JFK: The Director's Cut
In history class, we all learn about the tragic assassination of President John F. Kennedy on that one Sunday afternoon. However, as I remember it, all that I was told was that Lee Harvey Oswald was the murderer. I saw the Abraham Zapruder's home movie of the incident, but that was all that was covered. Lee Harvey Oswald was murdered. Being the curious fellow that I am, I couldn't accept this, and I found out that I really wasn't alone. Nearly everyone I talked to claimed to believe that there was more than one shooter. But how was I to ever know what really happened?
Well, Oliver Stone probably had some of the same questions, and he gives some hypothetical answers to them. Does he believe that they are all true? Probably not, but Stone creates such a convincing case, that his film touched me in a way that few films do. Everything I had wanted to know is presented in his film. I don't know how much of it is true and how much isn't, mostly because no one will tell me which is fact or fiction. So as is, I am going to look at this film as being quite accurate in its depiction of the real events that went on November 22, 1963.
JFK begins with an almost mythical quality, using home videos of President Kennedy and the First Lady landing in Dallas, Texas. We quickly progress through the day, and we finally arrive at the dreadful moment. Stone delivers this moment with a flourish that few directors master. Instead of showing it occur, he cuts to the sound of a gun going off, and then showing the aftermath. He knows not to show us the actual shooting, because that is the climax of the film. The film begins its main plot as District Attorney Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) watches news coverage pronouncing Kennedy's death. Soon, Lee Harvey Oswald (Gary Oldman) is brought in and convicted of the shooting. Oswald is then shot himself, thoroughly guarded, and yet none of the cops seemed to want to stop the assassin. But Garrison can't believe that one man was able to get off three bullets in that short amount of time. He also can't believe several mishaps in the interrogation of Oswald, and how such a sloppy job could have been done in the overall investigation.
Garrison is then determined to find out what exactly went on that day. Why was the parade rerouted down a street with a sharp curve? Why was the security so low? Why did the driver of the car stop when he should have sped away? Of course, the real question for Garrison isn't these small details. He wants to know why he was shot, and who was to benefit. He also wants to know who was really involved in the shooting. Oliver Stone wants to know these things too, but he realizes that most of the details presented are hypothetical, and so he takes a rather objective look at everything. But that can only go on for so long, because as Garrison's case is being presented, Stone must choose which side to land on. I won't ruin the surprise ending for you, but it shocked me like few films shock me. What makes this ending so unbelievable is that it is a historical fact. When the final scene plays out, I literally went slack-jawed. I could not believe it. I was angry and furiated. And yet, I was pleased.
Pleased that Stone had the guts to deliver this portrayal through all kinds of pressure and controversy. But that's really all. For the most part, I was just mad. Even the final denouement couldn't satisfy me. Of course, a couple of these facts couldn't be shown in the original 1991 release because they actually involve the film itself. One remarks that the film caused a great stir in the government, and they decided to reinvestigate. But these aren't satisfying. The only pleasure that comes from the ending is knowing that we haven't forgotten. That people will always remember, and hopefully one day, the truth will be revealed.
As entertainment value goes, JFK is top-notch. It draws you in to its complex (but not convoluted) plot as it twists and turns around cover-ups and revelations and theories. The "magic bullet" theory (so wonderfully spoofed in one "Seinfeld" episode, which also happened to feature Newman (Wayne Knight) as a victim of the spitting) is so obviously flawed, and yet no one can disprove it. We all realize it is incorrect, physically and mentally. The laws of physics go against everything presented by the theory, but it is still maintained by the government. Mentally, it is harder to prove true because the government can't meddle with that. Let's just face it: there had to be more than one shooter. That is one of the elements that Stone takes for granted, but some others are more vague which he shows by altering history slightly. We see how Oswald could have been a patsy, but nothing is really concrete in the telling of this. Stone acknowledges this by changing history, but this does not ruin the impact. As with the improbable "magic bullet" theory, Stone is providing his own theories and showing how they could be possible. After all, film makers have always changed history in order to move their plots along (just look at Forrest Gump). But Stone is more bold, because he presents the alterations as factual probabilities. But it is still just a probability.
