comment #1

squealy says ...

He explains the magic bullet in the book. What no one who discusses this ever points out is that Connolly was turned sideways in his seat when he was hit, talking to JFK. That's why the bullet took the trajectory through his body it did. It's a perfectly reasonable explanation.

I read the book a while ago, but from what I recall, Posner is able to explain most of the inconsistencies that the whole JFK myth rests upon using contemporary forensic methods that weren't available in 1963.

comment #2

vansmith says ...

ahhh, on second thought, no comment...

comment #3

bipedalist says ...

I watched JFK recently and I can say, boy, what a turkey. It may have been great when it came out but it does not stand the test of time. And Costner is HORRIBLE.

comment #4

Craig Kennedy says ...

"Back...and to the left. Back...and to the left. Back..."

comment #5

Breedlove says ...

i read 'case closed' years ago and watched the kennedy assasination special on the history channel the other night. they both convinced me that oswald acted alone. if you look at the facts that really seems to be the case. 'JFK', to me, is a masterpiece. stone totally plays fast and loose with the facts but it's one of the more purely entertaining movies i've ever seen. the writing, acting, editing, and the way it's shot and put together are amazing. off the top of my head i'd say it's one of the ten best films of the 90s.

comment #6

Devin Faraci says ...

The House Select Committee on Assassinations listened to an audio recording of the Kennedy shooting made from an open mic on a motorcycle cop's bike and came to the conclusion that at least four shots were fired.

comment #7

vansmith says ...

this is a never ending circle jerk, they got him.. case closed..nobody in the gov liked him, NO ONE..

comment #8

Walter Sobchak says ...

Good point about the slightly wrong haircut thing. Movies are always getting it wrong. (My favorite are the WWII films shot in the 60's that have hot Euro chicks with mod flips...even in such "high-brow" fair as "The Longest Day") The problem many modern films have when they shoot period flims is that they go with what is "in" at the time. For example, if the movie takes place in 1966, the production designer and wardrobe person will look at design and fashion magazines from 1966 to see what was in style. The problem is, the vast majority of people at any given time are not in style. Believe it or not, most people in 1968 for example were not hippies. Most black people did not have giant afros. If you look at a 1968 high school yearbook from most parts of the country you'll see that most of the people in it still look like "Leave it to Beaver" cast members. (flat tops, bakolite black glasses, brylcream). The so-called "hippy look" (sideburns, longer hair) didn't catch on with most of the country until the 70's.
Too bad Kennedy got shot, too.

comment #9

frankbooth says ...

Period films made in the '70s are particularly bad about this. Check out the background extras in American Graffitti, for example. The Front is another one. M*A*S*H, too. Even in civilian life, would Korean War-era doctors, even wild-and-crazy anti-establishment guys (or for that matter, anyone who wasn't a beatnik) run around with bushy jew-fros and 'staches?

And just last night, I was listening to commentary track for Edmond. Mamet was complaining that movie cops in bit roles never have short enough hair, because the actors don't wanna get it cut.

Hair. It's what's for breakfast (discussion.)

As for JFK, I did it. Glad to get that off my chest, case closed.

comment #10

bipedalist says ...

cj, hahahaha

comment #11

bipedalist says ...

I meant to add - JFK and Jackie look so like Brad and Angie. I know, it's shallow to say it but it's weirdly true. Some artsy photog could have a field day with that.

comment #12

Pablo Villaça says ...

JFK remains absolutely fantastic to this day. As a matter of fact, I watched it again a couple months ago and was once again mesmerized by it.

comment #13

Rich S. says ...

frank, I tend to give M*A*S*H a pass on this kind of stuff because everyone involved freely admits that the movie was really about contemporary Vietnam. Korea was just used as a front to get the picture made. So the movie is inaccurate, but almost intentionally so.

This is a little off-topic, but what always makes me mad in period films is beer cans. Up until the early 70s, beer was sold in steel cans that you had to use a can opener to open. Pop tops, of any kind, didn't exist. But you rarely see characters using "church keys" on beer cans in period films.

The weirdest example of this is Platoon. For obvious budgetary reasons, Stone couldn't use old steel cans. But he still had his characters open the aluminum cans he could get with a church key. Ever tried to do that? Yeah, Kevin Dillon had a bitch of a time with it, too.

comment #14

RoyBatty says ...

