Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26

Thread: Cinema Study III: Oliver Stone

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656

    Cinema Study III: Oliver Stone

    Many apologies if I got anyone's hopes up for a Bergman profile- I will post a long Bergman thread later after I've fine-tuned my impressions.
    Also, Bergman was never really an outsider- he doesn't need trumpeting or acknowledgement. He's been golden since the 50's.

    Oliver Stone, on the other hand....



    has French lineage. He lived in France as a boy (the countryside and Paris) and grew up under the delicate care of his mother Jacqueline.

    He was an intelligent young man (he wrote a brilliant novel that was published in the late 90's) and he got into Yale University. He dropped out. He taught in Vietnam, he joined the merchant marine. He went back to Yale. He dropped out again-this time to enlist as an Infantry soldier (1st Air Calvary Division Airmobile). He actually wanted to go to the front lines: he wanted combat. The character of Chris Taylor in Platoon is a mirror image of Oliver.

    He came back from 'Nam with a stack of military certificates lauding his heroism: he won a bronze star for valour & a purple heart.
    He went to New York and enrolled in NYU filmschool. He made 3 short films that "created polarities" (his words): Michael and Marie, The Madman of Martinique and Last Year in Vietnam, which you can see on the DVD "Oliver Stone's America", a documentary by Charles Kiselyak.

    Martin Scorsese was one of his professors at NYU, and evidently he was a great teacher. In 1967 Oliver sent a script he wrote called "BREAK" to Jim Morrison, thinking the Lizard King would approve and help get it made into a movie. He never heard back from him.

    The first thing people should realize about Oliver Stone is that he is a WRITER. He started out as a writer, and his real talent is writing. He wrote several screenplays that got him rejection after rejection in Hollywood. He was able to make two interesting films prior to his break with Midnight Express: a film called Seizure and a film called The Hand with Michael Caine. Both are available on video and provide great insight into Oliver's mind before his career careened into a vortex of great cinema.

    He won an Oscar for his Midnight Express script. The film is all Oliver-if I didn't know better I would say he directed it. It's an Alan Parker classic and is a must-see film.
    Same with Conan The Barbarian, the definitive Schwartzenegger movie directed by John Milius. Who better than Oliver Stone to write about a mythic man of primitive combat?

    Scarface is just as much an Oliver Stone film as it is a DePalma film. It's a threatening movie, an intense, epic tale of a man who has no redeeming qualities yet you root for him-because he realizes truth. Al Pacino is on fire as Tony Montana and this film is recognized as a classic by everyone from real criminals and drug dealers to Presidents.
    If you haven't seen it then I'm sending someone to kill you, mang.

    Hard pressed to get financing for Platoon which he wrote in the 70's, he had to leave it and make a small budget movie. Salvador might be his best film. It's before he burst out of the gate yet after some degree of success. It shows you how hungry he was as a filmmaker and how he shines while surrounded by chaos. Guerilla filmmaking at it's finest.

    Platoon. He took 30-odd relatively unknown actors to the Phillipines, had them do a 2-week boot camp with Dale Dye, and he told the actors that after the 2 weeks they could go back to civilization for showers and good food and then they would make the movie. He lied. As soon as the 2-weeks were up, and everybody was good and dirty and weathered, he marched them in front of the cameras. They were pissed off-Charlie Sheen especially, because as Willem Dafoe said "Charlie likes the finer things in life"-some threatened to quit: "we're actors, man, not soldiers-fuck Stone!". But they all stayed on, they finished the film in record time and made a masterpiece. An Oscar-winning masterpiece. It's unfliching, raw: it shows how it really was over there, and Oliver said he wanted to bring the "I don't give a shit" mentality to the forefront. Amen on that. I still love this film.

    Oliver next made a film for his dad: Wall Street, another classic in it's own right. Michael Douglas deserved his Oscar for playing Gordon Gekko, a man so corrupt yet so truthful it makes you wonder if you should love him or hate him. He has some long speeches and some beautiful dialogue: " The new law of evolution in corporate America seems to be survival of the un-fittest. Well, in my book you either do it right or you get eliminated." And of course the brutal Greed is Good.

