Stone Duels with His Critics: A Mini-Symposium on JFK
By the Reel American History class, Lehigh University, July 2010
JFK was one of the most controversial films in our history, and Oliver Stone engaged in what we might call a pamphlet war around its opening, energetically defending his work from his critics. Here our class tries to focus on the rhetorical strategies employed by both sides in these duels.
Contributors:
Lauren Calabrese: Stone v. Will and Newsweek (with comment by Jena Viviano)
Brian Carroll: Stone v. Lardner (with comments by Kelley Higgins and Jesse Stehouwer)
William Doherty: Stone v. Wicker (with comment by Nicholas Alakel)
Sonya Dollins-Colton: Stone v. The Multitude
Kristen Englehardt: Stone v. Belin
Elizabeth Guzzo: The Moderates
Greg King: Stone v. President Ford and Belin (with comments by Jeffrey Herrigel and Taylor Kite)
Travis Statham: Stone v. Lewis
Karen Timmerman: Stone v. Mosk
Lauren Calabrese: Stone v. Will and Newsweek
Auchincloss, Kenneth, etal. "Twisted History."
Will, George F. "‘JFK': Paranoid History." Washington Post 26 December 1991.
Ansen, David. "What Does Oliver Stone Owe History?"
Morrow, Lance. etal. "Plunging into the Labyrinth." Time 23 December 1991. [interview]
Oliver Stone debunks critical reviews of his film JFK and creates a space to defend his cinematic production through relying upon dialectical reasoning, that is, arriving at the truth through logical argumentation. In his "Speech to The National Press Club" on January 15, 1992, Stone directly addresses and confronts his critics through logical discussion. A few lines into his speech, Stone declares that the entire objective of the film is to disagree with former conceptualizations of the Kennedy assassination. Stone asserts that critics of JFK believe "there is an accepted, settled, respected, carefully thought-out and researched body of history about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, all of which I have set out to deliberately subvert." Stone disarms his critics through stating that there is no "accepted, settled or respected" evidence, only conjectures, and he seeks to directly subvert and challenge such conjectures. Further, Stone neutralizes the causticity and logical fallacy of George Will's acerbic "Paranoid History" review through the assertion that there is no accepted history.
In his scathing review, Will imposes and builds inflated caricatures of "who" Stone is rather than providing adequate support for "why" he is so. Will spits fire and disparages Stone, proclaiming "He is a specimen of 1960's arrested development, the result of the self-absorption encouraged by all the rubbish written about his generation being so unprecedentedly moral, idealistic, caring etc. He is one of those ‘activists' who have been so busy trying to make history they have not learned any." Will's review is enveloped with passion and aims to publicly castigate and burn Stone at the stake. The review is anchored with absolutist rhetoric, bitter ridicule and negatively charged language that seeks to label Stone as an extremist "intellectual sociopath" who is "intellectually on all fours" because of his desecration of blatantly historical facts that have been enshrined in American history. (see comment by Jena Viviano)
In response, Stone presents a litany of "proofs" that directly counter Will's claim that "proof of the vastness of the conspiracy is that no one can prove it exists." Stone declares that the facts surrounding the Kennedy assassination amass to a well-crafted "myth."
It [the Kennedy Assassination] is a myth that a scant number of Americans ever believed. It is a myth that has sustained a generation of journalists and historians who have refused to examine it, who have refused to question it, and above all who close ranks to vilify those who do. So long as the attackers of that comforting lone gunman theory could be dismissed as kooks and cranks and the writers of obscure books that would not be published by "reputable" publishing houses, not much defense was needed. But now that myth is under attack by a well-financed and -- I hope -- well-made motion picture with all the vivid imagery and new energy the screen can convey. Now either enormous amounts of evidence have to be marshaled in support of that myth or else those who question it must be attacked. There is no evidence; therefore the attack is on.
Stone is able to dismiss critical attacks because those who support the mythic tale of the Kennedy assassination refuse to dig up evidence. Further, Stone alleges that in examining facts it would be evident that Vietnam was the primary motive behind the assassination of President Kennedy: "JFK suggests it was Vietnam that led to the assassination of John Kennedy. . . . Major Newman makes it very clear President Kennedy signaled his intention to withdraw from Vietnam in a variety of ways and put that intention firmly on record with the National Security Action Memorandum 263 in October of 1963."
