Just More Questions

The assassination of John F. Kennedy is one of the profound moments in American history. Sometimes, it’s difficult to understand why, seeing as how I was born long after it happened. It might have been the first sign of the cynicism about politics and almost anything to do with authority that would eventually envelop this country. This sort of moral climate always made me suspect people talking about the JFK conspiracy to be the types just trying to hack away at everything, looking flaws.

They were right. Oliver Stone’s “JFK” proves it.

Stone throws a lot of information at us. A lot of theories are floated and an awful lot of speculation takes place. However, he presents us with enough solid information to put Oswald out of the lone assassin business.

The story follows Jim Garrison, New Orleans District Attorney and played well by Kevin Costner. Garrison was involved briefly in the investigation immediately following the assassination then the FBI takes over for him. Three years later, certain facts make him believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone. He begins an enormous investigation, believing that he is uncovering a mind-boggling conspiracy.

In terms of story, the film is strange. I viewed the director’s cut that featured several more scenes about Garrison’s personal life and I felt that they were extraneous. Normally, my feelings about a movie rise and fall on characters and their interactions. In “JFK” the story is the conspiracy, not the characters. The characters we only want to see in relation to the investigation or to the conspiracy. And the characters are compelling enough that only need to see them on this level. The investigative team is a great collection of inquisitive minds, full of actors you almost know the names of like Michael Rooker and Wayne Knight. Many talented actors appear to give brief statements and were it not for the fact that they are all so good in these brief appearances, they would all be candidates for stealing the show. Jack Lemmon, Ed Asner, Donald Sutherland and John Candy all have moments to shine. Walter Matthau, Kevin Bacon and Brian Doyle-Murray give performances that would be considered excellent cameos in any other film. Any other film. No film in history has assembled so large a talented and amazing cast.

There are four performances in particular that stick out. Tommy Lee Jones was nominated for an Oscar for this film, but his role may be one of the films weak points. His performance is fine, but the film has a habit of treating homosexuals as freaks. Jones is a weird portrait of a dandy trying to hide himself. It’s puzzling. Joe Pesci also plays a homosexual and he is even more freakish. However, the reality of the character is that he’s a freak, but his sexuality and the way the film treats it otherwise complicates our perception of him. But rest assured that you will never see a performance like this.

Gary Oldman and Frank Whaley are positively fantastic. Oldman plays Lee Harvey Oswald and he attains that gloried point where an amazing imitation is coupled with a subtle performance. He disappears into the role to the point where you never doubt who he is and study his face, looking for hints of the truth. That’s the catch because it’s only a movie. Whaley plays a role that’s best not to mention, but if you notice him, you’ll be astounded.

But we return to the story. Stone throws up an awful lot of witnesses to the crime or to the conspiracy. Some of them seem more credible than others. Garrison discovers a multitude of coincidences and connections. Some of them may be nothing more than coincidences. I’m not sure if this was Stone’s intent, but I found that the conspiracy as presented here was not necessarily what happened, but that fact that it COULD have happened is the real key. The seeds of doubt are sown.

And then there are certain facts. 3 shots fired in roughly 5 and a half seconds are flat out impossible with the supposed murder weapon. There’s the now famous “back and to the left.” Much like Brando’s “I coulda been a contender” speech in “On the Waterfront,” the hype will never live up to the actual scene. I was dumbfounded. The climax is amazingly tense, considering we know what’s going to happen, but Stone lays on the final pieces of the puzzle that astound us.

Watching this film and considering only the handful of facts that are proven without question, there can be no denying that Oswald did not act as the lone gunman. That is a bold accomplishment for a film. Whether or not you believe the rest is up to you.

There is a chance the film will bore you. It’s does not rely on emotions, but instead plays entirely inside the mind. You have to be in the mood for this sort of entertainment. At times, it’s self-important, the characters in 1968 talking about the way their investigation will affect the public psyche 25 years from now—hey, 25 years? That’s about when this movie came out! Huh!

As historical document this holds few answers. It merely asks all the right questions. As a film it’s amazingly well made. As entertainment, it is a very particular choice. But it is part of the American mythos now and there can be no denying it.

BONUS QUESTION: I have been wondering about a certain fact about this film. Did “JFK” make the term “grassy knoll” part of the popular lexicon, or was it there before? I’m trying to assemble a list of phrases coined by film and literature.