You got me - all of that JFK stuff just to sucker us into a fucking rant about HAIRCUTS!

And while it might have had some merits, it seems too caught up in Wells' continued fascination with things more suitable for bitchy Vanity Fair or even Cosmo articles.

So much so that he missed an interesting affirmation of the central point about how filmmakers continue to use cliched, touchstone style markers: this week's article in the NY Times about ZODIAC. In it, Fincher at one point actually talks about this very thing and how he had to have extras removed because they were sporting "trendy" period clothes only seen in magazines.

comment #15

nemo says ...

Try any period film starring Robert Redford. His hair is a thing of beauty, but it's always too long and wildly anachronistic for the period:

This Property Is Condemned
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
The Way We Were
The Sting
The Great Gatsby
The Natural
Out of Africa

I liked most of his films, but I never for one moment thought I was watching a real person in the 1920s or 30s or 1880s. That 1970s-80s hair always took me out of the period. About the only period film where his hair was right was playing a mountain man in "Jeremiah Johnson".

comment #16

Mr. Gittes says ...

Oliver Stone's JFK is, perhaps, one of the best edited films ever. Even if you don't agree with its "message" the film is still a monumental achievement.

comment #17

christian says ...

and don't forget faye dunaway's distinctly 60's hair in BONNIE AND CLYDE...or the 70's hair rampant in STAR WARS...

as per JFK, the first time i saw it was in a screening room in dallas less than a mile from the site. the film is science fiction, but mesmerizing. you gotta love john candy's daddy-o hipster dj...

comment #18

T. S. Idiot says ...

Redford's hair is only one such problem with The Way We Weren't. In a beach scene set in the late 40s, he's wearing the style of tight jeans not seen until the 60s. 40s studio exec Patrick O'Neal has a fluffed-up early 70s 'do and even says he wants to be "up front" about something. Most American period movies of the past two decades are crammed with such blunders. As I reported weeks ago, Dreamgirls is full of period errors.

comment #19

DavidF says ...

The hair in Star Wars might not be wrong.
Being set in another galaxy and a long time ago...well, who is to say it's not correct? Maybe the Starwarsians invented 70s hair...?

There are varying degrees of period mistakes and how significant they are.

Ultimately this is a bit of a silly complaint. It's only slightly more significant than complaining how the original Star Trek looks like it's set in the 60s and Next Generation looks like it's in the 80s and NEITHER really looks like the 23rd century...

Firmly in the No Shit Sherlock category.

comment #20

christian says ...

also in THE WAY WE WERE, 30's activist streisand tells a group of protesters that they're "beautiful" in a way only a 60's hippy would have understood.

pauline kael wrote a great essay about the making of sidney lumet's THE GROUP in 66. read it and weep when you realize that this kind of inside tale could never ever be written today. kael blasts lumet through the course of the essay, revealing him to be fairly shallow. she tells lumet about the anachronistic sets and hair. lumet says he doesn't care about those details.

comment #21

Walter Sobchak says ...

Funny how at one time people (straight men) actually thought Streisand was attractive. Watch the scene in Way We Were now when Redford and Babs are in bed together. He has this look on his face like he lost a bet.

comment #22

christian says ...

i'm straight and i think babs was hot in her new york 60's tv diva phase. she also looks great in WHAT'S UP DOC too. it's that frizzy short hair that don't fly.

comment #23

EveHarrington says ...

Ignorance is bliss, ain't it.

comment #24

EveHarrington says ...

ps. JFK totally holds up. How dare you, Bipedalist!

comment #25

Craig Kennedy says ...

Eve you convinced me maybe Titanic was worth a revisit, but do I have to watch JFK again now too?

