"Adapting History and Ignoring the Facts: Oliver Stone and JFK"

[Peter Fokes]

Subject header is title of article by Matthew Floratis in SCREENED.

http://www.screened.com/news/adapting-history-and-ignoring-the-facts-oliver-stone-and-jfk/3743/

Subtitle

"Should we accept filmmakers revising history under the guise of
artistic license, or is it on us to tolerate baseless and damaging
films like Oliver Stone’s JFK?"


Peter Fokes,
Toronto

[Humphrey Maltravers]

On May 3, 7:29 pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Subject header is title of article by Matthew Floratis in SCREENED.
>

> http://www.screened.com/news/adapting-history-and-ignoring-the-facts-...

>
> Subtitle
>
> "Should we accept filmmakers revising history under the guise of
> artistic license, or is it on us to tolerate baseless and damaging
> films like Oliver Stone’s JFK?"
>
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto

Thank you for the link to the article, which prompted me to try to assess
my own attitude about movies purporting to depict a historical event. I
guess my attitude could best be characterized as ambivalent. Movies such
as JFK can serve as a catalyst to (a) renew interest in a significant
historical event, and (b) prompt self-initiated research leading to an
individualized conclusion based on given sets of facts, alternate
assessments of the facts, and personal logic. The obverse to my optimistic
view of such movies is that unless they portray an actual true story
without the use of cinematic license, and not a story "based on fact,"
then the movie becomes more like historical fiction. I find this
particularly disturbing because of the pedestrian mentality of many movie
goers. Such movie goers view a movie featuring historical figures and/or
events with which they are superficially aware, and think what they are
viewing is, in deed, fact. They view both "JFK" and "The DaVinci Code"
similarly.

Oh well, I'm just an anemic voice in the wilderness. The entertainment
juggernaut indifferently rolls over anything if might be mean making a a
few million.

[Sandy McCroskey]

JFK and The DaVinci code *should* be viewed similarly.
/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

Ever hear of the JFK Records Act?

> Oh well, I'm just an anemic voice in the wilderness. The entertainment
> juggernaut indifferently rolls over anything if might be mean making a a
> few million.
>

Can tell me which Hollywood movie is 100% accurate with no made up dialogue?

>

[Anthony Marsh]

So, are you agreeing with the author or making fun of him?
It's 2012 and this idiot is ranting about Oliver Stone's JFK?
Wasn't he the same idiot who protested Gone With The Wind?

[Dave Reitzes]

I was one of those who initially fell hook, line and sinker for Stone's
nonsense -- for which I have only myself to blame.

I did manage, eventually, to develop some critical faculties. I've put
together a detailed critique of the movie to try to help genuinely curious
and open-minded individuals avoid some of the pitfalls to which I fell
victim:

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html

Of course, it's only fair to point out that rejecting Stone's fantasies
does not necessarily entail embracing the Warren Commission's conclusions.
Pioneering researcher Harold Weisberg, considered by many to be "the Dean"
of all JFK researchers (and who'd had a ringside seat at Jim Garrison's
circus), had some choice words for Oliver Stone and his movie. "To do a
mishmash like this out of love for the victim and respect for history?"
Weisberg remarked to WASHINGTON POST reporter George Lardner, "I think
people who sell sex have more principle."

Dave

[Research]

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4fa4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

That is exactly right. It was a drama based on historical fact. Now the fact
that it was about the assassination may be the only historical value. But a
drama it was. It was NOT a documentary. Why do the Lners find themselves
debating as if it was? It represents the inadequacy of the failed
investigations. But neither side can be proven without doubt. Eventhough as
people we except whatever theory we find most pleasing to us, individually.

[Research]

"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6a19eb8e-305f-4c58...@c30g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

On May 3, 11:43 pm, Humphrey Maltravers <hmaltrav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 7:29 pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > Subject header is title of article by Matthew Floratis in SCREENED.
>
> >http://www.screened.com/news/adapting-history-and-ignoring-the-facts-...
>
> > Subtitle
>
> > "Should we accept filmmakers revising history under the guise of
> > artistic license, or is it on us to tolerate baseless and damaging

> > films like Oliver Stone?s JFK?"

>
> > Peter Fokes,
> > Toronto
>
> Thank you for the link to the article, which prompted me to try to assess
> my own attitude about movies purporting to depict a historical event. I
> guess my attitude could best be characterized as ambivalent. Movies such
> as JFK can serve as a catalyst to (a) renew interest in a significant
> historical event, and (b) prompt self-initiated research leading to an
> individualized conclusion based on given sets of facts, alternate
> assessments of the facts, and personal logic. The obverse to my optimistic
> view of such movies is that unless they portray an actual true story
> without the use of cinematic license, and not a story "based on fact,"
> then the movie becomes more like historical fiction. I find this
> particularly disturbing because of the pedestrian mentality of many movie
> goers. Such movie goers view a movie featuring historical figures and/or
> events with which they are superficially aware, and think what they are
> viewing is, in deed, fact. They view both "JFK" and "The DaVinci Code"
> similarly.
>
> Oh well, I'm just an anemic voice in the wilderness. The entertainment
> juggernaut indifferently rolls over anything if might be mean making a a
> few million.


I was one of those who initially fell hook, line and sinker for Stone's
nonsense -- for which I have only myself to blame.

DID YOU SIT THERE WITH YOUR CRYING RAG GRIPPED IN YOUR SWEATY PAWS. COME
ON!!! YOU PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE ANYTHING.! FIRST YOU LOVED IT. CAUSE THE
MEDIA TOLD YOU TO AND JUST HOW GREAT IT WAS. NOW YOU HATE IT. BECAUSE THE
MEDIA NOW DISCOUNTS IT. Give me a break!! These LNers always have been
against it. Not because of what the picture is but because what it
represents. It disallows the lone nut theory. Wild and crazy is what you
responded to. Yet it is, but there are some truths. There is nothing in
the movie that researchers weren't saying for years even your presious
Wizeburg. The Da Vinci Code is likewise. When the critics come out you
suddenly hate the very thought of the movie. But these movies are DRAMA.
PEROID. Hey I got some land in "Flordia" for sale? B-)

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/5/2012 2:12 PM, Research wrote:
> "Anthony Marsh"<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4fa4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> On 5/3/2012 11:43 PM, Humphrey Maltravers wrote:
>>> On May 3, 7:29 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>>> Subject header is title of article by Matthew Floratis in SCREENED.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.screened.com/news/adapting-history-and-ignoring-the-facts-...
>>>>
>>>> Subtitle
>>>>
>>>> "Should we accept filmmakers revising history under the guise of
>>>> artistic license, or is it on us to tolerate baseless and damaging

>>>> films like Oliver Stone?s JFK?"

They are so weak minded that's the only way they can find to attack. As
you may not know many Hollywood films use historical events as backdrops
to tell a different story and may need to fictionalize parts of history to
insert their character. For example the film Love Field. I am still
waiting for someone, anyone to point out any Hollywood film which is 100%
accurate.

You may remember that the film Thirteen Days took some liberties with the
facts and made up some dialogue, but they got the gist of it right. But
few WC defenders want to waste their time attacking it when that would
only draw attention to the fact that Kennedy was a hero.

[Sandy McCroskey]

But Oliver Stone made grander claims for his flick, calling himself a
"guerrilla historian" and insisting that it should open the case again.

/sm

[Research]

"Sandy McCroskey" <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4fa5accf$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

This is a wild self-proclaimation. Probably to advance the hype. Other than
public curiousity, it didn't make an impact. I can see where the LNers are
worried something like this would upset the apple cart. Hell, if somebody,
maybe you were to find some real evidence that might prove the WC wrong, it
wouldn't be published. The CIA would step in and shut it down. Crys of
"National Security" would ring out. Which of the right-wing would publish
it? New York Times. The Post? The Delaware? I don't think so.
Maybe the Enquirer or the Globe, but who would believe it? What about This
Week? Or Face the Nation? I saw what they did to Ross P. back in the Bush
days. And they shot themselves in the foot, Clinton rose instead?
Bill O'Reilly reported that the CIA had nine agents inside the studio,
working on the film. They had final script approval on what could be
printed. Is that true? I don't know. But it was broadcasted as fact and none
of the LNers disputed it. The WC defenders are all silent. The right wing
media ignored the very possibility.

What ever happened to freedom of speech? Some of us know it doesn't exist,
except when they are smut peddlers or some heavily financed conglomerate. A
regular citizen can be silenced quiet easily. The committees don't work for
poor people.
But what ever. There is no such thing as democracy. We are a republic of
capitalists. That is where Kennedy went wrong. Thinking he could align
himself with the poor, common man. Innocent until proven guilty, is a farce.
You'll know that when you facing a judge without proof of innocence.

[Research]

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:4fa580ef$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

Isn't that what Stone did? They all do. Even the cter and lner writers and
the documentors. Much like the Time casket story. Both the cters and the
lners qouted the article proving their "theories". I thought Time
magazine. Wow it must be something to that story. So I looked it up. It
was a tiny little article, buried in the back of the magazine. There was
no news and very little facts. But both sides added emphasis as though it
were or did. But it didn't and never did. So much for the truth. They all
bend it to fit.

>For example the film Love Field. I am still waiting for someone, anyone to
>point out any Hollywood film which is 100% accurate.
>
> You may remember that the film Thirteen Days took some liberties with the
> facts and made up some dialogue, but they got the gist of it right. But
> few WC defenders want to waste their time attacking it when that would
> only draw attention to the fact that Kennedy was a hero.
>

The only LNers still contesting the movie is the ones who secretly doubt
their defender position and are worried they are losing ground.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 5/6/12 10:09 AM, Research wrote:
> "Sandy McCroskey"<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:4fa5accf$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> On 5/5/12 2:12 PM, Research wrote:
>>> "Anthony Marsh"<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4fa4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>> On 5/3/2012 11:43 PM, Humphrey Maltravers wrote:
>>>>> On May 3, 7:29 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Subject header is title of article by Matthew Floratis in SCREENED.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.screened.com/news/adapting-history-and-ignoring-the-facts-...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Subtitle
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Should we accept filmmakers revising history under the guise of
>>>>>> artistic license, or is it on us to tolerate baseless and damaging

>>>>>> films like Oliver Stone?s JFK?"

Obviously. Stone was prone to such self-proclamations. Unfortunately, he
sincerely means them.

> Probably to advance the hype. Other than
> public curiousity, it didn't make an impact.

Actually, it did.
The popularity of the film spurred the creation of the President John F.
Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 and the U.S.
Assassination Records Review Board.

You could also ask the CTs here how many of them were brought into the
fold by that film. Some even refer to it in arguments here!

As for me, the debunking of the film led me to re-examine my long-time
assumption that there was something fishy about the conclusion that Lee
Harvey Oswald was the assassin. This assumption had already been weakened
as my political analysis deepened and the mists of Camelot dissipated. I
soon came to the realization that charlatans like Stone were the main
reason so many people thought there had been a conspiracy.

> I can see where the LNers are
> worried something like this would upset the apple cart.

Assumes your premise.

> Hell, if somebody,
> maybe you were to find some real evidence that might prove the WC wrong, it
> wouldn't be published.

So you're saying that by definition none of the stuff the CTs put
forward here is valid evidence that the WC was wrong or the CIA would
never have let it appear.

(I accept the first part of that statement, of course, but the CIA has
nothing to do with it.)

The CIA would step in and shut it down. Crys of
> "National Security" would ring out. Which of the right-wing would publish
> it? New York Times. The Post? The Delaware? I don't think so.
> Maybe the Enquirer or the Globe, but who would believe it? What about This
> Week? Or Face the Nation?

The "right-wing press"? Ha.
The Nation ran some of the first articles questioning the WCR. That was
a long time ago, of course.

I saw what they did to Ross P. back in the Bush
> days. And they shot themselves in the foot, Clinton rose instead?
> Bill O'Reilly reported

"Bill O'Reilly reported"? That's an oxymoron.
And I thought you didn't trust the "right-wing media"?

> that the CIA had nine agents inside the studio,
> working on the film. They had final script approval on what could be
> printed. Is that true? I don't know. But it was broadcasted as fact and none
> of the LNers disputed it. The WC defenders are all silent. The right wing
> media ignored the very possibility.
>
> What ever happened to freedom of speech? Some of us know it doesn't exist,
> except when they are smut peddlers or some heavily financed conglomerate. A
> regular citizen can be silenced quiet easily. The committees don't work for
> poor people.
> But what ever. There is no such thing as democracy. We are a republic of
> capitalists. That is where Kennedy went wrong. Thinking he could align
> himself with the poor, common man.

Exactly how did he try to do that?

/sandy

[Anthony Marsh]

I think the word you are looking for is plutocracy.

[Sandy McCroskey]

oh, you wrote "Face the Nation," not "The Nation." I missed the switch
to non-print media there. Sorry!
/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

Some of us have been researching the JFK assassination since the late
60's. No Oliver Stone movie then, but a great influence was Mark Lane and
also Josiah Thompson. How many conspiracy movies were out before 1970? How
many conspiracy movies were made before 11/25/63?

> As for me, the debunking of the film led me to re-examine my long-time
> assumption that there was something fishy about the conclusion that Lee
> Harvey Oswald was the assassin. This assumption had already been
> weakened as my political analysis deepened and the mists of Camelot
> dissipated. I soon came to the realization that charlatans like Stone
> were the main reason so many people thought there had been a conspiracy.
>

Silly. Ruby being allowed to kill Oswald is why half the country though
there had been a conspiracy. By the end of that weekend over half the
country thought that it was a conspiracy.

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't know how to break this to you, but just because something appears
in a magazine is not proof that it is true. In 1964 TIME wrote articles
about the various conspiracy theories. And included one rumor that there
was a hole in the floor of the limo. If not for that article only a couple
of people would have heard about that rumor by word of mouth.

>> For example the film Love Field. I am still waiting for someone, anyone to
>> point out any Hollywood film which is 100% accurate.
>>
>> You may remember that the film Thirteen Days took some liberties with the
>> facts and made up some dialogue, but they got the gist of it right. But
>> few WC defenders want to waste their time attacking it when that would
>> only draw attention to the fact that Kennedy was a hero.
>>
>
> The only LNers still contesting the movie is the ones who secretly doubt
> their defender position and are worried they are losing ground.
>

Most are Kennedy haters who resent Kennedy being praised.

>
>
>

[Sandy McCroskey]

Yes, obviously I wasn't referring to you, Tony.
But Mark Lane is just as much a fiction writer as Oliver Stone.

>> As for me, the debunking of the film led me to re-examine my long-time
>> assumption that there was something fishy about the conclusion that Lee
>> Harvey Oswald was the assassin. This assumption had already been
>> weakened as my political analysis deepened and the mists of Camelot
>> dissipated. I soon came to the realization that charlatans like Stone
>> were the main reason so many people thought there had been a conspiracy.
>>
>
> Silly. Ruby being allowed to kill Oswald is why half the country though
> there had been a conspiracy.

Sure, anybody would. But then there was an investigation.

By the end of that weekend over half the
> country thought that it was a conspiracy.
>

The Warren Commission was actually widely accepted at the moment it came
out.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

Nonsense. Over half the public did not accept the lone nut conclusion.

[Sandy McCroskey]

http://hnn.us/articles/8059.html
<quote on>
Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 18:59
The Warren Commission Report: 40 Years Later It Still Stands Up
Mel Ayton
Mr. Ayton is the author of The JFK Assassination: Dispelling The Myths
(2002) and Questions of Controversy: The Kennedy Brothers (2001)
Forty years ago this month President Lyndon B. Johnson’s commission to
investigate his predecessor’s assassination published the results of its
ten-month inquiry. The Warren Commission, named after its chairman
,Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, concluded that President
Kennedy had been killed by a lone assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald and there
was no evidence of conspiracy. The findings were accepted by a majority
of the American public. However, a significant minority greeted the
findings with instant skepticism. A public opinion poll immediately
afterwards revealed that only a slight majority, 56 percent, accepted
the Commission's conclusions. And, within a year of the report’s release
two American best-sellers, Mark Lane’s Rush To Judgement and Edward J
Epstein’s Inquest, created enough doubt about the Warren Commission’s
conclusions to persuade a majority of Americans that the president’s
panel had gotten it wrong.
</quote off>

* * * * *

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-11-29/entertainment/ca-61990_1_warren-commission-report
<quote on>
Warren Commission Report Is Proving True
Counterpunch
November 29, 1993|RICHARD M. MOSK | Mosk is a Los Angeles attorney who
served on the staff of the Warren Commission. He was also a member of
the Christopher Commission and a judge on the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal
Historians some day may find the reaction to, and treatment of, the
assassination more interesting than the actual events of Nov. 22, 1963.
The Warren Commission Report was widely accepted shortly after its
release. Thereafter, thousands of books, films and articles came out
espousing various conspiracy theories. Even though it should have been
apparent that writers, book publishers and film companies had an
economic incentive to promote conspiracy theories, these works appear to
have reversed public opinion.
</quote off>


Lastly, your hero, Mark Lane himself has said
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKlaneM.htm
that (only) “almost half of the American people believed” there was a
conspiracy.
<quote on>
More than a decade after the assassination, when I won a lawsuit against
various police and spy organizations in the United States district court
in Washington, D.C., pursuant to the order of the court, I received many
long-suppressed documents.
Among them was a top-secret CIA report. It stated that the CIA was
deeply troubled by my work in questioning the conclusions of the Warren
Report and that polls that had been taken revealed that almost half of
the American people believed as I did.
</quote off>

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

Nonsense. And your point does not refute my point. That's what you always
do. When you can't refute what I say you change the subject and try to
refute something else. But even then you fail.

I already quoted the 2012 article which referenced the Gallup poll in
1963, but since you are not a researcher you have no way to look up the
original poll so I scanned in the story for you from the Dallas Morning
News on Dec. 6, 1963. I scanned it at 400 DPI so that you couldn't
complain that you can't read it and cropped out all the other extraneous
stories to focus on the Gallup story. This is the press release directly
from Gallup himself.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/DMN12_6_63.jpg

[Sandy McCroskey]

Excuse me?

I said that authors pushing conspiracy theories were responsible for the
widespread disbelief in the WCR's conclusions. You referred back to public
opinion immediately after the assassination, well before the WCR came out,
saying, "Ruby being allowed to kill Oswald is why half the country though

there had been a conspiracy."

They had every right to, but then, as I said, there was an investigation.
I repeat, the WCR was widely accepted immediately upon its release. In
another post, I point out that even your hero Mark Lane has said that it
was a (slight) majority of the American people who accepted the WCR before
he started spreading his tales.

> I already quoted the 2012 article which referenced the Gallup poll in
> 1963,

(1963. What for?)

> but since you are not a researcher you have no way to look up the
> original poll so I scanned in the story for you from the Dallas Morning
> News on Dec. 6, 1963. I scanned it at 400 DPI so that you couldn't
> complain that you can't read it and cropped out all the other extraneous
> stories to focus on the Gallup story. This is the press release directly
> from Gallup himself.
>
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/DMN12_6_63.jpg
>

A poll from 1963 is irrelevant to my original point. Read the reply again
in which, when you brought it up, I implicitly *agreed* with you that
after Ruby killed Oswald, most people suspected conspiracy.

To repeat.
Nearly everyone suspected a conspiracy at that point.

But then there was an investigation.

(And then, unfortunately, then there was Mark Lane et al.)

/sm