    Talk Radio was film I saw at high school, in my Communications class. Our teacher showed it to us and said "this film shows as well as anything how the media is a powerful tool". I remember it like it was yesterday. We all sat enraptured, and were disappointed that the film would be shown over two days- we were so into it that we wanted to miss our next class to see the end!
    What can I say about it? It's the saga of Barry Champlain, a radio talk show host who was modelled after the real-life Alan Berg. Eric Bogosian turns in a fire and brimstone performance, which he also did as a one-man show on the theatrical stage. Great film that BOMBED at the box-office. Oliver was severely disappointed. He took a hard knock with it's poor reception, but bounced back with a heavy, heavy-duty film that my father forbid me to watch: Born on the Fourth of July. It's based on the autobiography of Sgt. Ron Kovic, a US Marine who was severely wounded in Vietnam. Epic in scope, this film is a great leap for Oliver as well as Tom Cruise, whose acting had never been tested like this.
    He was fucking ROBBED of a best acting Oscar. Robbed. In fairness, the Academy did give it to someone who was worthy: Daniel-Day Lewis, but cripes, Tom's performance is unreal in Born. This film also has one of the best scores John Williams ever did. Adds a lot to the experience.

    Next up for Oliver was Evita, but clashes with Madonna forced him to drop the project. He hated her attitude. She wanted all these provisions in her contract about creative control and Oliver told her to fuck off- man what I wouldn't give to have been a fly on the wall for that meeting! Phony-star bitch. She did a good job on the film though when Alan Parker took over, but I digress.
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656

    part 2 (The Doors-my favorite Stone film)

    I cannot understate what Jim Morrison means to me. He was more than just a charismatic lead singer of a band. He was MYTHIC, he was dangerous, he was a poet.

    If there is a major influence in my life then Morrison is it. And Oliver Stone's The Doors was a major reason why. I was 16 in 1991 and I remember going to the base theatre in Chatham New Brunswick to see The Doors with a good friend. It was one of those cliched "Life-Altering" moments in time. (Now that I think about it I wonder how I got in to see it- I was underage).
    I had heard the song "Light My Fire" but I didn't know who sang it or what the band was all about.

    So along comes Oliver Stone's movie.

    I sit in my seat and get transported to a time and place that I can't fathom. I am transfixed. I won't explain in great detail what goes on in the film. Oliver has been criticized very harshly for his "take" on the 60's and the story of The Doors: there are a lot of inaccuracies. Now I'm a Doors scholar and you can ask me anything about the group: I will know the answer. I have on VHS the only film Morrison ever made: HWY: An American Pastoral and I can quote his poetry verbatim. Even his influences I can ramble on about: Rimbaud, Blake, Nietzsche, Hamilton, Huxley, Mailer, Celine, Kerouac, blah blah blah. Oliver's film set me on this course of study. That's the greatest thing a director can do: prod you to form your own opinions, to think for yourself, to draw your own conclusions. And the conclusion I come to about the film is that it's Oliver's poem to Jim. It doesn't matter that the film is not factual- he nailed the spirit of the man. As he has said, "if I'm wrong, it's between me and Jim". Ray Manzarek, the keyboardist for the group HATES this film with pure venom. He never hesitates to run it down, he slanders Oliver at every turn and condemns him for making a Nazi-style movie. I hate to say it but Ray is wrong. Very wrong. John Densmore, (the drummer), says Oliver's film has integrity, and considering that Oliver wasn't there (he was in 'nam at the time) it's a valliant effort at capturing the psychedelic times.
    The message of the movie is clear: a visionary man walked the earth and left his mark with timeless words, music and spirit.