To Stone, Vietnam is the game-changer, but "defenders of History" balk at investigating the relationship between Vietnam and the Kennedy assassination. Moreover, to them JFK's presentation of the Vietnam-Kennedy relation is "distorting history": "Even suggesting that John Kennedy was positioning us for a withdrawal from Vietnam--by even suggesting that--I am [Stone] distorting history." The suppositions of critics such as Will who decry distortion are dislodged, for, according to Stone, the lack of sufficient evidence and intellectual rigor in the Warren Commission report creates the space to "suggest." Stone's logical discourse is entrenched with an emphasis upon an inquiry-based mode of thought that he asserts should fuel investigation. In essence, Stone negates the credibly of critics, particularly Will, through placing the onus upon them; "One might ask the journalists who have suddenly emerged as the Defenders of History what is their sense of history? How much work has the sage of Bethesda, George Will, done in the 20 years he has been a columnist to try to uncover the answers to some of the dark secrets of Dallas, '63?"
Stone picks up his proverbial sword and steps into battle. He delivers jabs to his critics and in doing so rearranges the direction of the argument. Using the argument that "there is no accepted history" or an "adequate sense of history," Stone is able to maneuver the conversation into an entirely separate arena of thought. The critics are unable to infringe upon his space of "suggestion" because "when truth can compete in a free marketplace of ideas, it will prevail." According to Stone, his logical analysis and presentation of the facts will supersede the tenuously supported Kennedy assassination "myth."
Comments
While I do think that Lauren's essay addresses the ridiculousness and inappropriate language used throughout Will's article, I will mention that she did, however, fail to discuss Will's one key point that brought to light a flaw with Stone's accusations. Will says in his article, "Ah yes: 'They'. Who are 'they' who used Sirhan Sirhan and James Earl Ray as well as Lee Harvey Oswald for their purposes? They are, he says 'a moving fluid thing, a series of forces at play.' Can he be a tad more specific?" Will, though his rhetoric is a little blunt, states a question that I myself wondered about while watching the film. How is it really possible for all of those parties that Stone accuses -- CIA, FBI, armed forces, Secret Service, Mafia, doctors, Earl Warren and the commission, the press, and others -- to have a kept a secret for all this time? Is it really probable that all of these respected and esteemed people were able to conspire against the Commander in Chief? It is a rather hard pill to swallow, and I think that Will's article does address it -- providing some relevance to his concern and disgust for the movie and its director.
Brian Carroll: Stone v. Lardner
Lardner, George, Jr. "On the Set: Dallas in Wonderland." Washington Post 19 May 1991.
Stone, Oliver. "Stone's 'JFK': A Higher Truth?" Washington Post 2 June 1991.
Lardner's article goes straight for Oliver Stone's jugular in an attempt to discredit the filmmaker and "all the errors and absurdities, large and small" present in his upcoming motion picture, JFK. Lardner's problem with Stone's work has little to do with the filmmaker's distrust of the government or even with his controversial suggestion of conspiracy. On the contrary, Lardner attacks the famous filmmaker mainly on factual grounds, highlighting various weak points in Stone's argument before meticulously disproving them. While the particular evidence and claims used by Lardner to discredit Stone's conspiracy theory are not overly important to this essay, Lardner's more general accusations against Stone are considerable and thus demand extensive examination. At the highest level, Lardner contends that JFK is not about conspiracy so much as it is about attempting to solve the Kennedy murder mystery by chronicling Jim Garrison's "valiant" investigation--an investigation that the author argues "was a fraud" (191). By pursuing Garrison and encouraging his outlandish claims, Lardner contends that "Oliver Stone is chasing fiction" (191); to Lardner, broadcasting that fiction makes Stone a fraud as well.
Stone deceives the public, according to Lardner, by making use of evidence that is vague and by purposely withholding certain information that weakens Garrison's case. One such example of this is when Stone fails to introduce Perry Russo, the star witness in Garrison's trial against Clay Shaw. Lardner provides the back-story of Russo, explaining how he was hypnotized and prodded by Garrison's team to believe that he was actually at a party in September 1963 with David Ferrie, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Clay Shaw at which they discussed an assassination plot. This claim by Russo ultimately led to the arrest of Shaw and to his eventual trial; however, once it was revealed in court that Russo had been hypnotized and provoked, the case against Shaw fell apart. While Stone's final script includes Willie O'Keefe (Kevin Bacon), a witness who bears some resemblance to the character of Perry Russo, Lardner points out that JFK never addresses the factual testimony of the hypnotized Russo because of how damaging it was. He sarcastically remarks, "The script eliminates Perry Russo; he doesn't exist. [This] is certainly a convenient device" (193).
