Why shouldn't Oliver Stone's JFK be taken at face value, even though he a great director.?

Question

I am using JFK as a source for a essay and I wanted to know why shouldn't the film be taken at face value. I know as a director his job is to make films a hit, but apart from this...

Answer 1

The movie JFK is made for dramatic value, not historical value. It probably puts too much stock in the various conspiracy theories surrounding the events leading up to and immediately following the assasination of Kennedy.

The way the movie presents these theories is as fact, which works well for the purpose (drama), but it does keep it from being really all that credible as a historical reference.

This movie is interesting. It's dramatic. Its subject is one of the most talked-about conspiracies in our nation's history. But it is, when it's all said and done, a fictional movie.

Answer 2

Simple, no one source of anything should ever be taken at face value. Why not ? Because all sources are 'coloured', subjectivity is inevitable.

The whole business of JFK's assassination has been tainted since long before the event. So many factors, none making any sense in isolation. Joe Kennedy had been the Seagrams ( Canadian booze ) importer into the USA before prohibition, and needed to find a way to continue his business. Foolishly he fell into 'bed' with some very unsavoury characters, including the extraordinarly vicious Sam Giancana.

Most insiders agree that somewhere, between the Mob and the 'Company' ( the CIA ), JFK fell foul of his families dealings, Joe 'owed' the mob, Bobbie, the idealist, had vowed to bring them down, while Jack just wanted to hump the girlies. The Company had a wish-list of it's own, and the Kennedy circus wasn't playing enough ball to suit the 'grey men'.

That Jack could not possibly have died the way they said he did due to the 'magic bullet' is a matter of forensic fact. That shooter(s) must have been stationed on the infamous 'Grassy Knoll', is a matter of fact. That poor deluded Lee Harvey Oswald had been set up as 'patsy' was clear, and that even his assassin, Jack Ruby, had been 'fingered' to finish the silencing job, and was close to death due to his ailing heart is also a no-brainer.

All in all ? Ollie Stone did a great job, but simply couldn't encompass all of the material, I was a little disappointed in the film, but encouraged that at least some effort had been made to make sense out of the senseless.

As I wrote above, if you want to write an essay on Stone's movie, great, that's quite valid as a project, but if you want to expand on the Kennedy Assassination, then you have your work cut out.

A hint, there was never a 'lone gunman', nor was there ever intended to be. The fact that most of the world 'bought' the official story is a monument to our unbelievable complacency.

Answer 3

Too difficult questions, I think.

Referring his film about Richard Nixon it seems that the director would like to rise questions.

We shall still wait until the files about the murder of JFK will be opened. Until that, everything is speculation.

I prefer that you'll take this film into your essay with a question mark. It is worth of it.

Answer 4

do you mean why do a lot of people not believe it, your question not really clear. i think it is an excellent film, a few of the characters were made up just to make us think a bit more, donald sutherland`s character never existed, i know that for sure as i heard him talk about that on tv, can not be certain of the other made up characters...anyway a good movie.

Answer 5

because he wanted to prove his version of history. i have seen several documentaries on the assassination, and i am a firm believer that oswald acted alone, and more to the point, that Ston had a political agenda that he was pushing when he made the movie. there is a documentary about the assassination with one of the big news guys, sam donadlson or somebody like that. anyway, check it out. much more FACTUAL than JKF

Answer 6

Sorry but I can't figure out what your question is?