    The last thing I'll add about this film is something really cool: during the shooting of the movie Pamela Morrison's mother gave Oliver his script for "BREAK" which was found among Morrison's things in Paris when they were packed up to be sent home to L.A.
    Oliver said "That was an omen that I should be making this movie".
    Last edited by Johann; 05-09-2004 at 12:24 AM.
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Posts
    365
    I'm so glad I'm not the only person around who truly appreciates this man. As of late, I've been under a lot of guff from folks who think Stone is too literal.

    I personally believe he is one of the greatest writers/directors out there. Platoon is my personal favorite war film, and Conan the Barbarian happens to be my favorite sword/sorcery flick (yes, over LOTR).

    Here are my fingers crossed for Alexander...
    "So I'm a heel, so what of it?"
    --Renaldo the Heel, from Crimewave

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656
    I agree he's one of the great directors.
    Alexander is a classic film already- I'm sure of it. From what I've read, the stills I've seen and the kick-ass poster, it's gonna be the movie event of the year. (For me at least).

    He has said that he admires Alexander The Great for what he accompished in his short life and that he likens his film career to Alexander's conquests, tackling ideas and themes with the same military conviction.

    I also can't wait. Have no fear, man: Alexander will be astounding cinema.


    Now if i can only pry my hands off my can of bavaria 8.6 long enough to finish this thread...
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656

    part 3

    JFK was and still is a seismic film event of the early 90's.

    Anchored by a great performance from Kevin Costner (who has few timeless roles to his credit) this film is another masterpiece in Oliver's filmography. People can talk about his brash methods, his in-your-face style, his take-no-prisoners attitude, but man, you cannot ignore this film or it's maker.

    I'm Canadian, so I don't have the authority to say whether or not Oliver's questions about the JFK assassination are valid. What I can say is the film is a heat-seeking missile. It's an important film for it's underlying suspicion of government and thought-provoking take on how we were fed lies about what really happened that day. I'm convinced LHO did not act alone (if at all) and like Oliver says: "Dealy Plaza is like a movie set, waiting to be built for some John Wayne classic- it's like a western, perfect. I'm willing to bet the CIA did it- the lines of sight at Dealy are clearly perfect for the assassination, and with the knowledge we have of the motorcade slowing down as it turned onto Elm St., it's eerie how obvious someone in control knew "This Was It". Oliver must be praised for his bravery in using film to shake up the U.S. congress and the public at large because the JFK murder is still a mystery, still a case unsolved. The fact that the film is unbelieveably riveting to watch is just a bonus. Say what you will about The Stone: he's not boring.



    He has said that Heaven & Earth is his atonement and homage to the Vietnamese, and a film which he says he cries everytime he sees because it reminds him of many things. He said *quite accurately* America brought a lot of pain to Asia, and this film is his apology. Another reason the man impresses me. Here is a former Infantry soldier, who was behind the trigger on many Vietnamese deaths-yes, Oliver killed fellow humans, make no mistake- and he apologizes the only way he knows how: with a gorgeous film about Lai Le Hayslip, a real-life person-a courageous person- and indeed does make atonement. How many people realize what Oliver did there? He apologized for AMERICA, and what did he get for it? A slap in the face. His film bombed, he was ravaged by the critics: "Who does this guy think he is?!?!" and the film is all but forgotten today. A crying shame.
    "Give it up" for Heaven & Earth- you'll cry as I did.



    Oliver responds with a rosetta stone of the 90's: Natural Born Killers. It's a .50 caliber machine gun of a movie. Buum buum buum, Buum buum buum. Thumbs on the trigger pressing HARD.
    I hate to say it, but as much a fan of Tarantino I am, Oliver takes a script of his and out-QT's QT. Yep, this is Oliver's true masterpiece. Roger Ebert called it a masterpiece, I'm calling it a masterpiece, it IS a masterpiece. It's cubism through and through. It's film fractions, fragments, speed-of-sound edits and conscience-blowing mind food. A satire that leaves you feeling ashamed you watch TV of any kind. You feel dirty after watching this movie. You feel like a scolded child who should crawl under a rock for even THINKING of paying attention to the media.
    God bless Oliver Stone. I could rant and RAVE about this film until the next lunar eclipse. I won't. Just see it and see the genius and the righteousness.


