Oliver Stone’sJFKrepresents the special place that John F. Kennedy occupies in the American imagination. It differs now from generation to generation but remains pertinent to each. For boomers, he was the face of a new nation where youth and prosperity could win over age and experience. He had promised a “New Frontier,” a bold future for the USA with the highest of hopes. For Gen-Xers, the fallout of his assassination is perhaps the earliest memory of a time when simply trusting its government on its word had begun to become untenable.
Even beforeJFKopened in December 1991, it was met with a pre-emptive backlash from all corners of the political spectrum. Investigative journalist Edward Jay Epstein described it as “Oliver Stone’s fictional reality,” whileThe Washington Post’s National Security Correspondent George Lardner wrote a 3,500-word diatribe to discredit the material he’d seen filmed on set.
The latter even prompted Oliver Stone to respond with a letter to the newspaper in defense of his then-unreleased movie. It is now sixty years since the assassination of Kennedy, and conspiracy theories surrounding his death are still as divisive a topic as ever. Just as divisive a topic is whether Stone’sJFKhas immortalized the objective truth behind them all.
JFK Challenged the Official Version of History
JFKis based on two books thatexplore conspiracy theoriessurrounding Kennedy’s assassination.On the Trail of the Assassinsby Jim Garrison, the district attorney who prosecuted Republican politician Clay Shaw for allegedly being part of the murder plot, andCrossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedyby Jim Marrs, a journalist and researcher who collected testimonies suggesting a government cover-up.
Focusing on Garrison as its hero, the film follows his descent into obsession as he meets obstacles and threats on his quest to uncover the truth. The more controversial aspects of this particular story arethat the CIA, the FBI, and even Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson are each implied to have played significant parts in a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy and then conceal their involvement. Stone’s version of history appeared to be forthright in its assertion that Kennedy’s assassination was little else than a coup d’état.
The Best Movies About American Presidents, Ranked
Some of the United States’ most highly revered and deeply admired presidents have been beautifully captured and depicted in great movies.
Much of the mainstream criticism ofJFKcentered around the legitimacy of its source material, but also Stone’swillingness to take liberties with itto suit his own dramatic sensibilities. One example is that a witness in Clay Shaw’s trial – insurance sales representative Perry Russo – was replaced with a completely fictitious character in Willie O’Keefe.
The big difference between them is that Russo was problematic – he had solicited bribes in exchange for his testimony, whereas O’Keefe had not. A source that would not have been deemed credible is replaced with something that is, a change that could be even more problematic than Russo himself.
Warner Bros. Allowed Oliver Stone to Push the Boundaries
Theamount of discussion, and the kind of discussion, thatJFKmanaged to stir between film critics, historians, and politicians to this day stands with little company. The fact that it was produced and distributed by a major studio in Warner Bros. only makes its cultural impact even rarer.
The responsibility of releasing a film offering such a provocative point of view is something that wasn’t taken lightly. Warner Bros. evenreleased a statementin staunch defense of their involvement, reading, “We accept that controversial films raise a lot of questions and stimulate a lot of debate. We believe debate is healthy. One of the most important foundations of our country is its defense of the right to free speech.”
Bubba Ho-Tep 20 Years Later: Remembering When Elvis and JFK Fought a Mummy
Celebrating the 20 year anniversary with a look back at the inimitable horror comedy with Bruce Campbell and Ossie Davis, Bubba Ho-Tep.
Perhaps the most daring element ofJFK, aside from its unapologetic portrayal of a conspiracy theory, is its assertion that it was credible enough to present it as fact. Oliver Stone mixes documentary footage with fictional elements to create visual representations of events that there is no recorded visual history of.
Some audience members may have felt misled by this style of editing since it was difficult to distinguish between different levels of reality and simple representation. With the backing of a studio as reputable as Warner Bros., the question of whether they had a moral, ethical, or even legal duty to assist audiences in separating the two becomes one that’s difficult not to ask.
JFK Is About Understanding How Conspiracies are Formed
JFKis a film littered with controversy and one that’s easy to poke holes in – from historical inaccuracies to the morality surrounding how truthfully they can or should be portrayed. Oliver Stone blended the truth with half-truths, unsupported claims, and outright lies. Because Kennedy’s assassination is still a topic that evokes such strong feelings from a lot of Americans, the idea of falsifying the story of how and why it happened to any extent does indeed carry a certain danger with it. That said, to view it simply as a record of historical fact would be reductive.
The lasting impression thatJFKleaves is less about the truth surrounding Kennedy’s assassination and more about how perceptions of the truth are formed. In 2023, it’s easier to look at it with more critical awarenessthan in 1991. We have access to all the information at our fingertips through the internet, and we no longer have to accept any source of information as the full story.
That makesJFKa much more important film today than it was dangerous in 1991 – it’s a springboard for the fascination surrounding an event that changed the course of history, even if the history of the event itself is still disputed.