Withholding such crucial information from the audience allows Stone to portray Garrison's case as being exponentially stronger than Lardner suggests it actually was, thereby misleading the masses "to make a buck" (198). As a result, the author charges Stone with being ethically unjust, if not completely ignorant of the truth. Citing critic Harold Weisberg, an individual possessing similar sentiments about Stone's fraudulence in JFK, Lardner powerfully asserts, "people who sell sex have more principle" (192). While many of Stone's arguments cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt since they stem from hearsay and unfounded information, the author's bold charges of fraudulence against Stone do hold some clout. In displaying to readers Stone's tendency to omit damaging facts (as well as reiterating his widely known practice of exaggerating and fabricating evidence), Lardner is able to extinguish much of Stone's credibility. By doing so, the author succeeds at equating JFK to a "Dallas in Wonderland," suggesting that Stone's take on history is so factually skewed and deceiving, it should be billed as a zany work of fiction. (see comment by Kelley Higgins)
Stone, not one to sit back and accept criticism, responds vehemently, attacking Lardner for wrongly interpreting the film's focus and intent. While Lardner believes that Stone utilizes Jim Garrison (and his investigation) as a catalyst to "solve" Kennedy's murder mystery, Stone disputes this claim. Though he admits that JFK does use the Garrison investigation "as the vehicle to explore the various credible assassination theories," Stone responds to Lardner by laying out the movie's true purpose: to act as "a metaphor for all [the] doubts, suspicions and unanswered questions" surrounding the Kennedy assassination (199). Stone reacts to Lardner's claim that JFK is essentially a work of fiction by launching an assault of his own. He attacks both the Washington Post and reporter Lardner for living in a "wonderland" of their own, blinded and controlled by the Warren Commission's account--one that Stone calls "more fictional than I could ever imagine" (199). Stone responds to Lardner claim by claim, highlighting pieces of information in each of his arguments that the author neglects to consider, proving that Lardner's presentation of the "facts" is not necessarily accurate either. (see comment by Jesse Stehouwer) In regards to the aforementioned Perry Russo situation, for example, Stone accosts Lardner's lack of factual knowledge: "Lardner implies that Perry Russo was the only witness to link Shaw, Ferrie and Oswald, when in fact there were more than half a dozen witnesses who linked this trio" (201).
In addition to picking apart each piece of Lardner's argument against JFK, Stone utilizes rhetorical questioning to finish off his opponent (i.e., "Why is he so concerned that the investigation not be reopened?"). This form of questioning effectively produces a sense of curiosity and distrust for Lardner in the minds of readers--a distrust that Stone capitalizes on by ultimately hinting at a secret agenda on Lardner's part. While both opponents present fairly convincing arguments, in the end this duel boils down to nothing more than a matter of he said-she said. At the conclusion of both pieces, therefore, readers have no more knowledge than they had before and are instead left unsure of whom to trust and believe since both authors provide differing accounts of what truly happened.
Comments
While critics may discredit Stone’s depiction of JFK’s assassination as a conspiracy mainly due to his omission of certain facts and characters, his work in provoking human curiosity is something Lardner nor any other critic can denounce. No person today is in a position to determine who is right or wrong, but I think we all have a right to have an opinion and question what the media portrays to us, using evidence and logic. I don’t understand why people are so concerned about JFK’s file being reopened. It is ironic because Stone has acknowledged “(his) weapon the motion picture medium and taking as (his) target the impressionable young who will believe anything as long as it is visual.†One would think that the best way to debunk his portrayal would be to reopen the file and reveal the concrete evidence that has been stored, but it is Stone who is in full support of this notion and his critics who contest the re-opening. Are we afraid that our government could possibly be covering something up? Or is it the fact that JFK’s death touched so many on such a deep level that we see no point in re-experiencing those emotions again? It is an interesting thing to fathom because, while I personally have a desire to know the truth, I can see how knowing the truth may cause more problems. What if the government is hiding something? And what will that really mean coming to us over half a century after his death? Because of this, I can’t say that any critic has reason to fault Stone or call him a liar when he is simply sparking our curiosity and exploring an issue where so many questions are still left unanswered.