    His next film is all but ignored and it's another disgraceful tragedy- compliments of a society who wants to forget it's past.
    Nixon may be his finest work also, but that's something the viewer will have to ruminate on if and when he is willing to absorb the glorious story presented by Oliver.
    Anthony Hopkins is magnificent as Richard M. Nixon, a president who "was obsessed with the lie" according to The Stone. If you can stay alert enough to realize what this film means, then you have a depth of understanding that will help you be a better person. (Not to mention to see politics for what it can be).

    U-Turn is pure nihilism. It's a movie with no hope. It's film noir in the desert. Every character has deep flaws and there is no happy ending. No one survives. The Ennio Morricone score is one of the most evocative in movie history. Sean Penn should've AT LEAST been nominated for an Oscar. He has the worst day any human being could have. Richardson's photography is mesmerizing.

    Any Given Sunday found Oliver extremely optimistic, if not entrenched in Greek myth. His passion for sports and it's ability to "give men glory" in the modern age prompted him to make a film about football that has no equals. It's punishing, gruelling (like the game itself) and if you're a fan of Stone, another perfect work of art.
    Last edited by Johann; 05-07-2004 at 01:50 AM.
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    4,843
    People should be encouraged to watch movies directed by Stone, just about everyone provides propulsive, provocative entertainment.(Talk Radio particularly, given its lamentably low box office numbers). On the other hand, I disagree that Stone is "one of the great directors" or that any of his films are "masterpieces".

    The source of my disagreement with Johann and Tree seems to stem from our differing assessments of Stone, the writer. I strongly disagree that "his real talent is writing". Never having written literary criticism, I am not in a position to speak with authority. My personal opinion is that his scripts are full of crude dialogue, over-exposition(Salvador), lack of irony or subtext, overly schematic plotting(Platoon), belaboring a point (NBK), wild extrapolations and historical projections (JFK), cardboard secondary characters, insufficient ideas, etc.

    Oliver Stone is a skilled craftsman, in the same league with Ridley Scott, Michael Mann and Wolfgang Petersen. His command of technique is outstanding. His deployment of technique is often characterized by overkill, as in NBK and The Doors. The latter film proved particularly confounding to me. Several scenes are fascinating, others risibly over the top. ( I remember thinking after watching it that Stone's Jim is more of an asshole and a better poet that my opinion of this great, charismatic showman).

    To sum up my take on Stone: the flaws and inconsistencies in his movies are never serious enough to get in the way of the brisk-paced, bombastic entertainment they provide.
    Last edited by oscar jubis; 05-11-2004 at 01:13 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656
    With regards to The Doors, I'm gonna point out to readers the glaring inaccuracies- some of which are very disrespectful and indeed show Jim to be nothing more than an asshole, as oscar points out. (And that is my number one complaint with the film- that Jim was a drunken jerk most of the time).

    -the scene in the desert with the band "tripping out" never happened. Too bad- it was a nice scene.
    -the scene at Andy Warhol's loft never happened- but Jim did meet Andy alone, separate from the band and Andy DID give him a gold phone which he could "talk to God" with. Jim chucked it out of a window of a moving car...
    -the scene in the shower with Patricia Keneally at the New Haven concert never happened
    -the Ed Sullivan appearance where Jim says "higher" is blown way out of proportion. On the actual film footage of the show, Jim says it normally; not with emphasis as Stone shows.
    -Copious amounts of dialogue is straight from Oliver's head, which is a little baffling, because there is enough choice quotes and true events that this is not necessary.
    -Who are the characters "dog" and "cat" supposed to be? The only conclusion I can come up with is they are archetypes of Babe Hill and Felix Venables- but then why not use their actual names? Bizarre..
    -The concert scenes are blown up considerably. As any true Doors fan knows, the Doors almost always played to a standing room only (the Hollywood Bowl and The Isle of Wight Festival excepting) and even though the Miami show was packed to the rafters, Oliver goes way overboard with creative license- there were never hordes and hordes and hordes of fans shouting Jim! Jim! Jim! or singing along in epic unison to "Break on Through".
    It's a let down when you learn that the shows were tame compared to Oliver's vison- take that San Fran show, with Indians and naked women dancing around huge bonfires- inspired, it COULD have happened, but it didn't. Bad Oliver!

