Oliver Stones JFK - Insights in 20th-Century America - Essay Example

Oliver Stone’s JFK: Insights into 20th Century America Oliver Stone’s 1991 film JFK, loosely based on the books On the Trail of the Assassins by Jim Garrison and Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy by Jim Marrs (Reitzes, n.d.), is ostensibly an attempt to explore the various theories regarding what happened the day President John F. Kennedy was assassinated at Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas in November of 1963. Beginning with a video montage set to impressive military music and capitalizing on the use of television footage in its own aspect ratio, leaving ample empty space on the screen, the movie details the only criminal case in the country that charged anyone with conspiracy in the death of the president or called into question the results of the Warren Commission. At the same time, it takes a look into the personal life of Garrison as he dealt with both internal and external pressures in bringing this case to trial. With the depth of the movie’s explorations, it is possible to deduct some of the more important socio-political movements of the time period in which it is set. Because of the way in which he goes about detailing the development of various theories as to what happened that afternoon in Texas, Stone’s interpretation makes it clear in a very public way that at the least, the Warren Commission could not have been correct in its findings when it ruled a lone gunman achieved the death of a president. Up to the release of the movie, Americans were falling asleep regarding the details behind the assassination, but with its release, they once again asked the questions that had remained unanswered since the House Select Committee on Assassination Report was released in 1979 (Renner, n.d.). This public reaction eventually led to the release in 1994 of some documents associated with the Warren Commission’s report. Oliver Stone’s JFK is valuable in the study of 20th century America because it re-examines a nation-changing event, asking the questions that had been almost forgotten and never answered. Despite his insistence that he is not trying to portray a historically factual documentary regarding the assassination, Stone utilizes several real-life players in depicting his version of events. Key among these is President Kennedy himself. By refusing to recast the president, Stone not only proves his talent as a director working with limited available footage, he provides a sense of reality into the story. When he uses the Zapruder film, Stone is able to inject a somber mood of reflection as audiences realize this is the actual event and not a staged recreation. The man in the picture really ends up dead when the camera stops rolling. Another significant cameo appearance is that of Jim Garrison himself as the Honorable Chief Justice Earl Warren. By placing him in this role, Stone adds an ironic twist to the story, yet also suggests that anyone placed in the real life role may have been obligated to come to the same conclusions the Warren Commission delivered. The film’s technical consultant Robert Groden appeared several times in the film, first as a doctor trying to resuscitate the president at Parkland Hospital and later as the court’s projectionist (Reitzes, n.d.). Through these roles, Stone, who believes in the subtlety of film as shown in his use of subliminal messages, perhaps is suggesting that he has his own eyes and ears in the most significant aspects of the story (Hughes, 2001). Real life assassination witness Jean Hill also appeared in the film as the stenographer taking down Hill’s real life statement. Again, the underlying message is that of authenticity – Hill wouldn’t change her own statements or misrepresent what she said herself. Layton Martens, a friend of David Ferrie who had been staying at Ferrie’s house at the time of the assassination, appears as one of the silent FBI officials in the scene in which Ferrie is released from custody as a suspect (Reitzes, n.d.). For those who recognize the man and his connection to the story, this could be seen as an indication that Ferrie was released by his friends and protected by organizations higher up than anyone at the time realized. When the film was released to the American public, it had the desired effect of calling attention to the blatant fallacy of the Warren Commission report even if it didn’t quite prove the preferred theory presented. Commentary at the time was centered around the creative liberties Stone took with the story, as well as the omissions of key players in Shaw’s defense case. According to Murray Rothbard (1992), the national magazines Time and Newsweek had already released articles debunking the film before it hit the big screen. Critics everywhere vilified it for inaccuracies as well, indicating the story should have stuck completely to what could be proven rather than venture off into often un-discussed theories regarding the truth behind what happened (Smith, 1992). This is because, despite what the critics might say or whatever inaccuracies might have been involved, the movie served to point out not just one, but several of the theories that have been circulating in American society since the event. “What Stone does is to summarize admirably the best of a veritable industry of assassination revisionism – of literally scores of books, articles, tapes, annual conventions, and archival research” (Rothbard, 1992). It is through these books and other materials that the majority of the American public, although they might not have discussed it much, generally believed the Warren Commission report to be false, but that the truth was unobtainable. By suggesting more than once that people should make up their own minds and suggesting that the only reason to hide information is if there is reason to keep it silent, the film served to incite public reaction toward getting more of the records in Washington released. The government was forced, thanks to public outcry, to form the Assassination Records Review Board in 1992 as the result of a bill signed into law by then President Bill Clinton (Wikipedia, 2006). This review board worked to sort through the information that was on file to determine what, if anything, should be released to the public in response to this demand. They also worked to collect available information from the public while it was still possible to obtain it. Interviews of witnesses were collected sometimes from people who had never been interviewed before and the government actually purchased the Zapruder film to make it a part of the national archives. The board finished its work by 1998, releasing some, but not all, of the available information to the public. It is written in the laws of the Assassination Records Review Board that the remaining information will be released to the public by 2017 (Wikipedia, 2006). In terms of producing evidence to support a single conspiracy theory, Oliver Stone was unsuccessful in the film JFK, but in terms of producing an emotionally impacting film that called into question the results of the Warren Commission and inciting public reaction, Stone’s film is brilliant. Through the use of subtle techniques such as variety of film types, mixing of black and white and color film, limited color usage, the use of original footage with produced images and, to some extent, subliminal messages, Stone reaches out to the emotions of his audience through his portrayal of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison as he pursued his investigation of Clay Shaw, both from a professional viewpoint as well as the effects this investigation had on his personal family. By doing so, he was able to incite public reaction to effect change, namely the formation of the ARRB in 1992 and the subsequent release of information that had previously been unavailable, either through government order or because people had not yet been interviewed regarding what they saw that day in Dealey Plaza. Works Cited Hughes, Meirion. Subliminal JFK. Power of the Mind Magazine. (January 20, 2001). February 22, 2007 Reitzes, David. “Through the Looking Glass: The Cameos – Layton Martens.” Oliver Stone’s JFK. (n.d.). February 22, 2007 < http://www.jfk-online.com/jfkcameomartens.html> Renner, S. “From the Streets of Dallas: The Absent Center of Oliver Stone’s JFK.” (n.d.). February 22, 2007 . Rothbard, Murray. “The JFK Flap.” The Irrepressible Rothbard. Ed. Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. (May, 1992). February 22, 2007 Smith, S. “Why They Hate Oliver Stone.” Progressive Review. (February 1992). Washington. February 22, 2007 . Stone, Oliver. JFK [motion picture]. United States: Warner Home Video, 1991. Wikipedia contributors. “JFK (film).” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. (2006). February 22, 2007 Read More