JFK 1991

Stone didn't win for that.  He won for BORN a couple years earlier.  

Agreed, though, that it's a spectacular film.  The Donald Sutherland sequence alone is one of the most riveting bits of (alt)history ever depicted on film.  

I've got the poster for this film on my wall as we speak. In my opinion it is the finest film of the 90s, and one of the best movies of all time. What Stone achieved with the editing and use of film stocks is unique and a stunning example of the power of film as an art form

I always get frustrated when people pick apart Stone's theory.  The point of the film isn't to provide answers.  It's to get you asking the questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

I always get frustrated when people pick apart Stone's theory.  The point of the film isn't to provide answers.  It's to get you asking the questions.

Like "why is Tommy Lee Jones covered in gold?"  :)

Wait, what? Explain the connection between this movie and the Occupy movement to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

You again?

 

The powers that be betraying their citizens with the murder of JFK as Stone presents it in the film, (I'm not saying the gov't actually killed JFK)...coupled with the OWS movement being fed up about being betrayed by the gov't. 

 

Just a personal observation.  Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill.

Oh they killed him alright, or at least as Stone says, "a secret cabal of disciplined and fanatical cold warriors" had him killed. Not every fact is as Stone presents it (some figures are composite characters, ETC), but the guts of his thesis stand the test of truth

As for TLJ, he was at some sort of gay SM party dressed as a statue. Hence the gold body paint
 

You again? This is a stretch, at least for me. I can see where the connections are made, but they're thin at best. 

It's interesting -- this was one of those seminal, eye-opening films for me; as I've said in the past, there was a summer where I watched this every day -- but the older I get, the more I wonder if there was a conspiracy at all. (I think that has to do with my visceral reaction of loathing for anything related to Loose Change and Truthers.)

I haven't seen the movie in ages -- perhaps it's time for a rewatch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leonard 

It's interesting -- this was one of those seminal, eye-opening films for me; as I've said in the past, there was a summer where I watched this every day -- but the older I get, the more I wonder if there was a conspiracy at all. I haven't seen the movie in ages -- perhaps it's time for a rewatch.

I know someone whose father is a federal judge, someone who was on the SC shortlist during the Bush years. His dad says conspiracies don't exist, except, probably, with the killing of JFK

The House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979 found "probable conspiracy" with the killing of JFK, and asked the Justice Department to investigate further. To date, nothing has been done

The facts don't add up. There had to have been more than one person involved, which is the definition of a conspiracy

BTW: If you have not seen it already, watch the DIRECTOR'S CUT. It's the definitive cut of the film, and I'd not watch the movie without the footage this cut includes. It's roughly 30 minutes longer, and yet astoundingly the film flies by more quickly than ever. It's a stunning achievement in film

PS A photo of my JFK poster: http://i960.photobucket.com/albums/ae84/PKUBPart/fa450712.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

A movie I never get tired of watching.  It's Stone's best film IMO.  And the best directed film of the past 30 years, again IMO.  The directorial skill involved in keeping this movie from unspooling is nothing short of astonishing.  Stone definitely deserved his Oscar.

 

There are so many characters and so much information crammed into this film the mind boggles. Yet Stone handles it all without seemingly breaking a sweat and makes the entire thing so compelling.

 

This film slowly and completely gets under your skin, to the point where even if you didn't believe in conspiracy theory before the film, you sure do while watching it.

 

All the performances are great but Kevin Costner is the rock that holds it all together.  He's never been better.

 

Great cinematography by Robert Richardson.  I've never much cared for his lighting, but here it works like gangbusters.

 

And the score by John Williams is incredible.  Haunting, touching, powerful.

 

Agree.  Fantastic movie, completely without peer from an editing standpoint, and packed with so many amazing performances.  Joe Pesci as David Ferrie ("They defrocked me!") and Kevin Bacon ("It was because he was a communist."), to name a few.  I agree that Costner is the anchor and that it's his best performance.  Brilliant movie. 

Garrison/Stone's take on events is a vehicle for discussion, and I don't know how many movies you can say had an immediate effect on government policy, but JFK did.  After Stone testified before Congress, thousands of documents pertaining to the murder were declassified, which ultimately led to an unraveling of the facts that wouldn't have been possible without Oliver Stone's movie. 

People don't give JFK credit but it has also influenced so many movies that came after.  I love it. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

It was clearly a conspiracy, unless you really believe it was a lone nut...which is impossible, given Kennedy's wounds.

In my mind, it's been solved in an entirely credible and solidly sourced though under-publicized way (http://legacyofsecrecy.com/). 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are degrees of conspiracy. Clearly, the facts in this case don't add up, which suggests there's something that we're not being told -- but, to me, it's a giant leap to go from that to "it was a government cabal determined to get us into Vietnam" (or, as one of my classmates suggested yesterday, to keep Kennedy from dissolving the Federal Reserve). One of the admirable things about the movie is that it presents a mosaic of a number of different theories and crams them altogether, suggesting that it had to be something beyond a lone nut with a gun. 

But then there's the broader, philosophical take that leaves me in doubt: Mainly, I believe the universe to be largely random, without plan, and that events like these pop up once in a while. They're so devastating to our cultural psyche, so terrifying, that we embrace the "conspiracy" as a result. We'd rather believe that it takes a conspiracy to take down the President, than the fact that one lonely, crazed guy with a gun can do it. A universe of the former has order, harmony. A universe of the latter is chaotic, almost incomprehensible.

I don't want to derail the thread any further, but I'll just say this: Since Kennedy was assassinated, we have found out about countless 'actual' conspiracies or examples of the government doing shady/illegal stuff. Within the last decade alone, I can name Abu Ghirab, wiretapping, Walter Reed, and the military sneaking generals onto talk shows to push an agenda. This nation has a big mouth, and its leaders are not great at keeping secrets. The Kennedy assassination is one of the most documented, written about, picked apart, events in our history. Journalists on "both sides of the aisle" have investigated it. It has been almost fifty years since Kennedy was shot. Shouldn't we have found definitive, conclusive proof already? Is the fact that we haven't found conclusive proof one way or the other proof itself?

Like I said, definitely in need of a rewatch.

Edit: The idea of a mafia conspiracy is one I buy more than a government one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leonard 

Edit: The idea of a mafia conspiracy is one I buy more than a government one.

Could the Mob change the parade route, Leonard, or eliminate the protection for the President? Could the Mob send Oswald to Russia and get him back? Could the Mob get the FBI the CIA, and the Dallas Police to make a mess of the investigation? Could the Mob appoint the Warren Commission to cover it up? could the Mob wreck the autopsy? Could the Mob influence the national media to go to sleep? And since when has the Mob used anything but .38's for hits, up close. The Mob wouldn't have the guts or the power for something of this magnitude. Assassins need payrolls, orders, times, schedules. This was a military-style ambush from start to finish... a coup d'etat with Lyndon Johnson waiting in the wings! 

Heh, couldn't help myself.

This film is simply a masterclass in direction, editing and how to bring a modern, complex, massive multi-character epic to the screen.

Stone has never been better. Costner has never been better.

I don't mind saying that even after countless watches, Garrisons final summing up in the court room concluded with his (and Stones) message to us the audience that "it's up to you." still gives me goosebumps.

I'm trying to keep myself fit for 2038, that's for sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leonard 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are degrees of conspiracy. Clearly, the facts in this case don't add up, which suggests there's something that we're not being told -- but, to me, it's a giant leap to go from that to "it was a government cabal determined to get us into Vietnam" (or, as one of my classmates suggested yesterday, to keep Kennedy from dissolving the Federal Reserve). One of the admirable things about the movie is that it presents a mosaic of a number of different theories and crams them altogether, suggesting that it had to be something beyond a lone nut with a gun. 

 

But then there's the broader, philosophical take that leaves me in doubt: Mainly, I believe the universe to be largely random, without plan, and that events like these pop up once in a while. They're so devastating to our cultural psyche, so terrifying, that we embrace the "conspiracy" as a result. We'd rather believe that it takes a conspiracy to take down the President, than the fact that one lonely, crazed guy with a gun can do it. A universe of the former has order, harmony. A universe of the latter is chaotic, almost incomprehensible.

 

I don't want to derail the thread any further, but I'll just say this: Since Kennedy was assassinated, we have found out about countless 'actual' conspiracies or examples of the government doing shady/illegal stuff. Within the last decade alone, I can name Abu Ghirab, wiretapping, Walter Reed, and the military sneaking generals onto talk shows to push an agenda. This nation has a big mouth, and its leaders are not great at keeping secrets. The Kennedy assassination is one of the most documented, written about, picked apart, events in our history. Journalists on "both sides of the aisle" have investigated it. It has been almost fifty years since Kennedy was shot. Shouldn't we have found definitive, conclusive proof already? Is the fact that we haven't found conclusive proof one way or the other proof itself?

 

Like I said, definitely in need of a rewatch.

 

Edit: The idea of a mafia conspiracy is one I buy more than a government one.

At the end of the day it could only have been the government. Who were the "secret service" agents flashing badges five minutes after the assassination? Who were the "cops" who cleared people off the grassy knoll 15 minutes before the shooting?

Your notion that we'd have found proof is incredibly naive, Rath.. The people who carried this out never had to report back to congress. There were no receipts  to trace their expenses. It was carried out with the knowledge that if the conspiracy was ever exposed, it would probably bring down the nation. It would not have been hard to keep secret under those circumstances, among men trained to protect their secrets with their lives

I know we've learned about many plots in the years since, but I promise you there is just as much if not more that remains secret because the people involved knew how to keep secrets
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

 

 

Could the Mob change the parade route, Leonard, or eliminate the protection for the President? Could the Mob send Oswald to Russia and get him back? Could the Mob get the FBI the CIA, and the Dallas Police to make a mess of the investigation? Could the Mob appoint the Warren Commission to cover it up? could the Mob wreck the autopsy? Could the Mob influence the national media to go to sleep? And since when has the Mob used anything but .38's for hits, up close. The Mob wouldn't have the guts or the power for something of this magnitude. Assassins need payrolls, orders, times, schedules. This was a military-style ambush from start to finish... a coup d'etat with Lyndon Johnson waiting in the wings! 

 

 

Heh, couldn't help myself.

 

This film is simply a masterclass in direction, editing and how to bring a modern, complex, massive multi-character epic to the screen.

 

Stone has never been better. Costner has never been better.

 

I don't mind saying that even after countless watches, Garrisons final summing up in the court room concluded with his (and Stones) message to us the audience that "it's up to you." still gives me goosebumps.

 

 

 

 

Costner breaking the fourth wall, and looking right into the camera is one of those "wow" moments I will never forget

You know I say this with all due respect: Live a little.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leonard 

 

 

 

You know I say this with all due respect: Live a little.

I do every day, more and more

Then you understand that life is not binary, that society is a fluid thing that ebbs and flows, grows and changes, and that one can question an existence of a conspiracy while acknowledging it's more than likely one might exist. One might even say that your belief in a conspiracy comes down to faith...and I know how you hate that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leonard 

Then you understand that life is not binary, that society is a fluid thing that ebbs and flows, grows and changes, and that one can question an existence of a conspiracy while acknowledging it's more than likely one might exist. One might even say that your belief in a conspiracy comes down to faith...and I know how you hate that.

There is evidence for the existence of the conspiracy to kill JFK. There is no "evidence" of any kind that a guy named Jesus was the son of some sort of diety

It's apples and oranges. And frankly with the shit Stone got after the film, and the ignorance I hear all too regularly from people about JFK's killing, to me "questioning the existence" of the conspiracy only serves to further obscure the undeniable facts that point to but one conclusion

But the film itself presents one conclusion, of many possible conclusions. As this very thread proves, there is no definitive account of the JFK assassination conspiracy.

The problem is that the conspiracy has become such a huge cultural landmark unto itself, with so many people wedded to this view or that view, that most end up trying to fit any facts and evidence into a pre-conceived theory rather than approach the issue simply as a case with evidence to be looked at and to objectively draw conclusions from - it's a victim of it's own cultural infamy at this point, becoming more of an ideological and philosophical rorschach test that says far more about the person doing the studying than the conspiracy itself.

Much like the identity of Jack The Ripper, some mysteries end up consigned to the 'unsolvable' pile of history. 

First, I agree that this is Stone's best directed film (but I love Nixon just a tad more).

