I saw this movie when it was shown on PBS Monday night as part of its "American Experience" series but it is available via Amazon.
Next Monday's documentary, "Lobotomy," on that PBS series also looks
troubling and fascinating, and I plan to watch that and possibly review
that one too. I just seeded a review of it here.
The idea behind this documentary by director Robert Stone is that ever since John F. Kennedy was shot in November 1963 there has been a tear in the thread of the nation that may never be sewed shut even with the best damn sewing machine in the world. It's hard to dispute that assertion, that belief that Lee Harvey Oswald's ghost continues to scare, linger and affect us all.
"Something had shifted under our feet. We knew during the weekend… that things would never be the same again," investigator/writer Josiah Thompson said of the weekend that first Kennedy was shot and then alleged gunman Lee Harvey Oswald was shot by Jack Ruby.
The movie has its strengths and weaknesses. The biggest strength is that it doesn't look at single events in a vacuum. I've wondered before how America went from believing the single gunman theory in 1963 to, today, the majority of Americans polled, the movie says,believing a conspiracy occurred. This movie helps explains that change.
The best part is its coverage of the time between the decade's three famous assassinations, from 1963, when JFK was killed, through 1968, when Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were killed.
Too often books and movies about the 1960s jump straight from JFK's killing to RFK's. This movie explained a major occurrence that other works skip over, namely the growing concern and resistance to Vietnam during those five years.
If you believe the government was lying about Vietnam then it became easier to believe the government was also lying about the JFK killing, said Thompson, who wrote one of the first books questioning what really happened. Thompson believed the gunshots that hit Kennedy came from three directions, not just the direction from which Oswald was located at the infamous Book Depository.
Viewers of the film are introduced to former television anchor Dan Rather and the late author Norman Mailer, who speak about what it was like to live through that time. Others who speak eloquently include former activists Tom Hayden and Todd Gitlin, who say the actions of the demonstrators in Chicago in 1968 must be kept in the context of those three famous assassinations. Hayden was one of the famous Chicago 7.
Also interviewed is Edward Jay Epstein and Mark Lane, both of whom, separately, wrote multiple books suggesting the Warren Commission's report concluding Oswald acted alone was faulty and that the commission skipped over important avenues of investigation.
They explain the significance of the famous Zapruder tape and how its images seemingly contradicted the official line of the Warren Commission Report.
The movie spends about ten minutes talking about Jim Garrison, who was the focus of Oliver Stone's movie JFK. Epstein explained the flaws of Garrison's theories. The movie makes Oliver Stone's movie sound better than it was.
One other strength of this movie is that it is well-documented and balanced. It doesn't come down on either side – pro-conspiracy or anti conspiracy - though there have certainly been many books taking those positions including these two in recent years.
Unfortunately, this approach also becomes a weakness. While it does an admirable job explaining the various theories and personalities by not taking a position it leaves the viewer somewhat disappointed.
This review by Slant nails the problem when it says:
I found myself identifying with Mailer who said he wanted to believe JFK's killing was a conspiracy because he did not want one man to be responsible for JFK's death, but none of the conspiracies added up perfectly.
One of the best arguments came near the end of the program: that the best argument in favor of it not being a cabal or a conspiracy is history. As decades pass no big revelations have come out, nobody has confessed or admitted to being part of this.
Do conspiracies exist? Yes, I'm sure they do.
But can a conspiracy this big stay a secret for decades? That, I find harder to believe.
Another interest perspective was provided by a female reporter, Priscilla Johnson McMillan,who had interviewed Oswald while he was in Russia and later interviewed his wife. McMillan says he had accomplished major undertakings by himself, which most people would not thing one man can do alone, first defecting to Russia and then not only leaving Russia but taking with him a wife.
Conversely, she said, Oswald was not known for doing what others wanted him to do, which would suggest that he would not become part of a conspiracy.
Whatever your position or beliefs on the killing of Kennedy I recommend checking out this movie. It may leave you wanting more but it will probably also provide you with historical tidbits that you had not heard before. For example, if Jack Ruby had really planned to kill Oswald why did he leave his beloved pet dog in his car when he went to the police station?
And yet, none other than former president Lyndon Johnson is among those who believed Oswald was part of a conspiracy. Did he know something we didn't know or was he just being paranoid, a character flaw attributed to him in the film.
We may never know. We might have to just get used to Oswald's ghost remaining with us for eternity.
The idea behind this documentary by director Robert Stone is that ever since John F. Kennedy was shot in November 1963 there has been a tear in the thread of the nation that may never be sewed shut even with the best damn sewing machine in the world. It's hard to dispute that assertion, that belief that Lee Harvey Oswald's ghost continues to scare, linger and affect us all.
"Something had shifted under our feet. We knew during the weekend… that things would never be the same again," investigator/writer Josiah Thompson said of the weekend that first Kennedy was shot and then alleged gunman Lee Harvey Oswald was shot by Jack Ruby.
The movie has its strengths and weaknesses. The biggest strength is that it doesn't look at single events in a vacuum. I've wondered before how America went from believing the single gunman theory in 1963 to, today, the majority of Americans polled, the movie says,believing a conspiracy occurred. This movie helps explains that change.
The best part is its coverage of the time between the decade's three famous assassinations, from 1963, when JFK was killed, through 1968, when Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were killed.
Too often books and movies about the 1960s jump straight from JFK's killing to RFK's. This movie explained a major occurrence that other works skip over, namely the growing concern and resistance to Vietnam during those five years.
If you believe the government was lying about Vietnam then it became easier to believe the government was also lying about the JFK killing, said Thompson, who wrote one of the first books questioning what really happened. Thompson believed the gunshots that hit Kennedy came from three directions, not just the direction from which Oswald was located at the infamous Book Depository.
Viewers of the film are introduced to former television anchor Dan Rather and the late author Norman Mailer, who speak about what it was like to live through that time. Others who speak eloquently include former activists Tom Hayden and Todd Gitlin, who say the actions of the demonstrators in Chicago in 1968 must be kept in the context of those three famous assassinations. Hayden was one of the famous Chicago 7.
Also interviewed is Edward Jay Epstein and Mark Lane, both of whom, separately, wrote multiple books suggesting the Warren Commission's report concluding Oswald acted alone was faulty and that the commission skipped over important avenues of investigation.
They explain the significance of the famous Zapruder tape and how its images seemingly contradicted the official line of the Warren Commission Report.
The movie spends about ten minutes talking about Jim Garrison, who was the focus of Oliver Stone's movie JFK. Epstein explained the flaws of Garrison's theories. The movie makes Oliver Stone's movie sound better than it was.
One other strength of this movie is that it is well-documented and balanced. It doesn't come down on either side – pro-conspiracy or anti conspiracy - though there have certainly been many books taking those positions including these two in recent years.
Unfortunately, this approach also becomes a weakness. While it does an admirable job explaining the various theories and personalities by not taking a position it leaves the viewer somewhat disappointed.
This review by Slant nails the problem when it says:
Stone doesn't posit his own hypothesis, which may be shrewd but winds up leaving his documentary as merely a Beginner's Guide to the entire affair. Oswald's Ghost only skims the surface of the short- and long-term social and political ramifications of JFK's death, and in the face of dueling conclusions—conspiracy buffs' staunch belief that Oswald didn't act alone, and others' conviction that he did—the film ultimately just shrugs its shoulders as if to say, "Got me. You decide."Also weak is the movie's attempt to connect the shock and paranoia sparked by JFK's killing in 1963 with the national mood after Sept. 11, 2001. While there are parallels there are also so many notable differences.
I found myself identifying with Mailer who said he wanted to believe JFK's killing was a conspiracy because he did not want one man to be responsible for JFK's death, but none of the conspiracies added up perfectly.
One of the best arguments came near the end of the program: that the best argument in favor of it not being a cabal or a conspiracy is history. As decades pass no big revelations have come out, nobody has confessed or admitted to being part of this.
Do conspiracies exist? Yes, I'm sure they do.
But can a conspiracy this big stay a secret for decades? That, I find harder to believe.
Another interest perspective was provided by a female reporter, Priscilla Johnson McMillan,who had interviewed Oswald while he was in Russia and later interviewed his wife. McMillan says he had accomplished major undertakings by himself, which most people would not thing one man can do alone, first defecting to Russia and then not only leaving Russia but taking with him a wife.
Conversely, she said, Oswald was not known for doing what others wanted him to do, which would suggest that he would not become part of a conspiracy.
Whatever your position or beliefs on the killing of Kennedy I recommend checking out this movie. It may leave you wanting more but it will probably also provide you with historical tidbits that you had not heard before. For example, if Jack Ruby had really planned to kill Oswald why did he leave his beloved pet dog in his car when he went to the police station?
And yet, none other than former president Lyndon Johnson is among those who believed Oswald was part of a conspiracy. Did he know something we didn't know or was he just being paranoid, a character flaw attributed to him in the film.
We may never know. We might have to just get used to Oswald's ghost remaining with us for eternity.
No comments:
Post a Comment