JFK: The Movie That Rewrote History and Divided a Nation

by

Quick Links

  • The Cruel Truth Behind Oliver Stone’s ‘JFK’
  • ‘JFK’ Is History for Entertainment Purposes Only
  • Why Did Oliver Stone Mythologize an Absurd Footnote in Legal History?

Lately, President Donald Trump gave the green light to release classified documents related to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. For some, their understanding of the event is largely based on Oliver Stone’s 1991 film, “JFK”. However, it’s worth noting that Stone’s movie contains many inaccuracies and its portrayal has become questionable over time, with Stone presenting his main character, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison (portrayed by Kevin Costner), in a more favorable light than reality. The actual trial was a disastrous failure.

Regarding those confidential documents, it’s important to keep your expectations in check. Despite being heavily teased at the end of the movie, the actual findings from the 1976-79 U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations are likely to fall short for people who believed deeply in the story portrayed in JFK. While the film is a masterful piece of cinema, it’s essentially a misleading argument based on unsubstantiated claims, with the intent of inciting suspicion. The pseudo-documentary JFK was beneficial to conspiracy theorists, fostering simplistic paranoia, but did little to address the remaining questions. Sadly, that seems to have been the director’s intention.

The Cruel Truth Behind Oliver Stone’s ‘JFK’

It’s unlikely that these disclosures will establish a conspiracy or confirm the events portrayed in Stone’s movie, nor will they prove Oswald innocent. Given that Stone has been known to misrepresent crucial facts, and considering the character played by Costner was particularly misrepresented, one should not expect much credibility from these revelations.

It’s worth noting that the District Attorney of New Orleans left office with a reputation as a sensationalist who pursued a campaign against a man on allegations of homosexuality. This was met with protests from LGBTQ+ groups in 1991, which is hardly surprising.

The life of businessman Clay Shaw was dramatically altered as he became an unwitting target, used to divert attention from a more complex truth. In the movie, Shaw, portrayed by Tommy Lee Jones, was unfairly singled out due to societal prejudices against homosexuality, which was illegal at the time. Jim Garrison, the central figure, believed that President Kennedy’s assassination was an act of “homosexual thrill-killing,” a stereotype prevalent then suggesting that LGBTQ+ individuals were prone to violent and antisocial behavior. According to Patricia Lambert’s analysis in the book “False Witness“, those close to Garrison felt he was misguided, his case being seen as a baseless fabrication with no supporting evidence.

‘JFK’ Is History for Entertainment Purposes Only

The movie wasn’t intended to be an investigative report or academic biography about Oswald, Shaw, or Garrison. Instead, Stone referred to it as a “counter-myth” in an interview with the LA Times. Essentially, he was producing counter-propaganda and rewriting history to align with his political beliefs. After all, he’s known for making significant films, so he wouldn’t waste your time. However, it’s important to note that while two wrongs don’t make a right, he becomes just as morally questionable as those he accuses of lying.

From a moviegoer’s perspective: “As the end credits rolled, I couldn’t help but feel a tinge of disappointment at the message, “Dedicated to the young, who embody the quest for truth.” Frankly, I found myself questioning the validity of that statement. Before the actual trial even began, Time Magazine had already cast doubt on Garrison, suggesting he coerced testimony through drugs and hypnosis. Moreover, a crucial witness changed their story and struggled to identify Lee Harvey Oswald. In the end, Shaw was acquitted in just an hour by the jury. It’s hard not to wonder if Garrison was fighting against a corrupt system or perhaps even becoming it himself. No evidence of a cover-up was ever proven. Incredibly, despite these doubts, Garrison’s 15 minutes of fame persisted.

Why Did Oliver Stone Mythologize an Absurd Footnote in Legal History?

If there were truths to uncover and individuals to be brought to justice, Garrison’s inept prosecution made it difficult for any subsequent efforts. In essence, the main obstacle in the trial of Clay Shaw, as depicted in “The State of Louisiana vs Clay Shaw”, was Garrison himself. Even fellow conspiracy believers cringe at his name. It’s puzzling why Stone chose to portray this blunderer as a valiant champion for justice – one of the more surprising choices in film history. The director required a symbol for the movement, primarily to undermine the Warren Commission, not to accurately represent facts. Author Anthony Summers echoed this sentiment when he told Newsweek that Garrison’s reckless spending of taxpayer money was nothing more than an exercise of power, stating it was more about personal ambition than serving justice.

While researching for my book “Not in Your Lifetime“, I delved into the Clay Shaw trial. During this process, I interviewed several individuals, including Jim Garrison, who was then the District Attorney of New Orleans. From my perspective, Garrison seemed questionable. Ultimately, I came to believe that the Clay Shaw trial was a miscarriage of justice. Oliver Stone’s film “JFK“, which was based on Garrison’s work, unfortunately contributed to confusion in a case that holds significant importance for our nation, and it has remained so.

Although Stone demonstrates impressive directorial skills, he tends to fall prey to excessive credulity, thereby offering a stage for questionable public figures who can be comically untrustworthy. L. Fletcher Prouty, one of the film’s advisors, was frequently labeled as a crank, yet Stone remained unfazed by this reputation. The debate surrounding this subject has been severely compromised following the controversial portrayal in this movie, which was heavily criticized by historians.

This new revelation in the Congressional investigations merely fuels doubt among those genuinely seeking answers and expecting their leaders to be accountable. As for Oliver Stone’s latest film, if the recently unveiled top-secret documents fail to provide any substantial information, it may drift further towards comedy, albeit a highly engaging one.

By the way, JFK is currently up for rental on Prime Video, Apple TV, and Google Play.

Read More

2025-02-10 00:33