Dealey
Plaza, and would then be driven IMMEDIATELY to some "Conspiracy Morgue"
someplace where all the wounds that have just been inflicted upon the
President would be "controlled" by the same evil henchmen who conceived
of this plot?
Did the people who dreamed up this impossible-to-pull-off
"Frame-The-Lone-Patsy" plot really NOT consider the possibility of ALL
six shots striking President Kennedy (or all six shots hitting SOMEBODY
in Dealey Plaza)?
Did these plotters just automatically assume that all of the
"frontal-shot" evidence (that would have invariably blown the Patsy
Plot to bits just minutes after the gunfire had ceased in Dealey Plaza)
wouldn't be noticed by ANY Parkland personnel -- and that ZERO of these
many bullets that would be potentially entering the body of John F.
Kennedy (or any other victims who might be accidentally hit) would ALL
simply "get lost" on their own or wouldn't be seen by ANY non-plotters?
Or was it the conspirators' belief that all of these bullets would
immediately be collected by some additional conspirators within the
hospital? Or -- did the plotters just feel it wouldn't make any
difference how many bullets had pelted JFK's body, and that any
'Non-Oswald' bullet wounds would simply be "taken care of" by other
"after-the-shooting" conspirators who were in charge of the "Cover-Up"
operation? Kind of a reckless plan and a very large risk to take --
don't you think?
Plus: Did these clandestine assassins really NOT consider the potential
eyewitness accounts of the literally hundreds of witnesses who were
scattered throughout Dealey Plaza to watch the President pass by? (Many
of them with cameras, who would be photographing the dastardly deed,
potentially acquiring the filmed proof of conspiracy within their still
photos and motion pictures!)
Did the plotters just GET LUCKY when not one single witness saw ANY
assassin other than the killer located in the "Oswald window" in the
Depository? And did they just get lucky that the vast majority of
earwitnesses heard only three shots (the EXACT number that Oswald could
have fired in the allotted assassination timeframe)?
And: Did the conspirators also just "luck out" when very, very few
witnesses (less than 5% total) said that they heard shots coming FROM
MORE THAN ONE DIRECTION? (And the vast majority of these witnesses
heard shots from BEHIND the President's car, from the direction of the
School Book Depository.)
Didn't ANY of these things go through the heads of these
assassination-planning operatives? If these potential "problems" with
their screwball plan didn't enter their brains, these guys weren't
earning their covert dollars, that's for sure.
Shouldn't just a small bit of common sense and practicality have crept
into the minds of these people (whoever they were supposed to be)? And
shouldn't at least one of these plotters have spoken up and said on
11-21-63: "Gee, fellas, this plan seems a little bit loony to me. We're
asking three different killers to all fire rifle bullets at JFK at
virtually an identical point in time and yet also expect ALL of the
trace evidence to, somehow, some way, immediately lead back to Oswald's
window and only Oswald's rifle. Hmmm....maybe we ought to re-think the
probability of this plan succeeding. Ya think?"
But -- Per CTers, I guess nobody on the "JFK Assassination Plot"
payroll made any such logical statement, and, therefore, the
almost-certain-to-collapse plot was allowed to proceed, as planned.
The "Common Sense" truth re. this mess that Oliver Stone purports in
his movie is this --- From a PRE-assassination standpoint, a conspiracy
plan as depicted in this film would have been just plain suicide for
any team of conspirators, and is a plot that only a crazy person would
think of going forward with. Which is the main reason why no such plan
of this nature would have been implemented on 11-22-63; nor would such
a foolish plot have even been considered in the first place, given the
many obvious hazards and complications that such a "Patsy" operation
would have presented.
It's hilariously absurd from every given angle! Hard to believe any
reasonable-thinking person can actually believe such "Oswald Was Merely
A Patsy" nonsense.
A portion of the "hilarity" in it stems from the idea that these
behind-the-scenes plotters (who were supposedly manipulating Oswald
like a puppet on a string) couldn't have cared less about the precise
whereabouts of their one-and-only "Patsy" at the time JFK was being
murdered.
Because, per this movie, Lee Harvey is left free to roam the lower
floors of the Depository building at his leisure (while supposedly
waiting for a telephone call that never came), leaving him free to
inadvertently establish himself a perfect alibi for his location and
movements at exactly 12:30 PM on November 22 (should anyone happen to
see him on the lower floors at 12:30).
A great job by those "Real Killers" at keeping Oswald WHERE THEY NEEDED
HIM, on the 6th Floor, huh? I guess it was just another instance (among
gobs) where the "real killers" simply lucked out that afternoon, by not
having one single person inside the Book Depository get even a brief
glimpse of Lee Oswald on the lower TSBD floors at the time JFK is being
killed outside the building. Will the grand luck of these conspirators
ever run out? Per most CTers....apparently it never has.
