Review of JFK (1991) by Charles W — 13 Jun 2009

Oliver Stone has created his masterpiece, in my eyes, with 1991's "JFK," a film about John F. Kennedy's assassination and one man's obsession of finding out the "truth" about who shot the president. Historians have ripped the film apart for its inaccuracies and flaws in logic to the point where the film can't be seen as what really happened on that infamous day in November 1963, but I find it being wrong in the facts department to be quite arbitrary: it's still an interesting story with an urgent narrative and the kind of film details -- film editing, cinematography -- that are frequently studied in film classes. It's a movie based on opinion, and so what if the opinion has proved to be faulty; "JFK" is a testament to free speech -- isn't it great to have that at our disposal?! -- and the emotions that overpower our logic.

While the title suggest that Kennedy plays an active role himself, he is only seen in brief, grainy home video footage that plays over in the film's most powerful scenes. Instead, the film follows Jim Garrison, a New Orleans district attorney (played by Kevin Costner) that believes without a shadow of a doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't act alone (or, perhaps, wasn't even responsible for the assassination) on November 22, 1963 and that we were deceived by the Warren Report that claims that Oswald was the lone gunman. Claiming a conspiracy on the government's part is a very risky thing, but to Garrison everything doesn't seem right: witnesses claiming they saw something over a grassy knoll, Oswald is conveniently murdered before a trial could be put together, and the bullet that killed Kennedy had a near to impossible route to make the police reports factual.

A three hour film about a man obsessing over Kennedy's assassination? How could this be thrilling entertainment? "JFK" is not a spectator's film -- it insists you invest at least some emotion while Garrison fetches clues to solve a grand-scale murder mystery that already has an answer -- and is three hours long with "clues" that, at the end of the day, could just as well be dead ends. We aren't any closer into figuring out who killed John F. Kennedy than we were before watching "JFK," but isn't the thrill of watching one alternate scenario play out enough? For me, it was.

To study this film is to analyze an expertly crafted epic drama from a director that constantly forces his audience to think outside of what we are taught -- his 1986 war film "Platoon" has a very different view of the Vietnam War: The United States weren't always the "good guys." From a technical standpoint, this is a film teacher's dream: the film shifts from the present (in this context, 1966) to the infamous day (November 22, 1963) at lightning fact speed, with a film technique that allows a viewer to know if they are watching something from the past or present -- the past footage of "witnesses" is played in grainy black and white. This isn't an acting piece -- several of the high profile actors waved their usual fees to work for scale, as they considered the project too important to pass up -- but the performances are solid; Tommy Lee Jones as Clay Shaw, a shady businessman that Garrison suspects to be a big part in the conspiracy is a standout. It should be noted that there is no attempt on Kevin Costner's part to play Jim Garrison as a complicated character with a level of acting prowess that Costner has never shown; Costner plays Garrison as a man with simple emotions, gaining respect as a capable leading man here. It's a thankless job, but Costner wisely knows that this isn't the time to try and put on an overblown acting performance in hopes of an Academy Award nomination. It's a movie that is larger than life, and the actors have the easiest job of the movie (a statement you aren't likely to hear in many of my reviews) -- the blunt of the responsibility is placed on director and co-writer Oliver Stone's shoulders and everybody must share in his passion to bringing this tale to the screen.

When it's all said and done, do I believe in Jim Garrison's theories? It's an opinion, but I don't. I find it quite "convenient" that Lee Harvey Oswald was able to successfully achieve what he did on November 22, 1963 all by himself, but I doubt the government killed Kennedy. Maybe Oswald had an accomplice with him that somehow got away? Maybe Oswald was a lucky shot? Maybe. Regardless of my feelings on the Kennedy assassination, I find "JFK" something I can get lost into easily. It's somewhat cheesy and tactless to call a movie with such a plot line as entertaining, but such is by far my opinion of the film.