JFK will probably never be shown in history classes because of its fictionalization, but I doubt high school students will see anything more accurate than this. Okay, I must admit that I hardly knew anything before seeing this film, and so I probably am taking most of it as fact. But does that mean that the film isn't true? It's based on the books On the Trail of the Assassins by Jim Garrison himself and Crossfire: The Plot to Kill Kennedy by Jim Marrs. And who better to advise on this film than Garrison himself? As the plot progresses and we begin to realize the depth of the film, we also begin to see how far the "conspiracy" goes in the government. Stone is no stranger of making accusations, and he goes to the extreme by picking out President Lyndon B. Johnson as being in on it. Again, this is purely hypothetical and will more than likely never be proven. But hey, never hate a man for trying to explain something that seems wrong (which makes the public opinion of Jim Garrison all the more baffling).
As a film purely meant to showcase Oliver Stone's talents, JFK succeeds brilliantly. Snubbed by the Academy (he did receive a nomination, but was snubbed of actually winning--that went to the worthy Jonathan Demme for Silence of the Lambs), Stone has had an increasingly impressive career. I don't know of many other directors that maintain the same level of high quality throughout every single film. Stone makes this film an Oliver Stone production because he is a modern-day auteur. The MTV-style editing is suitable to the story (unlike most MTV-type films), giving some scenes a quick and hurried feeling, while others feel slow and drawn out. One can see his talent from the opening and last scenes. The opening doesn't show the actual shooting of the President, while the last scene focuses squarely on it. We overhear Garrison saying, "Back and to the left..." over and over, while simultaneously witnessing it. This one moment caused tears to flood from my eyes (the only other scene that I can remember doing that was in Schindler's List). Don't get me wrong: JFK is an emotionally powerful film. And since this is the Director's Cut, I was able to see how Stone wanted it. He cut the film by about twenty minutes in order to be shown in theaters, but that twenty minutes seems like nothing. This version runs approx. 208 min. but feels much shorter. I highly advise everyone to try to see this version, if possible.
Stone is also an incredibly talented casting director, as we see with his selections in every film. In 1996's Nixon, Anthony Hopkins became Nixon. In JFK, while I don't know what they all looked like, I must say that Gary Oldman has a striking resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald. I can only imagine that the rest look like their real-life counterparts. Kevin Costner is stunning in an understated performance that allows room for other, more colorful characters to shine. Gary Oldman is terrific as Oswald, giving him an almost Christ-like quality (and I mean that in the loosest of terms). Sissy Spacek is very understated as Garrison's wife. Costner and Spacek are both terrific. And special note goes to Tommy Lee Jones and Kevin Bacon for creating two imaginative characters on screen. Jones, playing the infamous Clay Shaw, received an Academy Award nomination, and rightfully so. This is one great performance. Bacon is more subtle, but still manages to impress. Lately, Bacon has been consistently above-average. Joe Pesci was mildly distracting because I saw him mostly as Pesci playing yet another twist to his GoodFellas performance. However, it's still quite a good performance. The rest of the cast, almost too innumerable to count, ranges from sufficient to excellent. But Costner steals the film despite more energetic characters popping up because Costner's reactions are exactly how the rest of us feel while watching.
JFK is rated R for graphic violence and harsh language. There is also some brief nudity in a strip club. JFK is one of the most important films that I have ever seen. Most everyone should see this one sometime in their lives. The cinematography is stunning (which won the Oscar that year) and the music is fitting. Powerful, emotionally draining, and heart-pounding, JFK is a film that breaks all expectations. Anyone who thinks otherwise is merely stupid. While I loved Silence of the Lambs, I will have to say that JFK is the best film of 1991.