Just Call Me X
By Lauren Mains
[1] The character of Mr. X in Oliver Stone’s JFK was included in the film to manipulate viewers into solidifying their belief in the JFK conspiracy theory. Up until Garrison’s encounter with “X,†his sources weren’t the most credible. He had bits and pieces of evidence, but he was missing a major factor -- the motive. It wasn’t until the scene with Mr. X that Garrison and the audience started to learn of the government’s involvement in the assassination. If the “why†could be uncovered, than a conspiracy could begin to sound more feasible.
[2] Stone used the Mr. X scene to throw an incredible amount of information at his viewers. Information that seemed legitimate coming from “X,†a retired Black Op’s officer in the CIA: “ ‘X’ offered the authority of an ‘inside view’ and provides a sense of dispassionate analysis on which logic and history provide an explanatory framework†(Burgoyne). Viewers didn’t have time to breathe with the abundance of “top secret†material that was unraveling before them. Mr. X’s government jargon made it all the more believable. Phrases like “Black Op’s,†“standard operating procedure,†and “Operation Mongoose†rolled fluently off his tongue, drawing viewers that much more closer into what he was revealing.
[3] The filming technique of the scene also factored in to the audience’s manipulation. Shots alternated between Garrison and the mysterious “X†sitting in front of the Washington Monument, to actual scenes from the JFK assassination, to colorless flashbacks of the events that were being exposed -- all with a voiceover of “X†in the background. It became such a whirlwind that it was hard to decipher which was actual footage. To the naive eye, all of the black and white shots could have appeared real.
[4] If that wasn’t enough evidence supporting the conspiracy, bring “Xâ€â€™s proposed motive into the mix, and the viewer is sold. Mr. X is the first character to address why the conspiracy would have occurred. He uses his inside access with the government to precisely describe the motive, from beginning gripes of Kennedy-opposing political and big business figures through the post-assassination, when the needs of these figures are carried out by Lyndon B. Johnson. “X†brings the conspiracy full circle when he states that members of the government felt Kennedy was assassinated because he was “dangerous to the establishment†and his refusal to enter Vietnam went against the idea that “the organizing principle for any policy is war.†It is at this moment when the viewer has an ah-hah moment. It is at the end of the scene, when the viewer really believes in the conspiracy.
[5] The Mr. X scene is a defining moment in JFK and could be depicted as the staple that holds the conspiracy case together. However, there is only one problem with this. “X†doesn’t exist. He is a reel lie.
X is loosely based on Col. L. Fletcher Prouty USAF (Ret.) who served as Chief of Special Operations with the Joint Chief of Staff during the Kennedy years. While the authors met with Prouty, Jim Garrison did not meet him until several years after the Clay Shaw trial. (Stone and Sklar)Col. Fletcher Prouty was an intricate part of the government while serving but had nowhere near the knowledge that “X†appeared to be equipped with in the film. Most of what was said was pure speculation, and some of the information in the scene could go far enough to be completely false. Prouty did have his theories. His book The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John. F Kennedy goes into great detail about the conspiracy, but theories are as far as it can go.
[6] The fabrication of “X†brings up a controversial reoccurring issue in JFK. Does Stone have the artistic right to push the limits of historical accuracy? A lot of critics don’t agree with his manipulation.
“Xâ€â€™s narration, however, is replete with all the techniques that have garnered JFK such a notorious reputation for dissembling: it is filled with imaginary reenactments and recontextualized documentary images that dramatize a far-flung conspiracy emanating from the highest reaches of power. (Burgoyne)The embellishments, especially regarding “Xâ€â€™s character, could be seen as a violation of Stone’s power as the director. How dare he lead viewers on to believe such a tall tale? It seems like there needs to be some sort of fine print.
[7] Yet, there could be another side of the story. It could be possible that Stone’s “X†wasn’t solely to manipulate the audience but to spark curiosity. “X†and Garrison’s meeting ended with “X†saying, “Don’t take my word for it, do your own thinking.†Was Stone unfairly disguising his personal agenda through the voice of “X†or merely enticing the audience to dig deeper?
Thomas Jefferson urged on us the notion that when truth can compete in a free marketplace of ideas, it will prevail. There is as yet no marketplace of history, for the years of the Kennedy assassination and immediately afterword. Let us begin to create one. (Stone)
[8] It would be well suited to say that Stone did manipulate the audience in his creation of “X.†From watching the scene, viewers were made to believe that he was a real person and that his information came with historical accuracy. With the realization that “X†ceases to exist and that the evidence used to solidify the conspiracy theory was not credible comes another issue. What were Stone’s actual intentions and can they be justified? That task will have to be left for someone else.
Work Cited
1. Oliver Stone and Zachary Sklar, JFK: The Book of the Film (New York: Applause, 1992), p. 105.
2. Robert Buryone, “Modernism and Narrative of Nation in JFK,†Film Nation
3. Oliver Stone, “Who Defines Historyâ€
