Dish of the Day
Just some film musings of a more succinct, spontaneous and sometimes seditious nature:
Thursday, January 26, 2023
I just discovered a rare classic film screening (subsequently added to this month’s “Now Listen to Me…” column) in my own backyard (relatively speaking) that I intend to make every effort to attend. All About Eve (1950) will be presented by an outdoor venue called Rooftop Movies located in Perth, Western Australia on Tuesday, January 31. Perhaps I’ll see you there!
A topic of divisive discussion in our cinema chatroom (all readers are encouraged to join here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/902349343110685) relates to…
Oliver Stone’s 1992 film JFK,
a film that, whenever it is mentioned, inevitably receives numerous comments like this one:
“Can't express how much I hated this movie (did a paper on it at college). Manipulative, baseless nonsense sold as fact. Even went to the library to look at the Warren Report, which, unlike this movie, DOES mostly add up. There was no conspiracy, and especially the hints at LBJ's ‘involvement’ were ludicrous! Even John Williams's score plays down to Stone's tactics. The tritone for the consiprators [sic]: Really? Johnny, you should have done better.”
… which prompted me to respond with:
“The main problem with your kind of hysterical response, and what many of this film’s detractors completely miss, is that it's about what Jim Garrison, a New Orleans D.A. was investigating (shortly after the 1963 assassination, his investigation was called off and then resumed in 1966), his thoughts and imaginings, his theories in play, his leads followed and presented by Stone from his (Garrison's) book ‘On the Trail of the Assassins’ (1988) as well as ‘Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy’ (1989) by Jim Marrs. The film’s story is portrayed not “… as fact” as you stated but an alternate hypothesis to consider as opposed to the singular lone gunman theory which those, actually in the minority, continue to propagate and hold onto. All it takes for a conspiracy is more than one to be involved. Arguments against Garrison's ideas are presented in this film as well, for which you've apparently taken no notice of in your mischaracterisation. And even John Williams you're choosing to indict in your own kind of conspiratorial condemnation? That sounds pretty far out to me. As to as the actual tragic event, there has been enough ‘evidence’ uncovered to lend support to both sides (Oswald acting alone as opposed to numerous other speculations)… to fill a small library. All of these theorists owe a debt to the man who, from a position of authority, first started questioning the official findings. And that man is Jim Garrison.”
Another comment on the same post reads:
“Great telling. As long as no one considers it fact.”
… to which I answered:
“It seems to me you're singling this film out unnecessarily which raises the question: ‘what fictional film would you consider to be fact?’ My answer would be ‘none’. And anyone who knows how documentaries are made should include them as well! Even the documentaries produced by the great Fredrick Wiseman, who just records a series of events with no narration but who can shape them anyway he wants in the editing process, is still editorialising, not creating facts.”
Nothing too exciting on TCM to report (at least by this writer).
All responses are not only welcomed but encouraged in the comments section below.
Hope to see you tomorrow.
A.G.