As regards the conspiracy: Stone himself promote the film upon release as providing a specific answer to the question of JFK's murder. (he thinks that Curtis LeMay masterminded the whole thing. He doesn't come out and say it, but at one point X reports to a mysterious General who is supposed to be LeMay). Later on Stone changed his pitch for the film: now it's a mosaic of different conspiracies.

Just for fun I did a quick Google and found this: http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html

The cultural impact of this film was enormous: in addition to the release of documents mentioned by YT, the film generated all kinds of fervent discussion in the early 90's and IMO was part of the "Culture War" waged by Left and Right in the US in that time period.

Also, the X-Files was heavily influenced by JFK, in terms of theme and production values.

The 90's really was suffused with this sinister "culture of conspiracy" which we still have with us....but after 2000 it subsided. Yes we still have the Truthers, but they are clearly a minority, whereas various conspiracy theories seemed to have serious traction in the 90's.

I'd also say that JFK marks Stone's high water mark. As I state above, I actually like Nixon, which shares a lot of the same style, a bit better. But I think JFK and the media battles took something out of Stone. When Nixon was released to derision and poor Box Office, I suspect Stone took it personally. At any rate, his later films lack the intensity and outrage of Nixon, JFK or even Wall Street. I'd hoped that W would reverse that, but though that film has some great performances (Dreyfus, etc) it also has some serious flaws that Classic Stone would never have allowed.

I haven't watched it lately, but I am a big fan of JFK as well. I won't go out on a limb and say that the scenarios presented in the movie are 100% gospel truth, but I do think the Garrison/Stone version of the assassination is closer to the truth than the official government version. Single-bullet theory, my ass!

Classic Stone is gone now. I've accepted this. His last gasp was U-Turn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

First, I agree that this is Stone's best directed film (but I love Nixon just a tad more).

 

As regards the conspiracy: Stone himself promote the film upon release as providing a specific answer to the question of JFK's murder. (he thinks that Curtis LeMay masterminded the whole thing. He doesn't come out and say it, but at one point X reports to a mysterious General who is supposed to be LeMay). Later on Stone changed his pitch for the film: now it's a mosaic of different conspiracies.

 

Just for fun I did a quick Google and found this: http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html

 

The cultural impact of this film was enormous: in addition to the release of documents mentioned by YT, the film generated all kinds of fervent discussion in the early 90's and IMO was part of the "Culture War" waged by Left and Right in the US in that time period.

 

Also, the X-Files was heavily influenced by JFK, in terms of theme and production values.

 

The 90's really was suffused with this sinister "culture of conspiracy" which we still have with us....but after 2000 it subsided. Yes we still have the Truthers, but they are clearly a minority, whereas various conspiracy theories seemed to have serious traction in the 90's.

 

I'd also say that JFK marks Stone's high water mark. As I state above, I actually like Nixon, which shares a lot of the same style, a bit better. But I think JFK and the media battles took something out of Stone. When Nixon was released to derision and poor Box Office, I suspect Stone took it personally. At any rate, his later films lack the intensity and outrage of Nixon, JFK or even Wall Street. I'd hoped that W would reverse that, but though that film has some great performances (Dreyfus, etc) it also has some serious flaws that Classic Stone would never have allowed.

 

 

Great post. I have to agree about the reaction to NIXON and JFK having taken something out of Stone. He still made great films, but with each new release he seemed less sure of himself, less comfortable with the press. It's all too evident with ALEXANDER and that movie's "director's cut" that is nothing less than cowardly. It abandons the structure of the first cut in favor of an action heavy set up with a more linear narrative and also cuts out much of Alexander's bisexuality. It's kind of a disgrace, as it's clearly a desperate attempt by Stone to please the audience rather than satisfy his own vision. He attempts to reverse course with the FINAL CUT, but by then he didn't even have the energy to make sure the music queues were properly synced ETC

W could have been something special, but it's too safe, too small, and lacks the crazed ambition of his previous presidential portrait

Anyway,  I love NIXON. It's a brilliant film, and often misunderstood. It's a companion piece to JFK in many ways, and I might well rank it as the #2 best film of the 90s
 

I find the scene where Nixon is in Texas meeting with business men, and they're trying to convince him that he might not have to worry about JFK in 64 were he to run, simply chilling. It's a really terrifying scene, the way the realization of what they're discussing plays out across Hopkin's face (with him sweating and stammering and flashing that uncomfortable smile)

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

Classic Stone is gone now. I've accepted this. His last gasp was U-Turn.

