Literary HackJFK: Always Fascinating
May 3rd 2010 00:08
Oliver Stone's JFK has always been on my "for some reason I never saw that movie and I probably will never get around to it" list. That is until a couple of weeks ago when I was searching through countless movies trying to find something to interest me. I looked and looked and looked some more. I wanted a movie that kept me interested. Not non-stop action interested. I had just watched several of those and I wasn't ready to deal with another two hours of intensity. I was looking at thrillers when I passed a documentary. I looked around the documentaries to see if anything interested me, but nothing. I scrolled over YJFK and figured it might overlap onto both of those genres and figured if it wasn't any good I could just pass out while it was on.
I don't know what I was thinking. Of course it was interesting. It was about John F. Kennedy's assassination! Before 9/11 it was hands down the biggest conspiracy theory in American History. I'm not sure there's even a way to make this story dull.
Not to say that Oliver Stone didn't do a great job in creating his own vision of the transgressions, but I was far more rapped up in the story and determining which parts were true, which were parts were popular conspiracy theories, and which parts were from Stone's wild imagination.
As soon as the movie was over, I went online to do some research about both the movie and the real assassination. I couldn't believe how negative the reviews of the movie were back when it came out.
While the movie slowly became popular with time, and now is considered to be well received by the general public, the movie received scathing criticism by many. Stone was vilified by many critics on national publications such as the Chicago Tribune, New York Times, and the Washington Post.
The general consensus seemed to be that Stone crossed a line by accusing the U.S. government of not only covering up JFK's assassination, but also that it had played a part in the killing. Stone also drew the ire of some for twisting the real case tried by Garrison. Eventually Stone hired a PR firm solely for the purpose of saving the movie from becoming a box office disaster.
All of this criticism surprised me. One, I thought Stone made it very clear that he was taking liberties of already known conspiracy theories of the President's assassination and adding his own ideas as well. Two, I thought it was known that the movie was not a documentary, but rather a director's version of what happened that November day. Three, and this is perhaps the biggest reason, the general public is well aware the events that took place on November 21, 1963 aren't known for certain. What is known for certain is the version that was fed to the people certainly isn't "the truth and nothing but the truth".
I don't know what I was thinking. Of course it was interesting. It was about John F. Kennedy's assassination! Before 9/11 it was hands down the biggest conspiracy theory in American History. I'm not sure there's even a way to make this story dull.
Not to say that Oliver Stone didn't do a great job in creating his own vision of the transgressions, but I was far more rapped up in the story and determining which parts were true, which were parts were popular conspiracy theories, and which parts were from Stone's wild imagination.
Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison
As soon as the movie was over, I went online to do some research about both the movie and the real assassination. I couldn't believe how negative the reviews of the movie were back when it came out.
While the movie slowly became popular with time, and now is considered to be well received by the general public, the movie received scathing criticism by many. Stone was vilified by many critics on national publications such as the Chicago Tribune, New York Times, and the Washington Post.
The general consensus seemed to be that Stone crossed a line by accusing the U.S. government of not only covering up JFK's assassination, but also that it had played a part in the killing. Stone also drew the ire of some for twisting the real case tried by Garrison. Eventually Stone hired a PR firm solely for the purpose of saving the movie from becoming a box office disaster.
All of this criticism surprised me. One, I thought Stone made it very clear that he was taking liberties of already known conspiracy theories of the President's assassination and adding his own ideas as well. Two, I thought it was known that the movie was not a documentary, but rather a director's version of what happened that November day. Three, and this is perhaps the biggest reason, the general public is well aware the events that took place on November 21, 1963 aren't known for certain. What is known for certain is the version that was fed to the people certainly isn't "the truth and nothing but the truth".
| 78 |
| Vote |
Add Comments
Read More
Comments (2)
