Review of JFK (1991) by Scott W — 10 Jun 2013

"Who killed the president?".

Around the time I watched JFK, I was reading this novel by Stephen King called "11/22/63". The title of this book was also the date of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Like this film, 11/22/63 was about the assassination, yet it also has its own set of characters. But the film and the book are very different. While JFK is about the true story of Kevin Costner's character and his colleagues trying to go in deeper into the Kennedy assassination and why it happened, 11/22/63 was a science fiction book. It was all about a teacher who is friends with a guy who owns a diner. One day, the guy calls the teacher to his diner, and the teacher finds out that the guy has a time machine in his diner. The guy is obsessed with finding out who killed John F. Kennedy and wants to stop whoever did it (because as it was illustrated in JFK, there was a sort of chain of horrible events after Kennedy's assassination, such as the Vietnam War, and the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy). He tells the teacher to go back in time in order to stop Lee Harvey Oswald. So the book and the film are very different. But if I were pressed, the film made a much larger impact on me. On paper, the book should've made the bigger impact. It had a thrilling story, it was over 800 pages long, and featured a closer look at what really happened on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas. In fact, when I read that book, it held information I didn't know about Oswald such as him having a wife and brother. That was probably the most I ever knew about the events and people surrounding the assassination. But as informative and thrilling this Stephen King novel really was, it ain't got nothing on JFK.

I'm no stranger to the conspiracies and controversies surrounding the assassination. As a matter of fact, I am one of those people who are very interested with urban legends and conspiracies. I'm just very curious about the uncertainty of it all. So as one would point out, I should've been very interested in this movie since it is a conspiracy movie. Be that as it may, I initially thought JFK would be one of those long, drawn-out history films, retelling stuff that obviously already happened. Pretend you're in school, and the lesson that day was JFK's assassination. Your class is noisy, and your teacher becomes so irritated, she threatens to make the class stay in the room during recess. That doesn't stop your class, so your punishment is to sit down in your chair, and read your history book and learn all about the assassination until recess is over and you can go to your next period. That's what I though JFK would be, despite the fact I've seen its 84% rating on its RT page. "Going to your next period" was a metaphor for when the movie ends and you can stop being bored learning stuff that already happened. But this movie was truly incredible. It was bashed by some critics for not being truthful in some points, but in my opinion, JFK made history interesting. It told me about points and people who were part of the pre-assassination, post-assassination, and during the assassination. It introduced a cast of characters I never knew were part of anything like George De Mohrenschildt, Bill and Janet Williams, Jim Garrison, Clay Shaw/Clay Bertrand, David Ferrie, Oswald's wife Marina, Earl Warren, Guy Banister, and the mysterious Black Ops Agent called "X". All the performances were great, especially by Kevin Costner, Tommy Lee Jones, Gary Oldman, Donald Sutherland, Joe Pesci, and even Kevin Bacon. When Jim Garrison's team are together and one of them are telling everyone else about something find out, even if what they're are just facts, they were interesting and I just wanted to keep watching. The assassination already happened over 45 years ago, but it's just as every bit as interesting and thrilling as any movie you can buy at your local store. "It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma!", said by Joe Pesci's character David Ferrie pretty much summed up everything I thought about the film. Everything was so complicated, yet several people, most especially this one determined district attorney, was so focused on finding what they would give their lives for: the truth. They'd be disillusioned with anything less than the truth. It was already difficult to find the truth, yet there was even people who didn't want them to find it out. People who would also give their lives just so the truth would not be found out. Because of that, not only was each fact they revealed to each other over dinner interesting, it also made me excited because each fact was one step closer to what I also wanted to know: the truth. When a movie about a guy wanting to know a truth is so good that it makes the viewer want to know the truth too, you know that film is special. These people take the viewer with them on a journey to the truth and it was thrilling every single step of the way.