    -this list of inaccuracies is getting long, and I could go on until this is the longest thread I've ever typed. I'll save you the torture.
    I still love the film for it's message and because I know it was made because The Doors meant a lot to Oliver. I forgive him his transgressions.

    DO NOT watch this film thinking you're seeing the real Jim Morrison or a factual account of his life- that picture will emerge if you're interested enough to do your own research. It has the BASICS covered: how the group was founded, the core successes, the highs and lows, the shady facts surrounding his death...etc. The film has integrity, but the integrity is in the message, nothing else.
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Vancouver, B.C.
    Posts
    598

    JFK

    Originally posted by oscar jubis
    wild extrapolations and historical projections (JFK), cardboard secondary characters, insufficient ideas, etc..
    In JFK, Stone presented incidents of Lee Harvey Oswald's stay in New Orleans which have been well documented and his associations with both the right-wing anti-Castro Cubans and the left-wing Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

    Stone's dramatizations of the characters of Guy Bannister, Dave Ferrie, and Dean Andrews use their own words as documented in the Warren Commission Report and Garrison's own investigation.

    Stone proposed the reason behind the assassination as continuing the Vietnam War and asked who had the most to gain from JFKs death. Other than that, he offered no theory as to who did the killing, who planned the murder, or who covered it up.

    Where are the "wild extrapolations and historical projections"?
    "They must find it hard, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority" Gerald Massey

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,627
    I had a very different take on JFK. Some of us remember where we were when we heard the news. Later, we were asked to swallow the Warren Commission, a self-serving bunch of self-righteous hypocrits, Gerald Ford included. I felt the film strayed far from its original objective (if it had one), to poke holes in the report. Instead, it dwelt on the thin book written by New Orleans attorney James Garrison, ("On the trail of the Assasins"; I did not read the Marrs book) which is laughable at best, if ya'll have ever read it.

    The most plausible theory yet is that the assassination was a mob hit, although the mob would need big "hookas" to carry this one off, including blaming a two-bit "Communist" like Oswald. Then again, if the lone gun theory is your bag, then Oswald would have to be the world's greatest marksmen, something no Marine marksman could duplicate for the Warren Commission when they tried to use a bolt action rifle to re-create the event.

    Stone's "JFK" focused on the "silly" stuff, extending certain scenes far too long, and for what purpose baffled everyone at the time. If this was supposed to be an "expose", then it failed miserably. If this was supposed to be an entertaining thriller, I've seen better.

    Stone's "Platoon" is arguably the best film made about the Viet-Nam era, (Viet-Nam having never been declared a war... it was termed a "conflict"!) with perhaps "Hamburger Hill" (1987) by John Irvin a close second, in my opinion. "Born on the Fourth of July" is a very personal film for me. I worked at the VA Hospital in the PTSD ward with Vets for three years. I spent many nights crying with those guys. I never had to go because my number was high that year and never called, but many guys enlisted because they believed in their country (even though their country lied to them). To me, this is the best film Stone ever did. While I liked parts of "Platoon", I felt "Born on the Fourth of July" was a very personal statement about how many of us felt who came from that era, from start to finish. This film was one vehicle that helped many vets come to a healing place after being so mentally brutalized by their Viet-Nam experiences.

