Films >> JFK (1991) >> Scene Analysis >> 1:33:40 1:45:20 2:46:23 3:03:52

Garrison’s (Stone’s) Final Incitement

By Anthony Pascale

[1] The final segment of the Clay Shaw trial begins just after Jim Garrison’s discussion of the death of Lee Harvey Oswald. He faces the entire courtroom audience as he quotes Hitler, saying that “the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.” He asserts that Oswald was only one of many patsies who were utilized to cover up the assassinations of other great men such as JFK’s brother Bobby Kennedy, as well as Martin Luther King -- two individuals known for their commitments toward positive change. He likens these assassinations to that of the late President and suggests that, as with John Kennedy, they too posed a threat to war through their devotion to peace.

[2] Garrison begins to paint the picture of a government conspiracy in stating that “we’ve all become Hamlets in our country; children of a slain father-leader, whose killer still possesses the throne.” At this point, the camera pans to the audience seated on the side of the prosecution, all of whom appear to be listening, albeit somewhat skeptically, but intrigued nonetheless. Garrison continues by questioning the American dream of liberty, justice, and freedom in a country in which the political assassination of a President can take place without the due recourse deserved on behalf of the entire legal system. At this point, the camera rests on the Judge who rolls his eyes with a sigh, in blatant disagreement with Garrison’s assertions.

[3] In the next phase of Garrison’s closing argument, Stone begins to utilize the scene to question the justification for the retention of important documents and pieces of evidence relating to the JFK assassination from the American public. “Why?” says Garrison. “There are hundreds of documents that could help prove this conspiracy -- why are they being withheld or burned by the Government?” One of Oliver Stone’s primary aims in creating this film was to rally support for the release of these very documents to the hands of the public, and this is clearly shown at this point in the trial. As Robert Burgoyne notes, “If there was nothing to hide . . . why was there so much secrecy about the evidence accumulated in previous investigations? Did the public not have a right to know all that the government discovered in its research on the president’s murder?”

[4] Garrison continues by next questioning the establishment of national security if it means taking away all of the power from the American people and providing for the rise of an invisible government: “When it smells like it, feels like it, and looks like it, you call it what it is: fascism.” The camera rests on Clay Shaw for a moment, who, prior to this last statement, had been lackadaisically toying with a cigarette. He suddenly looks up, concerned, towards Garrison as the District Attorney practically whispers the last word in dramatic fashion. The scene then cuts to individuals in the audience, who seem skeptical and unsure, looking to each other for validation of Garrison’s statement.

[5] Garrison provides a reason for the assassination in the form of a coup d’etat due to Kennedy’s commitment to withdraw from Vietnam. He says, in summary of his allegation of conspiracy:

The war is the biggest business in America, worth $80 billion a year. President Kennedy was murdered by a conspiracy that was planned in advance at the highest levels of our Government and was carried out by fanatical and disciplined cold warriors in the Pentagon and CIA’s covert operations apparatus; among them, Clay Shaw, here before you. It was a public execution covered up by like-minded individuals in the Dallas Police Department, the secret service, the FBI, and the White House, all the way up to and including J. Edgar Hoover and Lyndon Johnson, whom I consider accomplices after the fact.

At this point in the scene, the camera begins to pan through the audience, which is beginning to become extremely talkative and loud. Some look upon Garrison with disgust while others outrage, and some with pure confusion. As the camera turns upon the Judge, he covers up his face in his hands in obvious displeasure at the accusations being made on behalf of the District Attorney. Clay Shaw is smiling and nodding his head, as if he knows that this last, very bold statement, has won him this case.