What I disliked about the film was what kept from giving this movie a complete 5 out of 5. When I first watched this movie, it was engaging and kept me completely immersed in the film. I did not want to stop watching, I did not go to the bathroom, I did not check the clock to see what time it was. I was focused. But I decided later on to rewatch the film in order to see if it was still cool. And it wasn't as cool. While the film was still really well-acted and crafted, when the team of Kevin Costner tell their facts over the table, I realized, it wasn't as riveting as the first viewing because I already knew those facts. After the first viewing of JFK, I realized that this film was different from other true story films I've seen because I didn't know about Jim Garrison's investigation and his case against Clay Shaw. There were other political true story films like Recount (starring Kevin Spacey and Denis Leary) and Game Change (starring Julianne Moore and Ed Harris). Recount and Game Change are about the political campaigns of Al Gore against George W. Bush and of John McCain against Barack Obama. Though Recount was only about the campaign team of Al Gore, Game Change was actually about Sarah Palin's involvement with John McCain's campaign (with Julianne Moore as Palin and Ed Harris as John McCain). Now, I know both of those films weren't like JFK or Argo, both of which relied on thrilling the audience. Recount and Game Change was about retelling the personal behind-the-scenes events that happened to those involved with the campaigns and elections of Gore and McCain. But nonetheless, I already knew who won the election, so no matter how the film tries build up that its main characters are working so hard so they'll win, it's sad to watch them doing it, 'cause you know they still lose. But for JFK, I didn't know anything. I didn't know about the different facts the team was talking about. I knew of the conspiracies, but I didn't know them like the back of my hand. When this movie revealed it to me, it was awesome. This film made all the dumb action and cheesy humor in Michael Bay's films look worse than they already are because you need a little more than looking at the picture to understand what's happening. This movie, like Pulp Fiction, was carried by the dialogue. It asks more from the viewer. It exercises your brain. And like Inception, because of that, this movie is so great in many ways. But when your watching it for a second time, you already know what happens and you already know how the ending's gonna turn out. As Roger Ebert once said, "Every great film should seem new every time you see it." That's what I feel about a lotta movies. But for this one? Not so much. Also, as interesting the ideas and theories of Mr. Garrison were, they were very outrageous. Because of this film, I can believe that Clay Shaw was Clay Bertrand therefore was an accomplice in a wide conspiracy to assassinate Jack Kennedy. Because of this film, I can believe that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't alone on that fateful day on November 22, 1963. Because of this film, I can even believe that the Warren Commission was mostly a work of fiction, and was just released to satisfy the American public. But to believe that Lyndon B. Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover were part of everything and Kennedy's assassination was coup d'état? I know the film isn't exactly asking me to believe Jim Garrison. But I admit it. If I was alive in 1966-1969 when his investigation was on the news, I would think he was just a crazy guy with crazy anti-government theories even without the media displaying him as such.

When something big happens, like an assassination, the loss of a candidate at an election, or a financial crash, the public only see them with the naked eye. The media is what helps them comprehend and see these crises. Though it is kind of a fact that the media sometimes exaggerates things and as illustrated in JFK, they display rumors to destroy a reputation if it seems fit. The media has always done that, and they always will because there is no one there to stop them. Even if there is, I doubt it'll stop them. So there is no absolute way the public can know the real and definite truth behind these big events. There are even people other than the media, maybe politicians or even police authority, that don't want the truth to get out. Even for this film. Maybe Oliver Stone tweaked some important points, I don't know. I've never thought of that before, and when I watched this film, it brought out that thought, so I'll give this film that. It's four years until all the information about the assassination that was not discussed with the American public is released. Nobody knows anything until then. But until then we'll just have to make do with this movie. Anyway, JFK, with its fantastic dialogue and speeches, great performances, and its unique style, JFK is a spectacular and truly unforgettable film. Though it might not warrant repeated viewings, one cannot forget the impact and thrill caused by the thought-provoking first viewing of the closest look into one of the greatest and controversial mysteries ever to exist within American history.