    Added note: While I am a fan and supporter of Cruise, if you ever see "My Left Foot" you'll understand why the Academy voted that way... the two actors were up against an impressive crowd that year, Morgan Freeman, Kenneth Branagh, and Robin Williams.
    Colige suspectos semper habitos

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Vancouver, B.C.
    Posts
    598
    Originally posted by cinemabon
    Instead, it dwelt on the thin book written by New Orleans attorney James Garrison, ("On the trail of the Assasins"; I did not read the Marrs book) which is laughable at best, if ya'll have ever read it.
    Because you think it is "laughable" does not make it so. It is based on an intimate knowledge of the comings and goings of Oswald in New Orleans, his association with both the right wing Guy Bannister and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. It traces his documented association with David Ferrie and Clay Shaw. It is by no means a thin book but a hard-hitting fact-based expose. After all, he was the District Attorney in New Orleans and knows what he is talking about.
    The most plausible theory yet is that the assassination was a mob hit, although the mob would need big "hookas" to carry this one off, including blaming a two-bit "Communist" like Oswald.
    There is no way the mob could have engineered changing the parade route at the last minute, setting up Oswald to work at the School Book depository building, cropping the false photos of Oswald carrying a gun, doctoring the autopsy report and all the numerous shenanigans associated with the cover-up. The killing had to come from a high level organizational effort with access to intelligence information.
    "They must find it hard, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority" Gerald Massey

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,627
    Schu... I definitely respect your level of intelligence... but if you think that all DA's are brilliant, then we need to talk. His book was sensation, far from incisive or insightful. And while you have an incredible grasp on the multi-leveled aspects of the inner workings of films and their creators, the Kennedy Assassination is rife with misinformation, rumor, and unsubstantiated boastings that are often taken as fact. The Warren Commission was full of so many holes it is often referred to as the Warren "Omission"! There isn't an American over fifty out there that believes for one minute we know all there is to know about how John Kennedy met his end in Dallas. Everyone has a theory.

    But getting back to the film, the best part was isolating the Zapruder film. When witnessing the "fatal" shot, one can really see that this is not a shot from behind. Where it came from no one can know or ever will. If "JFK" had a moment of drama, that was it. The rest was awful... and the critics agreed.

    By the way, go to Amazon.com and put in Kennedy Assassination. I came up with over 11,000 references! I researched 10 titles reading synopsis and comments... Garrison's book wasn't even in the top 50. Doesn't that tell you something? Everyone and his grandma has something to say about it (I would put more credence in Tom Wicker than Garrison).
    Colige suspectos semper habitos

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Vancouver, B.C.
    Posts
    598

    About Garrison

    Originally posted by cinemabon
    Schu... I definitely respect your level of intelligence... but if you think that all DA's are brilliant, then we need to talk. His book was sensation, far from incisive or insightful. And while you have an incredible grasp on the multi-leveled aspects of the inner workings of films and their creators, the Kennedy Assassination is rife with misinformation, rumor, and unsubstantiated boastings that are often taken as fact. The Warren Commission was full of so many holes it is often referred to as the Warren "Omission"! There isn't an American over fifty out there that believes for one minute we know all there is to know about how John Kennedy met his end in Dallas. Everyone has a theory.

    But getting back to the film, the best part was isolating the Zapruder film. When witnessing the "fatal" shot, one can really see that this is not a shot from behind. Where it came from no one can know or ever will. If "JFK" had a moment of drama, that was it. The rest was awful... and the critics agreed.

    By the way, go to Amazon.com and put in Kennedy Assassination. I came up with over 11,000 references! I researched 10 titles reading synopsis and comments... Garrison's book wasn't even in the top 50. Doesn't that tell you something? Everyone and his grandma has something to say about it (I would put more credence in Tom Wicker than Garrison).
    I beg to differ. I have read over 50 books on the JFK assassination and Garrison's is one of the best. By the way, where did I say that all DAs are brilliant?

