Originally posted by Steve N.
Saying he tried to prosecute people on images from his own fantasies IS a matter of opinion. How do you know? The man was the only one at the time who looked for answers, and Stone correctly chose him as the person we should follow the story of the film with.
Saying he tried to prosecute people on images from his own fantasies IS a matter of opinion. How do you know? The man was the only one at the time who looked for answers, and Stone correctly chose him as the person we should follow the story of the film with.
It appears that your opinion of Garrison is based solely on the movie's presentation of him rather than the way he really was. Does the way he really was not matter? Why not present the truth in a story about truth? If one is going to use fake events, why not use fake people? Why do the people (some of them) have to be real and the facts have to not be real? Why are the names important but the truth not? If facts have no basis in the film, why use any?
You keep saying that facts have no place in the film, then why is it necessary to use Jim Garrison's misguided attack on innocent people? It is a fact that Garrison went after these people? If facts have no place, why use them sometimes and not other times. The movie is not complete fiction, it's just mostly fiction. If facts have no place, why put any of them in at all?