ALEXANDER is the last great OLIVER STONE film, but I take your point. I too fear that the Stone I loved is gone never to return

PS ANY GIVEN SUNDAY is an excellent film, IMHO. It's right up there with many of Stone's classics

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

The problem is that the conspiracy has become such a huge cultural landmark unto itself, with so many people wedded to this view or that view, that most end up trying to fit any facts and evidence into a pre-conceived theory rather than approach the issue simply as a case with evidence to be looked at and to objectively draw conclusions from - it's a victim of it's own cultural infamy at this point, becoming more of an ideological and philosophical rorschach test that says far more about the person doing the studying than the conspiracy itself.

 

Much like the identity of Jack The Ripper, some mysteries end up consigned to the 'unsolvable' pile of history. 

Just because it needed to be posted twice. Cause it makes sense.

Honestly, the first half of my life feels like it was spent asking questions that I've spent the second half realizing I'll never have the answers to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

First, I agree that this is Stone's best directed film (but I love Nixon just a tad more).

 

As regards the conspiracy: Stone himself promote the film upon release as providing a specific answer to the question of JFK's murder. (he thinks that Curtis LeMay masterminded the whole thing. He doesn't come out and say it, but at one point X reports to a mysterious General who is supposed to be LeMay). Later on Stone changed his pitch for the film: now it's a mosaic of different conspiracies.

 

Just for fun I did a quick Google and found this: http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html

 

The cultural impact of this film was enormous: in addition to the release of documents mentioned by YT, the film generated all kinds of fervent discussion in the early 90's and IMO was part of the "Culture War" waged by Left and Right in the US in that time period.

 

Also, the X-Files was heavily influenced by JFK, in terms of theme and production values.

 

The 90's really was suffused with this sinister "culture of conspiracy" which we still have with us....but after 2000 it subsided. Yes we still have the Truthers, but they are clearly a minority, whereas various conspiracy theories seemed to have serious traction in the 90's.

 

I'd also say that JFK marks Stone's high water mark. As I state above, I actually like Nixon, which shares a lot of the same style, a bit better. But I think JFK and the media battles took something out of Stone. When Nixon was released to derision and poor Box Office, I suspect Stone took it personally. At any rate, his later films lack the intensity and outrage of Nixon, JFK or even Wall Street. I'd hoped that W would reverse that, but though that film has some great performances (Dreyfus, etc) it also has some serious flaws that Classic Stone would never have allowed.

 

 

Someone brought up an interesting factoid to me recently.  In the '90s, when Clinton was president, it was The X-Files on Fox (still one of my all-time favorite shows, and agree that it was highly influenced in tone, look, substance and the "deep throat" character by JFK) and the idea was "government denies knowledge" and "trust no one."  The government is not to be trusted.  Then the 2000s happen, with Bush as president, and it's 24 on Fox, in which the government operatives are like angels and should be trusted, even when they break the law and torture people.  Whether correlation implies causality is anyone's guess, but it's interesting to see Fox programming's place in the zeitgeist like that. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

 

Someone brought up an interesting factoid to me recently.  In the '90s, when Clinton was president, it was The X-Files on Fox (still one of my all-time favorite shows, and agree that it was highly influenced in tone, look, substance and the "deep throat" character by JFK) and the idea was "government denies knowledge" and "trust no one."  The government is not to be trusted.  Then the 2000s happen, with Bush as president, and it's 24 on Fox, in which the government operatives are like angels and should be trusted, even when they break the law and torture people.  Whether correlation implies causality is anyone's guess, but it's interesting to see Fox programming's place in the zeitgeist like that. 

And now it's GLEE.  Gulp.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

 

Someone brought up an interesting factoid to me recently.  In the '90s, when Clinton was president, it was The X-Files on Fox (still one of my all-time favorite shows, and agree that it was highly influenced in tone, look, substance and the "deep throat" character by JFK) and the idea was "government denies knowledge" and "trust no one."  The government is not to be trusted.  Then the 2000s happen, with Bush as president, and it's 24 on Fox, in which the government operatives are like angels and should be trusted, even when they break the law and torture people.  Whether correlation implies causality is anyone's guess, but it's interesting to see Fox programming's place in the zeitgeist like that. 

