What do you think of the movie JFK (1991)?

Tools    





I have to see this again but I do remember John Candy not having a big enough role and really wanting to see him go more serious mainstream at that time. He never did and I'm still broken up inside about his early death.
I miss John Candy, too.
It was always a pleasure watching him in any movie he was in. His part in JFK was scene-stealing.
__________________
“Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are, it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!” ~ Rocky Balboa



I don't actually wear pants.
As for what is made up and what is factual about JFK's assassination, how are we to know for sure what is really made up or factual, unless you truly believe that Lee Harvey Oswald single-handedly killed the president, which seems bogus to me.
That's the conundrum, really. We don't know now, and I doubt we ever will. We can just speculate, which is what JFK is; speculation. Could it have happened like that? Certainly. Did it happen like that? Well, we aren't sure, but there is almost no way of telling.
__________________
Thanks again, Mr Portridge.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
I guess but it feels like Stone was making a propaganda film, since he made a lot up, and how are we suppose to take what he is trying to do seriously and takes his points seriously, if it's all propaganda?

I mean if he would have put a subtitle at the end saying that it was fiction and mean to be nothing more than entertainment and that the movie should reflect any real life views or feelings of any of the events, than wouldn't that have been more appropriate?



I guess but it feels like Stone was making a propaganda film, since he made a lot up, and how are we suppose to take what he is trying to do seriously and takes his points seriously, if it's all propaganda?
Even before JFK was released it was trashed by The Washington Post, Time, The Chicago Tribune and especially The Times-Picayune (of New Orleans) who saw the Shaw trial as a smear campaign that ruined a man's reputation and career. Rosemary James, who covered the Shaw trial for The Times Picayune, said about Stone: "Now here comes a gullible from La-La Land . . . who wants to regurgitate all of that garbage." So it was not taken too seriously from a lot of publications from the start.

I think you can enjoy JFK for what it is: a movie. Every movie (especially documentaries) based on a true story takes sides, slants truths, and has an opinion.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
I see what you mean about true stories having made up parts to take sides, but I feel the difference here though, is that I do not understand what the opinion is suppose to be, or how it important? For example, other movies based on true events that I like such as Schindler's List and The Battle of Algiers, make things up but they both have important things to say in the end. What is JFK trying to say that is so important?



... What is JFK trying to say that is so important?
Only Oliver Stone could say for sure. It could be a number of things.

Perhaps he believes what he put on the screen to be truth.

Or perhaps he knew the bolder the speculation the more attention his film would get and the more money he would make.

If you're interested in JFK assassination, I just watched three really good documentaries on it.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Okay thanks. It just seems like a strange point to make to the audience, if the point is not real though. I mean it's like making a movie where the director tries to convince the audience that the Earth is flat, when we all know it to be round and there is not way for the director to make a solid rebuttal about it. What's the point...



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
I was actually researching the movie vs. facts, and how some websites do comparisons. But most sites concentrate a lot on the Dealy Plaza shooting, and not so much on other parts that the movie raises. For example, in the movie, they imply that Bell Helicopter is part of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy cause they want to sell helicopters to make money, and Vietnam is the best opportunity to sell them.

In one of the flashbacks Lee Oswald meets someone who works for Bell Helicopter at a party, thus implying Bell had a hand in it. However, did this really happen and Oswald actually met someone from Bell, or was this completely made up?

They also said that the mayor of Dallas who changed the parade route is the brother of one of the CIA men that Kennedy fired. Is this true?



I enjoyed the film very much, and believe it to be quite an accomplishment in film making. Audiences did not imagine that they were viewing a completely accurate documentary of the JFK conspiracy and assassination, but a cinematic dramatization. Stone himself described his film as a rebuttal to the Warren Commission Report (which was one of the greatest cover-ups in American history): "To fight a great myth with a counter-myth."

The screen play was based upon Garrison's On the Trail of the Assassins, and Jim Marr's Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy, a highly regarded book in the JFK assassination researcher community.

I had the seen the film when it was released, and enjoyed it as a good movie: great cast, wonderful cinematography and editing. But since that time I've read a dozen or so of the best researched books I could find on the subject, and I continue to read and be fascinating by the events. When I saw the film again a few years ago, I was surprised that much of the material was accurate, based upon what I'd read. But there again, Stone's picture was written for maximum dramatic effect.

A reasonable similarity might be drawn to Stone's film Snowden, in comparison to Laura Poitras' Citizenfour. Stone's movie was a dramatization of incidents and circumstances derived from interviews with Mr. Snowden and other sources; whereas Poitras' piece was the real deal, from the horse's mouth. Likewise Stone benefited from many hours of interviews with D.A. Jim Garrison.

A fact that amazes me is that Garrison's investigation --which was continuously hampered and blocked by the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and other governmental sources-- and the indictment of Clay Shaw was the singular instance of anyone being brought to trial in all the mammoth and myriad investigations during the entire 54 years since the assassination.

The various assassination commissions were embarrassing farces; the C.I.A. was involved in the planning and execution of the plot; there were 2, probably 3 gunmen assassins (and Oswald was likely not one of them). If these facts were brought out in JFK, then Stone has done the American public a big service, because the government will never, ever release the full C.I.A records. They simply cannot.

I was 19 years old when JFK was gunned down. It was a horrendous national shock and grief that this country has not experienced since that time. Keep in mind, there was no internet, no cell phones. We relied on 3 or 4 TV channels, and newspapers that were no more credible then than they are now. It took many weeks to get the full report of what allegedly happened. But even then we suspected that we were being lied to. And by the time the Warren Commission report was released, few believed in their conclusions.

So it's frustrating that one of the great criminal tragedies of modern times will never have a conclusion or a resolution. But Stone's JFK did not harm those efforts.

~Doc



You can't win an argument just by being right!
You give great reviews, doc



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Okay thanks, I guess. I just wonder why so many people love JFK, but dismiss other propaganda films for being propaganda, like The Birth of a Nation (1915), and Triumph of the Will (1935). Why does JFK get a free pass, yet so many people hate those movies for on the basis of them being propaganda films:?



... It seems that 95% of it is made up, ...
i have zero idea where you get this from. The film is based on Jim Marrs' book Crossfire which is probably the best and most heavily sourced document on the subject. Jim was an absolutely tireless journalist and was actually a cub reporter covering the assassination out of Dallas. Every statement he made was researched and documented.

If you have an interest in the case you might try reading that book.

Also, Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement film is a strong influence all the way down to almost quoting verbatim
testimony.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Well it's just what a lot of people say, that the movie is totally made up and therefore, what's the point of trying to convince the audience of a conspiracy if there is not enough theory to hold it together? Or if there is enough, then why cannot I not find if several of the movie's points are true or not like for example, in the movie, they imply that Bell Helicopter is part of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy cause they want to sell helicopters to make money, and Vietnam is the best opportunity to sell them.

In one of the flashbacks Lee Oswald meets someone who works for Bell Helicopter at a party, thus implying Bell had a hand in it. However, did this really happen and Oswald actually met someone from Bell, or was this completely made up?

They also said that the mayor of Dallas who changed the parade route is the brother of one of the CIA men that Kennedy fired. Is this true?



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
Well it's just what a lot of people say, that the movie is totally made up and therefore, what's the point of trying to convince the audience of a conspiracy if there is not enough theory to hold it together? Or if there is enough, then why cannot I not find if several of the movie's points are true or not like for example, in the movie, they imply that Bell Helicopter is part of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy cause they want to sell helicopters to make money, and Vietnam is the best opportunity to sell them.

In one of the flashbacks Lee Oswald meets someone who works for Bell Helicopter at a party, thus implying Bell had a hand in it. However, did this really happen and Oswald actually met someone from Bell, or was this completely made up?

They also said that the mayor of Dallas who changed the parade route is the brother of one of the CIA men that Kennedy fired. Is this true?
And who told the President's detail to stand down in Ft. Hood? Many of the secret service men said they were drinking heavily the night before, which I guess is "normal", but with very little sleep..

Who made sure there was no autopsy (corpus delecti)... Who made sure there was not a single word of transcript.

I think it's the first time a VP's car was not behind the President's. I think LBJ was an accessory AFTER the fact, but I don't have any proof, however, I believe Goodwin said LBJ always suspected possibly government involvement..



The most productive thing that Garrison's investigation did was protect Garrison from being prosecuted on fraud charges from his time in the Louisiana National Guard.
Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	Garrison - FBI.jpg
Views:	71
Size:	64.9 KB
ID:	35658   Click image for larger version

Name:	Garrison - FBI 2.jpg
Views:	66
Size:	100.7 KB
ID:	35659   Click image for larger version

Name:	Garrison Fraud.jpg
Views:	64
Size:	128.7 KB
ID:	35660   Click image for larger version

Name:	Garrison Fraud 2.jpg
Views:	69
Size:	115.3 KB
ID:	35661   Click image for larger version

Name:	Kohn - Garrison Fraud.jpg
Views:	64
Size:	55.3 KB
ID:	35662  




Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Okay thanks. I was trying to find out what was true and not true, but aside from the actual shooting itself, not a lot of people discuss other parts of the movie and compare it to reality.

For example, there is a part in the movie where Garrison talks about how the CIA man (can't remember his name) that JFK fired, is the brother of the mayor or Dallas, and Garrison implies that the mayor changed the parade route on purpose in order to bring Kennedy to Oswald, for the assassination, and thus implying that the mayor was on it, or had a revenge motive to help avenge his brother.

Was this part true? Also I read that Mr. X was Fletcher Prouty unless that's not true.



I have to see this again but I do remember John Candy not having a big enough role and really wanting to see him go more serious mainstream at that time. He never did and I'm still broken up inside about his early death.
On a side note, planes trains and automobiles along with uncle buck are my favorite john candy films



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
Okay thanks. I was trying to find out what was true and not true, but aside from the actual shooting itself, not a lot of people discuss other parts of the movie and compare it to reality.

For example, there is a part in the movie where Garrison talks about how the CIA man (can't remember his name) that JFK fired, is the brother of the mayor or Dallas, and Garrison implies that the mayor changed the parade route on purpose in order to bring Kennedy to Oswald, for the assassination, and thus implying that the mayor was on it, or had a revenge motive to help avenge his brother.

Was this part true? Also I read that Mr. X was Fletcher Prouty unless that's not true.
Yes, Mr. X is L. Fletcher Prouty