Who has seen the JFK movie?

by Tammie 10 Replies latest social entertainment

  • Tammie

    I watched it for the very first time on cable a couple nights ago. I had not seen it up till this point because before I really was not intrested. That was until I had talked with one of the techinal advisers of this movie.

    I watched it when it came on very late, and after the children were asleep. Towards the end of this movie I was very glad I did, because there were some very graphic seens in the film. They showed pictures of JFK after he had been shot. And even showed footages, one I had never seen, that was of him being shot. For any who has already seen this movie, were those actual photos?

    After seeing this movie, I really wished I had not. Was not expecting to see that much detail. |I:x

  • shamus

    I saw it.

    Trust me. It's all B.S.

    The movie is good, though completely fictional.

  • Big Tex
    Big Tex

    The autopsy photos were real. The footage of the motorcade where Kennedy was shown being shot was from the 16mm film shot by Abraham Zapruder.

    The problem with the film is Stone played fast and loose with certain facts in the case (mainly dealing with Jim Garrison, but also certain other facts as well) and that hurt his credibility when he raised legitimate questions surrounding the case. He was more interested in making a film rather than staying true to reality.

    However, there were (and still are) many questions surrounding Oswald, the number of shots actually fired that day, who actually did the shooting, was there anyone behind the "grassy knoll", etc. The film was at its best when it dealt with those questions. Where it weakened was when it ventured off into the New Orleans angle and all the ancillary and extraneous details.

    I don't know if there was a conspiracy before the murder, but the investigation afterward was at best poor and at worst, could be viewed as a cover-up.

    If you're interested in the subject, A&E ran a 5 part special called "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", and while I don't agree with everything they put forward, it stays true to the facts and raises some interesting questions.

  • teejay

    I agree with you, Big Tex.

    JFK was a good movie that diminished its value when it tried to make some (mostly unnecessary) connection with goings-on in New Orleans and Jim Garrison, a man who will go down as nothing more than a footnote to history. I think Stone used him as a literary device in order to walk the audience through the discovery of facts that pointed to a conspiracy to commit assassination.

    I'm a skeptic by nature and for the most part the movie resonated for me. I never believed the Warren Commission's "findings." The ability of the U.S. government to delude and out-right lie to the American public shouldn't be lost on anyone.

  • Big Tex
    Big Tex

    Agreed teejay. See that's the thing that troubles me most about the whole thing was the Warren Commission. I remember reading once the problem they had was that there were 4 shots that they knew for a fact were fired. One hit Kennedy in the back. One pierced his throat and then hit Connally. One missed and hit the curb. And the last one hit Kennedy in the head. But the FBI told them that it was impossible for anyone to have gotten off 4 shots with the rifle they said was used in the time allotted. The Zapruder film created a definitive clock, so there was no way they could fudge on the time factor. There was also a mark on the curb for everyone to see, so they couldn't erase that shot.

    And so the Magic Bullet was created. A bullet the Warren Commission said hit Kennedy in the back, traveled up to his throat, exited and hit Connally. What troubles me most is why would the Warren Commission change facts? They clearly wanted Oswald to be the lone assasin, but why not let the evidence lead you instead of forcing it to fit a preconceived idea?

    Like I say, I'm not certain about before the assasination, although I have several questions, but afterwards I do not believe the government's explanations. There are just too many questions and too many holes in their story.

  • teejay

    I remember reading once the problem they had was that there were 4 shots that they knew for a fact were fired... the FBI told them that it was impossible for anyone to have gotten off 4 shots with the rifle they said was used in the time allotted.

    Big Tex,

    I agree with you. truth-seekers let the facts lead them to the answer rather than starting with the answer and then forcing all the evidence into the explanation of what occurred. Once the (planted?) rifle was found, it came to be at the center of all their "analysis" and every other piece of evidence was either fitted in or discarded as being somehow false.

    The Kennedy assassination happened at a time when people were far more trusting (gullible) and, as you know, pulling the wool over trusting eyes isn't all that difficult. I will never believe that Oswald had anything to do with the actual murder of President Kennedy. Too many of the official explanation never rang true for me.

    Interestingly, one of the physicians that tended to Kennedy that day at Parkland wrote a book of his experience. Among other things he said:

    I have no idea who shot President Kennedy or why. What I do know is that somehow and for some reason, there was a medical cover-up. The “official” autopsy photos do not depict the same wounds I saw in Trauma Room One at Parkland. The wounds I saw were wounds of entrance, and thus they could have not come from the rifle of Lee Harvey Oswald.
  • TresHappy

    I saw this movie too. Raised some interesting questions. Visited the 6th Floor Museum in Dallas years ago and the visit answered some questions. I didn't know that Lee Harvey Oswald had taken a long package to work with him that day. He told his friend they were curtain rods or something like that. There are too many unanswered questions about this. LHO was a flake and I think he did it. Whether he had help, we'll never know.

  • Big Tex
    Big Tex

    Did you ever read the book, "Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy," by Jim Maars? I don't buy everything he had to say, but he asked some very good questions. And he broke down the problems in the case very well. Oliver Stone said he used this book for the basis of his movie, but I think he left the best part of this book on the cutting room floor.

  • teejay

    No, I haven't read Jim Maars' book (but I've read a couple others and seen tons of documentaries).

    You've got me curious: what was the best part of Maars' book that Stone didn't add to his movie?

  • Big Tex
    Big Tex

    Maars was at his best when he was exploring Oswald's history and what led him up to November 22 (he first worked in intelligence while in the Marines). Oswald was a strange character and there are so many tantalizing clues about who, or what, he was. For example while stationed in Japan, he was treated for gonorrhea "In line of duty, not due to own misconduct" (quoted from his military record). Maars makes a pretty good case that he did not fire any gun that day. (Dallas police tested his cheek with paraffin which showed he had not fired a rifle.)

    But Maars makes it clear he was anything but a lone nut. He also goes pretty deep into the Mafia questions, such as Ruby's unexplained increase in long distance phone calls (from mobsters) just before the assasination. He also points out that the mob helped give Kennedy votes in Chicago in 1960, which gave him Illinois in the Electoral College, which is what defeated Nixon. Without that he would have lost. But Kennedy attacked the Mafia during his administration and they were furious at him. Kennedy also shared a mistress (Judith Exner) with Sam Giancana arguably the most powerful Mafia figure at the time.

    I also thought Maars' examination of the Warren Commission was really interesting. For example, Ruby asked to see Gerald Ford and Justice Warren but they had to bring him to Washington. He told them he couldn't tell them everything because he wasn't safe in Dallas. They didn't bring him to Washington, and instead went to his cell and talked for some time with him. There is no record of that conversation. Ruby was dead (from cancer) just a few months later.

    I guess what I meant about not using the best part of Maars' book is that Stone wasted so much film time on New Orleans, although all stuff on David Ferry was interesting and true, to the exclusion of real legimate clues and questions. I know he wasn't making a documentary but a little less hysterical hype and a lot less overacting by Costner and more exaination of the clues would have been nice.

Share this