How is that interesting, exactly? What's your interpretation of this factoid?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

Honestly, the first half of my life feels like it was spent asking questions that I've spent the second half realizing I'll never have the answers to.

As bleak as a sentiment as this may be, I've found the following to be incredibly comforting, almost mantra-like:

"We tell ourselves stories in order to live...We look for the sermon in the suicide, for the social or moral lesson in the murder of five. We interpret what we see, select the most workable of the multiple choices. We live entirely, especially if we are writers, by the imposition of a narrative upon disparate images, by the ideas with which we have learned to freeze the shifting phantasmagoria which is our actual experience. Or at least we do for a while." -- Joan Didion.

Amongst Conspiracy buffs there is a direct connection between the JFK assassination and UFOs; no lie! In fact, Conspiracy theorists tend to mush all conspiracies together...

From that website I linked to above:

According to Col. L. Fletcher Prouty (the model for "X" in JFK):

1. The forces behind the death of John F. Kennedy included not only the CIA and the military-industrial complex, but also the Federal Reserve Board.

    

2. Flying saucers are a reality, and the Air Force has two "bodies" or extraterrestrial objects in storage at one of its bases.

    

3. It was an "enormous privilege" to have his book, The Secret Team, reprinted by the Institute for Historical Review, a group Prouty claims keeps people "from revising history," and whose Web site says, "What proof exists that the Nazis killed six million Jews? None."

    

4. The Jonestown tragedy was not a suicide, but a mass murder committed by US intelligence and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    

5. The high price of oil is artificially maintained by a cabal that shuts down oil pipelines in the Middle East: "Because of the Israelis. That is their business on behalf of the oil companies. That's why they get $3 billion a year from the US taxpayer."

    

6. Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not die a natural death: Winston Churchill had him poisoned.

    

7. It "would not surprise" Prouty if Princess Diana and Princess Grace of Monaco were assassinated by the "Secret Team" that killed JFK and countless others.

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100whox.html

Wheels within wheels, man. Wheels within wheels!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

Amongst Conspiracy buffs there is a direct connection between the JFK assassination and UFOs; no lie! In fact, Conspiracy theorists tend to mush all conspiracies together...

 

Not all of us do, some just like to remain skeptical of the truths we're told to accept.

Well ya got to think twice when you see writer after writer decide that JFK and Alien coverups are all part of one Grand Conspiracy. Makes you question their arguments, evidence and credibility. 

Consider Jim Marrs, the author of "Crossfire", one of the books that Oliver Stone based his JFK screenplay on. He's also written about the Face on Mars, AIDS as a man made virus designed to kill Black people, and of course, the current fiscal crisis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Marrs

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

Well ya got to think twice when you see writer after writer decide that JFK and Alien coverups are all part of one Grand Conspiracy. Makes you question their arguments, evidence and credibility. 

Dude - you're looking for sense from conspiracy theories on the internet. Look hard enough and you'll find someone who believes something utterly ridiculous.

...and you talk about 'conspiracy theorists' like they're some amorphous group with membership fees and a secret handshake. There's a vast swathe of variants from people like myself who simply are quick to question accepted truths, especially those handed down by authority figures and establishments - all the way through to guys that believe everyone over a certain tax bracket is a lizard person and the JFK conspiracy is tied to UFO's

...like a conspiracy to assassinate the President of the United States?

JFK is absolutely a great film. I love it. But come on, people... it's a work of fiction. The numerous historical inaccuracies and liberties Stone took are well documented.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

Like I said, it merely opened a dialogue.

Maybe in the same way that Independence Day opened a dialogue about the threat of alien invasion. But as an accurate and serious documentation of history, not so much.

That is not true. After JFK came out there was a serious dialogue in the US media and even Academia about issues revolving around the film, how it portrayed and distorted history, and the events the film portrays. And thousands of classified documents were released as a direct result of the film. Very few films have that kind of cultural impact.