When viewing a film like JFK, reactions like Lardner’s should not only be expected but encouraged. I don’t blame Stone for defending his film the way he did; Lardner is clearly attacking him, and it is only logical Stone would be become defensive in this situation. But, even though I understand Stone’s reaction, was it a valid response? Stone’s film was certainly an eye-opener for me. It is so easy to sit back and accept the information given/shown to you. However in my opinion, Stone’s conspiracy theory is absolutely ludicrous. It seemed to me he took every conspiracy he could get his hands on and combined it all together, going on the idea that if you going to make a lie believable, lie big. Once I established to myself that what I was watching was not completely factual, I was forced to watch more closely and think for myself. I had to take what was shown to me by Stone and decide whether his argument was logical or not, keeping in mind that Stone was presenting the information in a manner that would help his case. However, looking back now and seeing how I reacted to Stone’s film, aka becoming an active viewer, it became clear that Stone’s purpose was not to solve JFK’s assassination but to encourage a nation which has become apathetic to the world they live in to change and actively pursue the truth and, most importantly, to think for yourself. For this reason, I found it hypocritical of Stone to react so strongly when a viewer of his film thought for himself, did research, and came to his own conclusion. Rather than refuting every small argument Lardner made, I would have rather seen Stone acknowledge the controversy and encourage his viewers to do their own investigation, with maybe some helpful hints on where information could be found. Furthermore, had I been in Stone’s situation, I would have encouraged people to watch the “real†film of JFK’s assassination and decide whether President Kennedy’s head did in fact go “back and to the left.â€
William Doherty: Stone v. Wicker
Wicker, Tom. "Does JFK Conspire Against Reason?" New York Times 15 December 1991
Stone, Oliver. "Via the Director's Viewfinder." New York Times 22 December 1991.
Stone, Oliver. "Who Is Rewriting History?" New York Times 20 December 1991.
After the release of JFK, a film claiming that people at the highest levels of the government were involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, director Oliver Stone spent months defending the film, not against movie critics so much as political columnists and editorial writers who said he had been reckless with the facts and had blurred fact and fiction. One of Stone’s harshest critics was Tom Wicker, one of the lead journalists for The New York Times coverage of the assassination of President Kennedy.
Wicker accuses Stone of using his three-plus-hour film to propagate his “one true faith†about the events of Nov. 22, 1963, a claim he makes three times in his concluding paragraphs. Wicker attacks the notion that only New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, whom Wicker dubs perhaps “the most thoroughly discredited figure who has investigated the Kennedy assassination,†and Stone could actually discern the one truth among the many theories of what happened that day.
Wicker’s rhetorical strategy here is to identify Stone with a “discredited†Garrison in hopes of discrediting Stone and his JFK film in the process. Wicker takes another jab at Stone by saying that the movie director, like Garrison, “implies that anyone who doesn’t share his one true faith is either an active part of a cover-up or passively acquiescent in it.â€
Stone, of course, doesn’t take the criticism lying down. Stone effectively deflects the charge that he’s using JFK to brainwash the public to believe his “one true faith†by arguing that the intent of the film was actually to open up minds, not close them off, to new possibilities of what happened that day in Dallas and to ultimately open up the government files as soon as possible so that the American public can know all the facts and make up their own minds. (see comment by Nicholas Alakel) "There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for the American people to wait until 2029 for the House Select Committee on Assassinations records to be released, nor to have the C.I.A., F.B.I. and military intelligence withheld for all eternity," writes Stone in his Dec. 22 letter.
Stone, a fearless and gifted storyteller, then finished his Dec. 22 counter-attack with the truly ballsy move of throwing a line uttered by Garrison in his JFK film back in Wicker’s face -- quite a move considering that he’s quoting a man (Garrison) that Wicker had tried to discredit from a film that Wicker had issues with -- saying: “If I am subverting faith in our institutions at a critical time, I must wonder along with Jim Garrison: ‘Is a government worth preserving when it lies to the people, when it is no longer accountable to the people? It has become a dangerous country, sir. I say, let justice be done though the heavens fall!â€
Comment
In his response to Wicker, Stone employs a defense that reflects the very method that Wicker criticizes him for using. Stone states, "I only wish that Mr Wicker and other journalists who have criticized my film would have applied over the years that same passionate intensity into trying to figure out who killed President Kennedy and why." With this statement Stone seems to imply that Wicker and other critics of his film have a sort of apathy toward the truth of the assassination and are instead out to get him. I find that Stone's method of argument here acts against his intention of defending himself and implicates him in the sort of biased and closed-mindedness of which Wicker accuses him.
Sonya Dollins-Colton: Stone v. The Multitude
Stone, Oliver. "Oliver Stone Talks Back." Premiere January 1992.
In "Oliver Stone Talks Back," Stone responds to such criticism of JFK as 1) it is not history, 2) important characters are fictional, and 3) there is no basis for believing that Kennedy would take us out of Vietnam.
First, Stone is widely criticized for claiming he is writing history and that he is a cinematic historian. Stone answers that charge by redefining "history" and the writing of history. "‘History,' in its original Greek sense (historica)," Stone says, "means ‘inquiry,' and in that light, my film, any film, any work of art, has the right to reexplore an event." Stone's definition of history, then, foregrounds questioning, and to substantiate the need for questioning he gives several specific examples of still open questions: if Oswald was a drifter, how did he have ties to the U.S. intelligence community? How did Ruby get in to the closely guarded Dallas police station?