Is there anything left for me to hate?!?

comment #26

EveHarrington says ...

cj, lol. There are always films to hate, unfortunately. But when you consider the giant brass balls it took for Oliver Stone to even make JFK in the first place, to research it and render that research into a cohesive drama that asked all the right questions and was compelling enough to draw and hold an audience, thereby grabbing the sleepwalking media's attention, you're looking at an unequivocal success. I mean, at the end of the day, apologists like Posner will always have an audience of willing suckers who "want to believe" in Oswald, the Warren Commission and the Magic Bullet, but even if the theory posed in JFK is wrong, the facts speak for themselves, and point implacably toward a conspiracy and multiple shooters.

comment #27

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"But when you consider the giant brass balls it took for Oliver Stone to even make JFK in the first place, to research it and render that research into a cohesive drama that asked all the right questions and was compelling enough to draw and hold an audience, thereby grabbing the sleepwalking media's attention, you're looking at..."

Slickly crafted total crapola.

comment #28

Larry says ...

I think JFK is Stone's best film. That it's one long lie from beginning to end doesn't change that.

By the way, the silly mistakes the House Select Committee on Assassinations made have long been debunked.

comment #29

Rich S. says ...

I would have been far more engrossed by JFK had it not required the living deus ex machina portrayed by Donald Sutherland. Stone could have borrowed from Mike Myers and called him Basil Exposition. But at least they got his haircut and hat right.

comment #30

Craig Kennedy says ...

I can't argue against JFK with any kind of authority because I haven't seen it since it first came out. The one two punch of Born on the 4th of July and JFK put me off Oliver Stone for good until this year when I watched World Trade Center. In both cases I remember it wasn't the content that I didn't like, it was the form. The guy has one degree of subtlety and that is a sledgehammer blow to the noggin. Back and to the left indeed.

comment #31

EveHarrington says ...

Oliver Stone doesn't need me to defend his filmmaking prowess, and I'm not doing that anyway (frankly, he peaked with JFK imho), but he gets a lifetime pass for taking on such a powerful and contentious, and yes, important story. Odds are that not one of us posting here will have the kind of impact on history that he had with that film.

And to those of you who choose to believe the lone gunman theory, peace be with you. But Occam's razor cuts both ways.

comment #32

christian says ...

like i said JFK is proto-sci-fi. but briliant in its execution (minus the obligatory stressed wife scenes) and will be studied by film scholars and students for years to come.

dazzling it is and i'm gonna watch it again this week for kicks.

comment #33

Geoff says ...

JFK is still extremely engrossing. It's just a giant mish-mash of all the paranoid conspiracy theories wrapped up in a film. The editing, gary oldman and the music are all superb. Really entertaining stuff.

comment #34

Geoff says ...

I'm serious people, take a look at JFK again. Anyone who doesn't like it is really kind of nuts. I just watched it again a month or two ago.

comment #35

Craig Kennedy says ...

Alright, OK...you talked me into it. I've been thinking about revisiting some Oliver Stone films anyway.

comment #36

EveHarrington says ...

Christian and anyone else who believes that the basis of JFK is science fiction, how much do you know about the actual murder? Have you looked into it as an individual? Have you read books on the subject (besides Posner's whitewash)? Have you done any of your own research? Examined the photos taken at the scene or what little physical evidence has managed to survive? Or spoken with any of the witnesses?

And Geoff, it's not a mish mash of all the conspiracy theories -- it's Garrison's theory. Note that there's no mention of the Mob. Garrison didn't go there and neither did Stone, but it's a prominent element in many of the theories surrounding the murder.

JFK's assassination is an important litmus test to history -- if you can dismiss it as just some wild nut who decided one day to assassinate JFK, then yeah, all the colors will stay in the lines. I can definitely see the allure of that. But I would argue that point of view is science fiction.

comment #37

Geoff says ...

EveHarrington: Lot's of people believe or liek to think about what Garrison, i.e. the film, says. The film goes through a ton of stuff, some things dwelled on more than others. And i don't know if you've seen the film recently, but there IS mention of the mob. Jack Ruby's character for one, but one scene has Michael Rooker's character trying to fit the mob into a theory and Costner says, well yeah, sure but they would have worked at lower levels and not had access to other things, etc. Garrison's theory, or the film's theory, or whatever the fuck you want to call it includes ALOT. Go back and watch the movie.

comment #38

Walter Sobchak says ...

Pauline Kael on retirement: "Well, at least I don't have to sit through any more Oliver Stones movies."

comment #39

EveHarrington says ...

Dismissive at best. JFK does include a lot but it's one of many viable theories, and not all of them were squeezed into the movie.

comment #40

christian says ...

i believe there was a minor conspiracy but stone's version is not gospel.

comment #41

cust71 says ...

This flick is my all time fave, hands down. To me, it represents all elements of filmmaking at its finest. Had to get that out.

As for the assassination, there's just too many x-factors for there not to be a 2nd gunman. As Walter Matthau's character says: "One pristine bullet? That dog don't hunt."

Stone has his own theory, sure, but the movie goes thru a list of what's out there.

And the stretch where Pesci's character "OD's" is a great example of editing. I loved where tape one ended on my VHS version (rebought this thing 3 times), where Jay O. Sanders throws his papers in frustration. Just an abrupt cut. Not the same on the DVD, but it looks a whole lot betta.

comment #42

americanrat says ...

Anyone who has been to the Book Depository Museum in Dallas and sees where Oswald alone took the fatal shots has no trouble believing he was the lone shooter.

People who insist that there was a conspiracy are intellectually dishonest, even to themselves.

comment #43

americanrat says ...

By the way, here's a site with a picture of the "pristine" magic bullet.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm

The JFK conspiracy is a continuing effort to hide the fact that JFK, the last conservative Democrat, was murdered by a left winger.

Oh, and JFK is a good movie but Nixon is a better one.

comment #44

T. S. Idiot says ...

This has nothing to do with the merits of JFK, but while it was filming, my wife and I were in a New Orleans hotel elevator with Jay O. Sanders and a crew member. The crewie pointed to his head and told Sanders that the hat he was wearing once belonged to Jack Ruby. Sanders gave us a big can-you-believe-this-guy grin and said, "Oh, yeah." A case of conspiracy fever.

comment #45

dre says ...

JFK and Nixon are Stone's masterpieces. And the Donald Sutherland scene in JFK is probably the best scene in the film.

comment #46

rocco says ...

'JFK' is fascinating...a fascinating mess, but fascinating nonetheless. Faults and all, it's one of the most engrossing movies I've ever seen.

comment #47

Dan Revill says ...

cj, you can hate Patch Adams if you like. And Life is Beautiful.

I can't even finish those two films.

comment #48

Titus Pullo says ...

Oh boy, here we go. I don't buy the warren Commision, it is very likely someone fired the bullet that killed JFK from that window, maybe even LHO. However, I do not believe in coincidence when it comes to matters such as these. I don't have the energy to go into it all, but there IS a lot of weird stuff surrounding the assasination. Not to mention the stuff around RFK's assassination, you know like the kid who spent 25 years suing to get back the film he shot at the Ambassador that night only to have the agent delivering it to him claim that someone stole it from the backseat when he was getting gas. Just a big ole coincidence. Among many surrounding these assassinations.

comment #49

christian says ...

here's what jack lemmon had to say:

This film is not based on fact? What was fact? That stupid report; the cover-up? The Warren Report; that disappointing, terrible thing from that great man [Earl Warren]. It was a whitewash; a total whitewash. If [the Warren Commission] can make up a myth, why can't Oliver?"

and i agree, sutherland's scene is pure basil exposition, but it's delivered, edited and directed brilliantly.

comment #50

Craig Kennedy says ...

Ahahah! Patch Adams. I hate that one, sight unseen. But now someone is going to say how great it is...

comment #51

dre says ...

Patch Adams is a masterpiece!!!!

nah, i can't back that up

comment #52

Rich S. says ...

christian,

I agree with you 100% about the manner in which Sutherland's scene is presented. I think it lends an aura of credibility to Stone's conglomeration of facts and conjecture. Without him, I think the movie would come across as slapdash. He's the glue that holds it together. That, in a way, is why his presence is so frustrating. You wish Stone didn't have to resort to that sort of thing, but your glad in the end he did. And Sutherland is mesmerizing.

Which raises another issue. Between Donald and Kiefer (on 24), don't we suddenly have a lot of Canadians in areas of sensitive national security? Maybe Stone should make a movie about that.

comment #53

Abercrombie & Fitch says ...

интернет магазин женской одежды abercrombie & fitch интернет магазин UGG Australia интернет магазин ugg Herve Leger kiev