    In 1966, Garrison began investigating Oswald's stay in New Orleans during the summer of 1963. He focused on ex-airline pilot David Ferrie known to have associated with Oswald and someone who had connections to both the CIA and the Anti-Castro Cubans. Less than a week later, Ferrie was found dead in his apartment under suspicious circumstances. The suspicions led to Shaw when Dean Andrews a colorful New Orleans lawyer told Garrison that Shaw (using the alias of Clay Bertrand) had called him (Andrews) asking him to represent Lee Harvey Oswald. Given the connections of Bannister, Oswald, and Ferrie to the FBI, the CIA, and the Anti-Castro Cubans, it was not that hard to connect Shaw and Permindex as the highest CIA-connected officials in the area, and who were all part of the homosexual underground in New Orleans. All of them were violently anti-Kennedy

    Garrison is portrayed in the film as he was, a courageous and independent prosecutor who had the audacity to take on the entire media and intelligence establishment to produce the first indictments in the Kennedy conspiracy. Garrison is shown with all his faults as witness his breaking of promises to his family and his overly trusting members of his own staff who it later turned out were gathering evidence to report to the FBI. Yes, he is shown as an idealist and guess what. That's exactly what he was.

    The bottom line is this: Two major media conglomerates, Time-Life and NBC were instrumental in making Garrison into an object of ridicule and criticism. This campaign was successful in diverting attention from the facts that Garrison was uncovering by creating controversy about the DA himself, a common tactic. I know of no other public figure that was attacked so viciously and so unfairly. Ask yourself this question. Would these attacks have taken place if Garrison was not onto something? Garrison did not have a multi-million dollar budget, 100 employees, and access to the media, only courage and a passion for the truth.

    As far as what the critics thought about the film, Roger Ebert picked JFK as the best film of 1991. Some ratings:

    Chicago Sun-Times (Roger Ebert) review [4/4]
    Looking Closer (Jeffrey Overstreet) review [A-]
    filmcritic.com (Christopher Null) review [5/5]
    BBC Films (Ali Barclay) review [3/5]
    DVD Talk (Gil Jawetz) dvd [5/5] [Special Director's Cut]
    MovieJustice (Dan DeVore) review [A+]
    Jason Overbeck <root-for-badguys@juno.com> retrospective [A+]
    Apollo Guide (Brian Webster) review [83/100]
    Movie Gazette (Andrea Chee) dvd [9/10]
    Austin Chronicle (Marjorie Baumgarten) review [3.5/5]
    Laramie Movie Scope (Robert Roten) review [3.5/4]
    Dark Horizons (Garth Franklin) dvd [4/5] [Director's Cut Special Edition]
    CinemaZone.dk dvd-anmeldelse dansk [5/6]

    These are only the ones with a rating.
    "They must find it hard, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority" Gerald Massey

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    11
    I positively have not read over 50 books on the Kennedy assassination. Too much time away from cinema, I'd say. Stone simply takes too many liberties, when the gravity of the issue demanded a more sober, level-headed approach.
    This links you to an article from The Atlantic I found interesting:
    www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/jfk.htm

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Vancouver, B.C.
    Posts
    598
    Originally posted by chelsea jubis
    I positively have not read over 50 books on the Kennedy assassination. Too much time away from cinema, I'd say. Stone simply takes too many liberties, when the gravity of the issue demanded a more sober, level-headed approach.
    This links you to an article from The Atlantic I found interesting:
    www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/jfk.htm
    I disagree. I think it is an honest and courageous film that brought the issues to the attention of the public in a way that books and articles had never done before.

    I also think it brought a new credibility to opponents of the Warren Commission. Although prior to the film, over 70% of the American people opposed the official explanation, after the film it went up to 80%. I know in my family, I'd been talking about it for years, yet it was only after seeing the film that the whole outline of the conspiracy became perfectly clear to my family and the friends they invited with them.

    I think it tells the truth.
    "They must find it hard, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority" Gerald Massey

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656
    The best thing JFK did was point out "something ain't right"....

    Oliver grabs the viewer by the lapels and doesn't let go until you admit that we indeed don't know everything about that day (and the days leading up to it).

    Also, anybody have an opinion on Sutherland's huge speech as "X"?

    That's some of the most riveting cinema I've ever seen...
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •