Discussion in 'TV Show Forum' started by MrFurious, Nov 23, 2003.
as in the header,should be an interesting one.
I was reading the ruled out the theory of suicide, no jokeing.
great programme,they did,nt like Oliver stone's JFK though did they.
JFK (the film) has always been one of my favourites but, after
watching this excellent documentary, I don't think that I'll ever
be able to enjoy it again! I loved Oliver Stones interpretation of the many conspiracy theories that have surfaced since the assasination of Kennedy, but this programme made him look like a fiction writer!
I'm not sure what to make of it. I don't know whether I should take something as "gospel" just because it was in a documentary (albeit a very interesting one) from the BBC. After all, I've seen how a journo like Martin Bashir can stitch someone up the way he did with Michael Jackson... all these theories are the same, it all depends on just how much you say and how much you don't. I didn't see anything that would make me bet my mortgage on the BBCs theory any more than I would Oliver Stones.
I remain baffled
JFk (the movie) is one of my all time favs (editing, sound, direction etc) its a mesmerising peice of film making. But i always knew it was partly fiction (as my father is a JFK nut - books videos etc). However, what it did do was highlight that there are/were (?) a lot of unanswered questions surrounding the shooting of JFK. I watched the documentary last night and felt a little short changed - things were glossed over (i.e how did Oswald get back into the USA (with a russian wife) AFTER he had defected to the USSR? esp at the high of the cold war?) and the final shot (the back and too the left one" was not really discussed in any great detail.
If it was Oswald then so be it - but also remember that Clay Shaw WAS a CIA agent at the time of the shooting.
Those of you who have seen the film - have you ever wondered who the Mr X character was really? well it was this man:
did anyone tape this?
i forgot it was it was on,ill pay you some £££s for you to jiffy it to me.
I saw Alex Cox do an intro to The Parallax View some years ago, I had seen the film previously and it had chilled me to the bone, but Alexs intro really frightened me, as he presented some facts about shadow conspiracies and organisations.
At first watching last nights documentary I started believing it was a Lone Gunman but thinking back to the Alexs intro I believe anything could have happened.
I'm just waiting for my copy of JFK directors cut to arrive i love that film and Donald Sutherland deserved an oscar for best supporting actor.
Have to say I really enjoyed JKF on the big screen, thought it was one of Costner's more defining moments. After watching the documentary last night though I was quite disturbed at how artistic license Oliver Stone used when making the film - had I know on the films cinema release that it was not really a docu-film but more a representation of how Stone believed the assassination had happened, I would have viewed it in a very different way. As muted it the Doc' last night, Stones portrayal of the assassination had so much weight that the ever so intelligent America public (or many of them) now believe Stone's version of the events.
The bit that really disturbs me are speeches which never happened, like Jim Garrison final summing up in the court room, a speech that was never made in real life but one mustered up by Stone - for what reason? To tell it how he wanted? To make it more exciting? To give it more drama?
I thought that was a speech too far cos they had already made their point before that scene, but still it did make some interesting points and raised some questions.
the courtroom scene in JFk was written on the fly, stone was writing it then directing Costner.
I think Oswald did it - alone. The whole point of the documentary was to try to get people to realise that one nut can do such a monstrous thing on his own. Oswald's brother carefully explained how disturbed he was and that he did it for the attention.
Jack Ruby also shot Oswald thinking he'd be regarded as a hero. Just small men wanting to feel bigger. No orders, no conspiracy.
Stone's portrayel of the events now look like a fairytale. Magic bullet, Pristine bullet, grassy knoll, 6 secs for all 3 shots impossible, etc.
not the first time olly stone has blured fact from fiction. as a doors fan 50% of the film "the doors" is fiction, myth is mixed with fact to make a more interesting story,. likewise in jfk. remember films are entertainment not historical documents has been so for a hundred years,
birth of a nation
bridge on river kwai
black hawk down
all based on facts but not in shooting distance of the truth.
ps. loved all six films listed above
I was very upset by the documentary.
I'm interested in the JFK assasination and watched 'The Men Who Killed Kenedy' which raised a lot of questions which the documentary last night could never have time to address.
But I had taken the 'facts' used in JFK to be just that - FACTS.
No - I couldn't believe that Oswald could fire off 3 rounds in 6 seconds. YES I could believe that he could do it in 8.3.
In JFK they said Oswald was an average shot. Wrong - he was an outstanding shot at 200 yards. And the repository window to the motorcade was 88 yards.
JFK would have us believe that the 'pristine' 'magic' bullet was 'placed' on the stretch in the hospital. The fact that it was in no way pristine and was a 97% match for the shards in the Govenor's wrist added to the effect.
And the computer reconstruction which illustrates that the 'magic' bullet theory would only be 'needed' with Kennedy and the Govenor sat in the wrong places in any theoretical model. Place them in the correct sitting positions and the single bullet explains their wounds perfectly.
And when I discovered that Jim Garrison never made that incredibly moving speech which Costner made at the end of JFK, I was livid.
I feel Oliver Stone has duped me and I'll never watch JFK again as for me it's completely invalidated.
You wouldn't believe the number of people who contact me accusing me of some wild conspiracy theory as to why their post has been deleted where, of course, no such conspiracy exists.
My take on life is that the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. No there are no aliens. No there isn't a God. And after seeing the documentary last night, no, there was probably no conspiracy.
Why was my post deleted lol
I can't comment on Birth... or Olympiad and I know Bridge... was a story so far from the truth that the people who actually suffered at the hands of the Japs were upset by it (excellent though the film was). But BHD was made to be as close to the truth as possible while maintaining an entertaining story within 2 hours. IMO it was within spitting distance of the truth.
A list of Stone's faux pas are listed here:
sheeeeesh i got JFK coming this week on DVD and now readin all those pages have spoiled it for me, Stones made a work of fiction tskkk.
Just enjoy it as a piece of fiction like I do with Braveheart.
There is an other JFK documentary tonight on BBC2 called Days That Shook The World.
I was planning on watching the JFK DVD this week with my GF (I've seen it before, she hasn't).
Before the BBC2 doc I explained to her how great it was and how they prove there 'probably' was a conspiracy involving many different characters and complex sub-plots etc.
But now after seeing the doc, i've had to retract all this and we WON'T be watching it.
I feel such a fool for believing it. I know it's only a film but Stone is such a skilled film maker, he sucks you in and you can't help but take it all as fact.
Even before the film was made I believed there was a conspiracy.
Back in the 80s Central TV made a convincing doc based on the book 'Crossfire' which nailed it for me.
But this is the first doc that I have seen on JFK that solely looks at the facts and the lone nut guman theory rather than any conspiracy theory.
Like Spectre says....
The simplest (and most obvious) explainationation is usually the correct one.
Let's hear it for modern documentary film makers who in recent years have debunked the Monroe conspiracy theory, Psychics (cold reading), Ghosts, UFOs etc and most other paranormal nonsense.
Hey Braveheart isn't fiction that man's a hero in Scotland with his own statue.
Ghosts and other apparitions which we see are the result of low ultra sonic frequencies which distort human thinking and cause hallucinations.
Not saying WW wasnt real, he was real like JFK but there was a lot of fiction thrown in Braveheart which a many of the punters took as being actual fact or liked to be fact.
For starters, it was Sir william wallace. not the farmer type gibson had you believe
'Infrasound', as used in the Japanese movie 'Ring'...
It's no wonder Americans believe the won the 2nd World War single handed, people seem to believe Hollywood rather than the history books. No doubt soon they will all believe that one American single handedly saved the UK from German invasion during the Battle Of Britain
That would have been the Rocketeer.
The devils own made me want to throw up. The way they made brad pitt out to be a hero. Harrison ford saying to mr pitt as he kicking it. "You had no choice"!!!
Just show'd how little they know about terrorism, and northern Ireland
I love the film but haven't seen it for a while, and I watched about 10 minutes of the documentary, so I can't say whether this stuff was covered or not. Maybe someone can help me out.
But wasn't there a guy hit with a ricochet under the over pass, that I think Stones' film said proved there was more then one gunman? Was this covered in the documentary?
There was all those witnesses who said they heard gunfire from the grassy knoll. Before all the conspiracy stuff started circulating. And although they mentioned in the documentary, that a body can move in any direction after being shot, it still seems a bit iffy that his head would move "back and to the left", after being shot in the back of the head.
I did like the dispelling of the magic bullet theory in the doc which kind of quells that theory for me. but that part is all I really got to see.
There was the thing about the the Oswald photo, and how it seemed to be a forgery.
Like has been mentioned, there was the thing about Oswald being let back into the country after defecting. Shaw being CIA. The notes from Oswalds interogation being destroyed etc. The way there was no police presence on the street or covering the windows. The president driving in an open top car, with it being cleaned and repaired straight after the shooting without being looked at. etc.
Theres tons of stuff, but these are just things I can remember off the top of my head.
How much of Stone theories were covered in the documentary?
I'm not or never will believe Stones film is the truth or that there was a conspiracy, or whether it was only one person. For the simple reason that one film and one documentary won't guide my stance either way. Its not enough, and should not be for anyone who is saying that 'the other guy' is talking total bullsh*t after watching the one documentary or one film.
For people who are now shocked and appalled at Stones film and the fact that that Garrison never made the speech. Its a film and films have always taken liberties. If you are watching either a film or a documentary, and taking it as gospel truth, I think you may need to step back a bit and realise that every arguement has two sides (or in the case of JFK many sides )
From what I saw of the doc, and Stones film, both of them refused or just disregarded any information that would upset their theories. Which will always cause a problem in assuming 'the truth'.
The only persons opinion I would believe at this point is Garyd's dad who is a "JFK nut" and has done a load of research on the subject. What does he think actually happened?
Watch ALL the documentary, it deals with the FACTS unlike the film which deals with THEORIES and a LOT of fiction.
It will change your view.
Have a look at this site....
It explains all (and much more) of what the doc covered, i.e THE FACTS.
Other than in films, have you ever seen anybody shot in the back of the head and seen what happens? I certainly haven't.
Do you have any medical, pathological or ballistics expertise to back your 'iffy' statement?
I know I haven't, but on the link above there is a clip demontrating somebody shooting a melon from behind with a rifle and lo and behold it rolls backwards.
Quite a lot and they were all POO POO'D.
e.g. Oswald was a crack marksman and he had 8.5 seconds not 6 seconds to fire 3 shots. Even an 89 year old man being interviewed could do it!
Not in this case. One deals with the facts, the others deal with theories, hearsay, speculation and even a much fiction (which helps sells books and a film!).
You wouldn't make a good juror.
Stone's film was a good piece of cinema and that' all it was nothing more.
JFK was assasinated by a lone gun man nut.
Why is this so hard to believe?
Reagan and Lennon were shot by similar nuts.
There was no conspiracy.
It just seems incomprehendable that a frail looking misfit could be capable of killing the world's most powerful man at the time.
Separate names with a comma.