Second, critics point to the creation of such central characters as Mr. X to claim that JFK is substantially a fictional work. Stone's response to this charge is two-fold. First, he candidly admits that Mr. X is a creation, but, second, he claims the right of a dramatist to use artistic liberty to weave separate parts together in a way to both inform and entertain his audience in a way entirely appropriate to his medium. The fictional Mr. X, Stone writes, "brings together several layers of research from the ‘60s, ‘70s, and ‘80s . . . in a seamless jigsaw puzzle that will allow the audience, for the first time, to understand what happened and why."
Third, and perhaps most importantly, critics hammer the main thesis of the film, that is, that Kennedy's plan to pull the United States out of Vietnam triggered his assassination. Stone responds to this charge simply by citing his sources. Stone points to the work of retired Air Force colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, scholar John Newman, and various National Security Action Memos to substantiate the basis for his belief that Kennedy's withdrawal plan led to his murder. Stone's strategy is simply to make visible the factual foundation for his most important plot device.
"What is past is prologue," Stone concludes. "To forget the past is to be condemned to relive it." And so, in ways such as those sketched above, he makes the case for his own right to write history.
Kristen Englehardt: Stone v. Belin
Belin, David W. "The Big 'Lies' of 'JFK.'" New York 17 February 1992.
Stone, Oliver. "Turn to Stone." cite>New York 9 March 1992.
To the casual observer it would appear that in his New York Times article "The Big 'Lies' of JFK" David W. Belin lays a sound argument that serves to debunk Oliver Stone's credibility, along with that of his highly criticized work JFK. Belin charges Stone with rewriting history with his assertion that Stone's film contains "more than 100 major lies and omissions." The writer clearly denotes what he considers to be the four gravest deceptions -- his neglect of postal inspector Harry Holmes, William Scoggins, Johnny Calvin Brewer, and Howard Brennan, all of whom gave testimony implying the lack of a conspiracy and implicating Lee Harvery Oswald as the lone gunman -- apparent in the film and uses these as the outline for his argument. His clear and concise numerical treatment of these claims allows his audience to feel the full force of his attack without becoming overwhelmed by an immense amount of details. This organizational tactic served Belin well in producing an easily followed argument.
Beyond organization Belin made sure to provide significant evidence as noted by the Warren Commission report to substantiate his claims. In the case of Harry Holmes, Belin implies that it was his unexpected participation in the questioning of Lee Harvey Oswald that proves Harvey's death was not part of a conspiracy attempt, as Jack Ruby would have no advance notice of Oswald's delayed transport because of Holmes' questioning. He also stood firm in his experiences as an investigator for the Warren Commission and as an author of works detailing the assassination of President Kennedy. By appealing to authoritative sources, Belin once again provides his audience with an argument that would appear to be sound.
Establishing his case even further is his emotional appeal to his readers. At several points in his article -- most notably in the section entitled "In Defense of Warren" -- Belin tugs at the heart strings of the American public with repetitive questions in an effort to evoke an emotional response from his readers: "When will the responsible leaders of our free press, who owe so much to Earl Warren, stand up for the truth . . .?" By employing these techniques Belin creates a well organized, substantiated, and emotionally appealing argument against Oliver Stone.
In an attempt to refute the claims brought against him, Stone responded to Belin's article in a letter also published in the New York Times. Stone vehemently lashes out against the assertions laid forth by Belin and presents an argument of his own to the public. Stone's writing employs several effective techniques to make his readers feel as though his is the stronger argument of the two. The most clearly noted technique is the tone through which he makes his case. Stone engages in sarcasm at several points throughout the piece. In one such instance he refers to Belin as the Warren Commission "apologist," implying that the other man wrote his article purely to defend the Warren Commission. This strategy sets out to diminish Belin's authority while simultaneously challenging his intentions, making Stone appear to be both more objective and knowledgeable.
Stone also clearly appeals to his readers' sense of ethics. He plays on his audience's sense of fairness through such statements such "one has to question the ethics of any American lawyer who calls Lee Harvey Oswald -- who was never tried, convicted or even allowed legal representation -- Kennedy's assassin, and not the ‘alleged' or ‘accused' assassin, thereby violating the most fundamental principles of our legal system." In using statements such as this Stone is able to prey upon the public's sense of rightness, that the prejudgment of Oswald goes against the fundamental principles of the American justice system, that is, that every man is innocent until proven guilty.
Taking a page out of Belin's book, Stone also makes an appeal to authority by citing many credible sources including authors, government officials, and even the House Select Committee on Assassinations (1976-1979). In claiming these reputable works Stone establishes his credibility from the start of his letter. Stone sets out to disassemble Belin's major contentions with JFK. He first attacks Belin's argument concerning Harry Holmes. Here Stone implies that Holmes' own testimony suggests that his unexpected questioning of Oswald did not delay his transfer, leaving the idea of Jack Ruby's premeditated act intact. Stone also questions Belin's use of Howard Brennan's testimony. Belin claimed that Brennan was able to clearly identify Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone gunman shooting from the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. Stone refutes this claim as he asserts that Brennan identified Oswald in the third lineup and was unable to do so in the first two as he feared for the safety of his family. In supplying such information Stone is clearly able to provide significant evidence that casts reasonable doubt upon two of Belin's four assertions. While Stone does succeed in making his audience discount some of Belin's major points, his overall argument is somewhat affected in failing to address Belin's other claims.
Elizabeth Guzzo: The Moderates
Ansen, David. "A Troublemaker for Our Times." Newsweek 23 December 1991.
Schlesinger, Arthur, Jr. "JFK: Truth and Fiction." Wall Street Journal 10 January 1992.
These two essays are unique because the authors do not commit to either side of the JFK argument. Both men have their praise for Stone, as well as their reservations. Ansen sums it up nicely when he says, "My advice is: don't trust anyone who claims the movie is hogwash. And don't trust Stone either." The men appreciate Stone's work and his attempt to shed light on the inadequate work of the Warren Commission; at the same time, they see flaws in and arguments against Stone's movie.
Schlesinger opens up with saying the movie itself is very well done. It "comes at you with slam-bang intensity," and Stone has a strong thesis which states that JFK's death was caused by his desire to withdraw from Vietnam. Schlesinger provides evidence supporting this thesis, such as the fact that JFK had already started to evacuate soldiers from Vietnam and Johnson did the exact opposite when he took office. Therefore, Schlesinger states, "Oliver Stone's film has a defensible premise." He then goes on to say, however, "But the conclusion he draws is indefensible." While Stone had his facts straight and a conspiracy is possible, Stone takes it too far, and his theory is "reckless, paranoid, really despicable fantasy." Schlesinger also believes Stone's use of Major X is absolutely ridiculous because the viewer takes his speech as a turning point in the movie, but yet X's speech about how "the evil cabal is running and ruining the U.S." is completely unbelievable and inaccurate. So while the film raises legitimate questions and concerns, people should not buy into Stone's version of the conspiracy.
One of the Schlesinger's major complaints is that "the viewer can never tell at any point in the movie where fact ends and fiction begins," and he provides the example of the gunmen. Schlesinger, like many, does believe that the idea of a lone gunman is improbable, and he feels that movie shows this very well. The problem is that truthful scenes like this are mixed in with fictional characters and ideas. The viewer is not sure if he can believe Garrison accurately shows it is impossible for Oswald to shoot that accurately and quickly because plausible scenes like this bleed into impossible ones, like X's thesis. The author ultimately applauds Stone's work as an artist and his desire to fight for a cause he believes in. Schlesinger believes, nonetheless, that "Stone is an artist, and artists are often hopelessly loyal to their fantasies--and their fantasies often hopelessly abuse the truth." The critic thinks we should appreciate the film, Stone's work, but yet we should not take it for fact.
Similarly, Ansen is a fan of Stone's work as a filmmaker and thinks he brings up important questions. Ansen likes that the movie makes us question history and all the possible subjects in the conspiracy case. Ansen first takes the movie for simply that: a movie with suspense, action, and a good plot. And he believes it is very well done. In his final paragraphs, however, Ansen criticizes the mixing of "reel" with "real," especially in Garrison's case.
Stone transforms the "real" Garrison, who is known to have many flaws, into a perfect "reel" Garrison who fights for the truth and seems to completely have his act together (minus family issues, which Stone resolves in the end). Ansen also dislikes Stone's idealization of the president in general and his inability to be objective about JFK's reign in office. The author, nonetheless, thinks it is a great movie with a fantastic cast, but he simply warns viewers not to take Stone's word as truth. He ends saying, "Two cheers for Mr. Stone, a troublemaker for our times," applauding the director for his bravery in stirring up controversy by bringing the JFK case back into the spotlight.
Both Schlesinger and Ansen attempt to stay subjective, and they seem to take a step back from the heated controversy. They want the readers to know that Stone may not be completely accurate but that he at least proves that the Warren Commission did not do a thorough investigation. By not taking a side, these authors are better able to demonstrate their points. They do not have an agenda for or against Stone, but rather want us to think for ourselves, and allow Stone's film to raise questions, rather than answer them. It is evident that Stone is correct in thinking the Warren Commission made many mistakes and there could be a conspiracy; the authors just hope we do not believe Stone but do the research for ourselves, as well as not mistake Stone's "reel" (fiction) for "real" (fact).
Greg King: Stone v. President Ford and Belin
Ford, Gerald, and David W. Belin. "Kennedy Assassination: How About the Truth?" Washington Post 17 December 1991.
Stone, Oliver. "The JFK Assassination -- What About the Evidence?" Washington Post 24 December 1991.
The Washington Post articles the "Kennedy Assassination: How About the Truth?" and "The JFK Assassination -- What About the Evidence?" are direct shots back and forth among the myriad of debate and controversy surrounding Oliver Stone's JFK. The first is fired by Warren Commission members David Belin and former President Gerald Ford -- arguably men who have a vested interest in protecting the viewpoints put forth by the Commission. Belin and Ford proceed to attack JFK by asserting that the evidence used in the film was invalid and that the film failed to include crucial evidence that would have skewed opinions the other way. For example, they quickly accuse the film of ignoring the fact that "Nineteen . . . experts have concluded that all of the shots that struck President Kennedy came from the rear." In doing so, Belin and Ford use a lot of "hot" language, language that makes it clear they are angry. Phrases like "big lie," "false charges," "desecration," "which happens to be the truth," and "the truth is known" are found throughout the article. Absolutist language like "never" and the constant play of "lies" and "truth" is common, including four paragraphs in a row that begin with "Nowhere." Belin and Ford make a time-honored mistake when engaging in a public debate -- they got angry. (see comment by Jeffrey Herrigel)
Stone responds to Belin and Ford in "What About the Evidence?" in which he comes across as comparatively calm and collected. (see comment by Taylor Kite) He quickly casts both Belin and Ford as "the last of a dying breed." He makes it clear that people who blindly support the Warren Commission report are very few and that Belin and Ford are in a distinct minority, damaging their points before he even gets into the meat of the article. Stone then takes his readers step by step through the assertions that Belin and Ford made, demonstrating where they have ignored evidence to the contrary. For instance, citing the assertion given earlier regarding the nineteen experts, Stone says "While the ‘official' autopsy photos and x-rays do show that all shots came from the rear, the 26 trained medical personnel . . . who treated the president at Parkland Hospital testified to the Warren Commission that they saw an exit-type wound in the back of the head. . . . Neither the Warren Commission nor the HSCA showed the photos and x-rays to the Dallas doctors. Until this happens, the medical evidence proves absolutely nothing." Stone is clear and concise, making his points without belaboring them. Belin and Ford took most of an entire page to discuss the details of why Jack Ruby could not have been part of a conspiracy because he was delayed in getting to the police station by a random event. Stone manages to invalidate their point in four sentences: "If Ruby was part of a conspiracy and Ruby was allowed into the police station by a contact there, then the . . . excuse is nonsense. The conspirators would make sure Ruby was there for the transfer. Ford and Belin argue that no would-be hit man would kill his target in a police station. No, of course not, unless he had help."
Stone avoids the use of "hot" language, and tends to adopt a quiet tone just short of patronizing, which we see in his contention refuting Ford and Belin's "Unequivocal ballistics": "Belin and Ford are obviously unaware of the declassified F.B.I. Document stating the bullet in the back penetrated only about two inches and did not exit -- proving that the ‘single bullet' scenario could not have happened at all." Stone even avoids reprinting the hot language used by Belin and Ford in his citations of them, particularly avoiding the "nowheres" when mentioning such assertions as "The most probably time span of Oswald's three shots was around 10 seconds." Stone is also careful to concede the point to Belin and Ford where it is warranted, while still making the point support his side of the story, such as the concern about Jack Ruby's polygraph test, which said that he operated alone. Stone agrees but adds the fact that "based on a psychiatrist's diagnosis of Ruby as ‘psychotic depressive,' the polygraph results should be considered ‘non-conclusive.'" The only point at which Stone moves into more sensationalist language is when he is wrapping up his article and making his final points. The keystone to this finale states that "The Ford/Belin piece is tired, obsolete, highly selective information, printed many times over the past 28 years, not believed by 75 percent of the American people or even supported by the conservative findings of the HSCA." All of these assertions have already been backed up by detail earlier in the article.
Comments
Greg, they got angry???? of course they did!!!! You gloss over some pretty basic explanations of why Belin and Ford presented themselves the way they did. They use "hot language" because JFK, a close friend of Ford’s, was murdered by a psychotic lunatic and Oliver Stone won’t let his deceased friend and co-worker rest in peace. Ford’s emotionally charged reaction isn’t a shocking one. This is clearly a sensitive topic, and the fact that Ford is angry is more an indicator that the subject understandably causes him personal distress than anything else.