[6] As the commotion in the courtroom begins to wind down, the members of the jury are shown still listening quite intently to Garrison’s closing. Garrison then says, “Some people say I’m crazy . . .” and the courtroom is filled with moderate laughter from the audience, many of whom presumably agree. He goes on to state that a good way to prove whether he is or not would be to fight for the public release of the 51 CIA documents that pertain to Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby or the CIA memo on Oswald’s activity in Russia that was supposedly destroyed during a photocopying accident. He walks directly up to stand in front of the jury and proclaims that the rights to all of these documents are their own -- they are the property of the American public, as we have paid for them. However, because of the potential repercussions of our attainment of the information withheld, he asserts, we may not see them for another 75 years. The audience, skeptical and put off by Garrison just moments before, is shown as very interested at this point. Even the judge has dropped his blatant dissent and turns to hang on each word Garrison is saying. In this moment, it would seem that he has made the audience and jury seriously question the justification in withholding these documents from the public.

[7] Throughout most of the court case, Kevin Costner portrays Garrison as very strong and assertive, arguing passionately for his case but with retention of his composure; however, at this point, his voice begins to waiver as he becomes choked up by his emotions. He holds up a handful of letters filled with small sums of money donated by people all across the country in an attempt to help fund the case. In these moments, Stone is really reaching out to the general public, the average-Joe Americans like the majority of the viewers of his film. Through Garrison, Stone charges us with the task of standing up for what is right, “because [the country] still belongs to us, as long as the people still have the guts to fight for what they believe in.”

[8] One of the most defining moments in the film comes in this last segment of Garrison’s closing. Addressing the jury directly he says, with tears in his eyes, “Do not forget your dying king. Show this world that this is still a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Nothing, as long as you live, will ever be more important.” Up until this point, the camera has been right in front of him, but his eyes were off to the side as if looking at the jury. Then, his gaze turns to stare directly into the camera; into the eyes of the viewers and, more importantly, the American public. He then ends his argument by saying, “It’s up to you.” He takes his seat at the table of the prosecution amongst a completely quiet room.

[9] Even if every single person in the court disagreed with the allegations against Clay Shaw and against the Government, it is quite plain that they are in complete awe at the magnitude of the statement that has just been presented before them. It is in these last moments that Stone delivers his final incitement to the people of United States of America. It is up to us, he says, to remember our dying king, John F. Kennedy. It is up to us, to learn, analyze, and question the findings of the Warren Commission, and it is our duty, as citizens, to rally and fight for the declassification of the documents that could help to prove what really happened on that 22nd day in November of 1963. Stone goes a step further in this scene to charge us with the greater task of challenging the government as a whole, if necessary to do so. We must defend our nation against the government when our government is no longer working as it should.

[10] The purpose of this film was never to convince people that one particular conception or idea about the JFK assassination is correct but rather to drive them to question, analyze, and think both critically and creatively about the events that took place, instead of simply accepting the findings of the Warren Commission as the final word. JFK is aimed at charging its viewers, specifically the young, “in whose spirit the search for truth marches on,” as Stone says in the final dedication of the film, to reexamine our history as told by the books, and decide for ourselves if it needs to be rewritten. As the historian Robert A. Rosenstone says, JFK is “not a work that tells us the truth about the past, but one that questions the official truths about the past so provocatively that we are forced once again to look to history and consider what these events mean to us today.”

[11] While Oliver Stone has been criticized by many for his utilization of filmic techniques to blur the lines between fact and fiction, it is clear that his film has served a great purpose. In conjunction with various bestselling studies on the conspiracy, JFK has provoked a significant outcry amongst the American public for the declassification and release of the documents pertaining to the assassination. The result of this was that, in October of 1992, President George W. Bush signed a bill called the “President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992” that led to the establishment of a committee to review all of the government records relating to the case and release all that do not jeopardize the national security of the United States (Medhurst). Additionally, this film serves as an innovative educational tool to challenge the history-text conception of the JFK assassination: “Rather than simply reinforcing disillusionment, teaching JFK invigorates the classroom. It offers an opportunity for the exploration of media technology and its use/manipulation to influence an audience . . . . used as a classroom catalyst, [it] can help students uncover the complexities of historical interpretation and critical thinking” (Briley).