Review of JFK (1991) by Manny F — 15 Oct 2008

I find it incredibly difficult in this day and age to write consistently. Part of the reason for this is because I'm becoming keenly aware of the fact that I'm not particularly good at it. Other reasons include that it's time-consuming and takes effort... and who wants any part of that?

Really, I haven't written since June because I've been cowering in a cave somewhere in the Utah desert, trying disappear from the world. I was completely cut-off from all of modernity. No electriciy and no internet. I survived off of skewered scorpions and prairie dogs. My only companion during that time was a fox named Wolverine who more often than not ate my food and when I protested he snarled and attempted to rip my heart from my chest with his razor-sharp inscisors.

I had decided to escape my mother's basement and the world as a whole because of the release of [i]The Dark Knight[/i]. As I wrote in an earlier entry, I thought the commercial for the film was spectactular and I was greatly looking forward to watching the movie. All of that was true. What was also true was that I genuinely and greatly enjoyed [i]The Dark Knight[/i]. What is also true, now, however, is that [i]The Dark Knight[/i] is nowhere near the greatest movie ever made. It's not even the best superhero movie ever made. It is also nowhere near as deep as a whole lot of people seem to think.

What it was, was dark and engrossing and epic. I tried to explain myself on IMDB and I was shouted down like a coward and called numerous names like "douchebag" and was reminded of such permanent truths as "The Dark Knight is better than The Godfather. Even Kevin Smith said so... idiot." It was a decent flick, but once again I was relegated to the level of deformed, misinformed, idiotic social outcast.... And so I acted accordingly.

...But I'm back now, and my mental stability appears to be solid, according to my mom and my therapist. So, as my first entry I would like to write about a film I caught on TV the other day: JFK.

I hadn't seen the movie in ages and didn't really remember anything about beyond that it was long and I liked it. Upon seeing it for a second time, I was reminded why:

It's a great fucking movie.

Even if you don't agree with any of the assertions, you'd be hardpressed to legitimately claim it was a bad piece of filmmaking. In fact, I'd argue the movie is just as much a celebration of the film medium as it is an investigation into the JFK assasination.

Stone uses all kinds of stocks, from color to b&w to 8mm to tell this story. He masterfully orchestrates a humongous cast of first-rate actors and tells a sprawling, discombobulating story in a concise, imaginative way. Most of all, he does all of this while still being able to make the film an extension of his own self. Through it all, JFK is a true, unpretentious exercise in self-expression for the director. And, if it is not entirely accurate, it does a precise job of expressing the angry, unfiltered emotions that some of us hold toward our government and their revelry of secrecy.

All in all, nothing much to complain about here, and that's that I don't even buy into much of the arguments of the movie. To me--and I probably am an idiot-- it does seem fairly obvious that the official story of the assassination is pure gravel, but I don't necessarily buy Stone's and Garrison's explanation, either.

I write this post mostly in anticipation of [i]W.[/i] which I hope will recapture some of the pure cinematic joy that many of Stone's older films produced and reveled in. Stone, at the top of his game, is arguably, in my opinion, the most distilled talent in Hollywood today, competing only with Scorsese and Tarantino. All three have made more than one classic film, and all three of had missteps (some stumbled more than others) but all three are in possession of what I see at the most palpable talent in the bis today. All to often, however, Stone' politics cloud others' judgement of that talent.