I think it's kind of interesting that Director Stone decided not to
accept Robert Groden's complete version of the assassination. In his
book ("The Killing Of A President"), Groden, who served as a technical
adviser on the film "JFK", tells his readers of his conspiracy theory
which involves a MINIMUM of 8 shots (and possibly even more). And,
incredibly, Mr. Groden claims that NONE of these eight bullets likely
came from the Oswald window in the TSBD! ~LOL break~ .... Please note
that even Mr. Stone didn't "buy" that silliness.
But, as far as Oliver Stone's "JFK" filmmaking is concerned, I think
it's quite good. Very authentic-looking 1963-era "re-creations" were
filmed of Dealey Plaza and the motorcade (with an appropriate amount of
old-time "graininess" added to the new imagery), which have been
intercut throughout the movie with actual news clips and amateur film
footage. At times, it is difficult to discern between the re-creations
and actual archival footage (although JFK assassination experts will
have no trouble spying the differences). The editing of this picture is
on a level way above anything else you're likely to see anywhere. And
the John Williams music score is also superb.
I have the 2-Disc Widescreen DVD edition of "JFK: Special Edition
Director's Cut" (in the "Snapper" type case) that was released by
Warner Home Video on February 6, 2001, which does not include the
90-minute "Beyond JFK: The Question Of Conspiracy" documentary that is
available on the newer (2003) 2-Disc SE.
This 2001 edition, though, does sport a beautiful Anamorphic
(16x9-enhanced) DVD transfer (in the wide "scope" aspect ratio of
2.35:1). That fabulous music of John Williams shines brightly, too, via
the disc's rich-sounding Dolby Digital 5.1 audio track. This DVD might
own the record for most "Chapter Breaks", too (88 of 'em)!
The bonus features on this (2001) 2-Disc DVD set aren't really that
much to write home about, IMO. There's an Audio Commentary Track by
Oliver Stone and some "Deleted/Extended Scenes" (which I did enjoy
seeing). But the totality of the extras on this older DVD edition seem
to be a tad on the weak side -- especially the feature on Disc 2 called
"Multimedia Essays", which is pretty much dry as dust, IMHO. (Of
course, I say this as a staunch "LNer" who believes in Lee Oswald's
lone guilt in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murders; so {possibly} that's
part of the reason I fail to see a whole bunch of redeeming qualities
in these conspiracy-slanted "Essays" that are presented here.)
-----------------------------------
Some Closing "JFK" Thoughts & Recommendations..........
I enjoy watching Mr. Stone's "JFK" -- but from the standpoint of
"fictional drama" only; and certainly not from any kind of
"historically accurate" POV at all. The "CT-created drama", along with
the music score and the outstanding editing together of re-constructed
scenes with real 11-22-63 film footage are all things that are
noteworthy in the movie.
But I'll stick with my own (and Vincent Bugliosi's) version of
assassination events (i.e., Oswald was guilty as sin and had no
helpers), rather than take a huge leap off the conspiracy diving board,
where every theory being discussed is as cloudy and murky as the "Badge
Man" image in Mary Moorman's famous Polaroid photograph.
The next time you watch this movie, take notes and count the number of
times where the evidence is presented in anything close to an
"unbiased" manner. At the end of the 3-hour motion picture, you'll
still be left with a blank piece of notepaper.
At the very least, the movie should have a disclaimer crawling along at
the bottom of the screen every ten minutes while watching it. Something
akin to .... "What you are watching is a fictional account of a
true-life event. Handle with care; and with lots of salt."
I'd advise anyone interested in the JFK assassination to seek out (at
any cost) the amazingly-good 1964 documentary "Four Days In November"
(MGM/UA Home Video). It's a 123-minute journey back to November 1963
that is supported by the FACTS and EVIDENCE in the JFK case. It gives a
detailed and thorough chronology of all four days surrounding President
Kennedy's assassination, including Ruby killing Oswald and also a look
at the hard facts supporting Lee Oswald's blatantly-obvious guilt in
the murder of police officer J.D. Tippit.
"Four Days In November" is the antithesis of Oliver Stone's fantasy
film. I'd strongly recommend to everyone that they watch "Four Days"
immediately after watching Stone's film. It's a night-and-day
difference, of course. But at least "Four Days" is based on a little
something that Mr. Stone's "JFK" doesn't get within a country mile of
-- i.e.: The documented and verified facts of the events of November
22, 1963.
So, I'd say -- Watch Oliver Stone's slickly-presented piece of
motion-picture entertainment by all means. But don't forget the salt
shaker. Because it shall be needed.
David Von Pein
June 2005
Ben Holmes
Another repost from last year...
In article <1144972008.4...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth