Essay, Research Paper
this is my existent study
Oliver & # 8217 ; s Stone & # 8217 ; s & # 8220 ; JFK & # 8221 ; builds up an overpowering caput of urgency that all comes hotfooting out at the terminal of the movie, in a acrobatics, angry, about hapless soliloquy & # 8211 ; the whole obsessional weight of Jim Garrison & # 8217 ; s strong belief that there was a confederacy to assassinate John F. Kennedy. With the words come images, faces, names, bits of duologue, flashbacks to the grounds, all marshaled to back up his decision that the slaying of JFK was non the work of one adult male.
Well, do you cognize anyone who believes Lee Harvey Oswald acted all by himself in killing Kennedy? I don & # 8217 ; t. I & # 8217 ; ve been reading the books and articles for the last 25 old ages, and I & # 8217 ; ve non found a individual convincing defence of the Warren Commission study, which arrived at that reassuring decision. It & # 8217 ; s impossible to believe the Warren study because the physical grounds makes its cardinal decision impossible: One adult male with one rifle could non physically have caused what happened on Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas. If one adult male could non hold, so there must hold been two. Therefore, there was a confederacy.
Oliver Stone & # 8217 ; s new film & # 8220 ; JFK & # 8221 ; has been attacked, in the hebdomads before its release, by those who believe Stone has backed the incorrect Equus caballus in the Kennedy blackwash sweepstakes & # 8211 ; by those who believe the hero of this movie, former New Orleans territory lawyer Jim Garrison, was a loose cannon who attracted crank confederacy theories the manner a Canis familiaris draws fleas.
The of import point to do about & # 8220 ; JFK & # 8221 ; is that Stone does non subscribe to all of Garrison & # 8217 ; s theories, and so rewrites history to provide his Garrison character with stuff he could non hold possessed at the clip of these events. He uses Garrison as the symbolic centre of his movie because Garrison, in all the United States in all the old ages since 1963, is the lone adult male who has attempted to convey anyone into tribunal in connexion with the fishiest political slaying of our clip.
Stone & # 8217 ; s movie is hypnotically watchable. Leaving aside all of its play and emotion, it is a chef-d’oeuvre of movie assembly. The authorship, the redaction, the music, the picture taking, are all used here in a movie of tremendous complexness, to weave a persuasive tapestry out of an overpowering mountain of grounds and testimony. Film pupils will analyze this movie in admiration in the old ages to come, astonished at how much information it contains, how many characters, how many engagement flashbacks, what adept interweaving of documental and fictional footage. The movie hurtles for 188 proceedingss through a sea of information and speculation, and ne’er hesitations and ne’er confuses us.
That is non to state that we are quite certain, when it is over and we try to retrace the experience in our heads, precisely what Stone & # 8217 ; s decisions are. & # 8220 ; JFK & # 8221 ; does non uncloak the secrets of the Kennedy blackwash. Alternatively, it uses the Garrison character as a searcher for truth who finds that the slaying could non hold happened harmonizing to the official version. Could non. Those bleached and shaky images we are all so familiar with, the place film Abraham Zapruder took of the shot of Kennedy, have made it everlastingly clear that the Oswald theory is impossible & # 8211 ; and that at least one of the shootings must hold come from in forepart of Kennedy, non from the Texas Schoolbook Depository behind him.
Expression at me, italicising the word & # 8220 ; must. & # 8221 ; The movie stirs up that sort of urgency and choler. The CIA and FBI studies on the Kennedy blackwash are sealed until after
most of us will be long dead, and for what ground? Why can’t we read the information our authorities gathered for us on the decease of our president? If Garrison’s probe was so pathetic – and so it was flawed, underfunded and sabotaged – so where are the better probes by Stone’s aggressors? A U.S. Senate select commission found in 1979 that Kennedy’s blackwash was likely a confederacy. Why, 12 old ages subsequently, has the instance non been reopened?
Stone & # 8217 ; s movie shows, through documental footage and Reconstruction, most of the cardinal elements of those 1963 events. The shot. The flight of Air Force One to Washington. Jack Ruby & # 8217 ; s slaying of Oswald. And it shows Garrison, in New Orleans, watching the same Television studies we watched, and so faltering, hesitatingly at first, into a mire of grounds proposing that assorted periphery groups in New Orleans, pro and anti-Castro, may hold someway been mixed up the with CIA and assorted self-appointed soldiers of luck in a confederacy to kill JFK.
His probe leads him to Clay Shaw, respected man of affairs, who is linked by assorted informants with Lee Harvey Oswald and other possible plotters. Some of those informants die suspiciously. Eventually Garrison is able to convey Shaw to test, and although he loses his instance, there is the strong belief that he was onto something. He feels Shaw perjured himself, and in 1979, five old ages after Shaw & # 8217 ; s decease and 10 old ages after the test, Richard Helms of the CIA admits that Shaw, despite his pledged denials, was so an employee of the CIA.
Most people today, I imagine, think of Garrison as an irresponsible, publicity-seeking fire-eater who destroyed the repute of an guiltless adult male. Few know Shaw perjured himself. Stone surely gives Garrison a greater step of credibleness than he has had for old ages, but the point is non whether Garrison & # 8217 ; s theories are right or incorrect & # 8211 ; what the movie supports is merely his seeking for a greater truth.
As Garrison, Kevin Costner gives a measured yet passionate public presentation. Like a adult male who has clasp of an thought he can non allow travel, he forges in front, take a firm standing that there is more to the blackwash than meets the oculus. Stone has surrounded him with an amazing dramatis personae, able to give us the eldritch feeling that we are seeing historical figures. There is Joe Pesci, writhing and hyperkenetic as David Ferrie, the alleged pickup pilot. Tommy Lee Jones as Clay Shaw, concealing behind an impenetrable wall of bewilderment. Gary Oldman as Lee Harvey Oswald. Donald Sutherland as & # 8220 ; X & # 8221 ; ( really Fletcher Prouty ) , the high-placed Pentagon functionary who thinks he knows why JFK was killed. Sissy Spacek, in the slightly ungrateful function of Garrison & # 8217 ; s married woman, who fears for her household and matrimony. And tonss of others, including Jack Lemmon, Ed Asner, Walter Matthau and Kevin Bacon in little, cardinal functions, their faces mistily familiar behind the frontages of their characters.
Rock and his editors, Joe Hutshing and Pietro Scalia, have somehow triumphed over the uproar of stuff here and made it work & # 8211 ; made it clasp and upset us. The accomplishment of the movie is non that it answers the enigma of the Kennedy blackwash, because it does non, or even that it vindicates Garrison, who is seen here as a adult male frequently whistling in the dark. Its accomplishment is that it tries to marshal the choler which of all time since 1963 has been gnawing off on some dark shelf of the national mind. John F. Kennedy was murdered. Lee Harvey Oswald could non hold acted entirely. Who acted with him? Who knew?
344