I am shocked at the lack of professionalism exhibited by the former president of the United States in this essay. I do understand that Stone's points challenge his former post and everything he worked to sustain and work towards as president, but this itself is a huge problem for American society. We need leaders not afraid to challenge the status quo, regardless of what boat-rocking it may do. While Ford cannot be expected, in this day and age, to stand up and publish anything that points to the fact that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, because of the obvious implications, he could at least acknowledge the fact that there are some evident loopholes in the system. He could admit that there is shady evidence and questionable aspects of the entire investigation and assassination situation. I would say that my personal beliefs on the situation is some sort of hybrid of the two essays, but I have more respect for Stone and his quest for what he believes is the truth. He's the only one standing up in a room full of people saying he's wrong. That takes a lot of guts to do, and then to go and make a Hollywood film about it is even more bold, so I give him a lot of credit, much more credit than I give an old president defending the government in a heated essay giving away his location.
Travis Statham: Stone v. Lewis
Lewis, Anthony. "JFK." New York Times 9 January 1992.
Stone, Oliver. "Warren Panel Findings Should Stir Outrage." New York Times 3 February 1992.
Director Oliver Stone's critics attacked his movie left and right, supplying evidence that contradicts many of the ideas in JFK. Anthony Lewis, for instance, fosters doubt about the movie by saying that it does not contain any evidence not known by the Warren Commission. However, Stone parries every probing question that Lewis throws in order to raise doubt and convince the public that something is indeed amiss with JFK's assassination, something that demands the release of confidential documents related to the case.
Lewis, for instance, focuses on how the President was killed, summing up the evidence that might confirm that the shots were fired from behind the President's position. However, Stone's reaction piece says that "Mr. Lewis is quoting from the House Select Committee on Assassinations report of 1973," meaning that the Warren Commission did not have such evidence to use in their verdict. Stone is smartly commenting on the nature of the Warren Commission's report and how it lacks sufficient detail to be conclusive in determining Lee Harvey Oswald as the killer. Stone even cites autopsy photos and x-rays to question Lewis's assertion of the rear-fired bullets. Thus, Stone fosters doubt on the part of his audience, making the issues at hand even more confusing, hoping to bring about a second investigation.
Stone continues to spread qualms by listing "discrepancies and contradictions in the Warren Commission's own evidence." Pieces of evidence such as the bullet fragments, opinions of medical experts, and Jack Ruby's presence during the jail transfer are swept aside by Stone's acidic comments. Stone then continues to discredit the journalist in every fashion possible. For instance, Lewis's favorite source of information, David W. Belin, according to Lewis, "has seen every document, every Central Intelligence Agency file," but Stone knows that those files were "deliberately withheld" from the Warren Commission. Astute readers will pick up that Stone is questioning why the public cannot view these radically important documents that the CIA has so carefully hidden from view. Although most readers may be confused by which side to take, considering both have strong evidence, they will unknowingly fall into Stone's trap and begin to question Oswald's conviction just as the director does.
Karen Timmerman: Stone v. Mosk
Mosk, Richard M. "The Plot to Assassinate the Warren Commission." Los Angeles Times 30 December 1991.
Stone, Oliver. "JFK Is Not Irresponsible." Los Angeles Times 6 January 1992.
In the "duel" between Richard Mosk and Oliver Stone, one sees a vicious and pompous attack on JFK by a member of the Warren Commission determined not to be doubted that is answered by a calm and collected rebuttal by the director who states cold hard facts and refuses to stoop to Mosk's level of degradation.
Mosk bases the entirety of his argument on his stubborn insistence that everything the Warren Commission found was the absolute truth, and the "overwhelming evidence" found only serves to further their proof. He does not go further than listing the same evidence that has already been disproved in JFK and by numerous other conspiracy theorists. He attests to the "scientific evidence . . . [that] had repeatedly established the single bullet conclusion -- that is, one shot struck Kennedy's neck, exited the front without hitting any bones and hit Gov. Connally causing all of his wounds." Mosk cites a "number of federal and state investigations of the assassination, none of which has unearthed anything new," that further back up the Commission's report and show that no other truth exists, and in the end he argues that "the overwhelming evidence establishes that the events occurred as found by the Warren Commission."
Mosk does not acknowledge that Stone had done a more than adequate job of disproving the already weak "magic bullet theory" and is merely restating evidence and trying to ensure trust in the already accused government investigations. He does this all in a pompous and autocratic manner, calling Stone's ideas "preposterous" and sounding like most all of the rest of the government agents that refuse to let the Warren Commission's lies be protested. He starts off his review concluding that there was a conspiracy by Stone and JFK to "distort history for profit," and he wonders how even the reviewers "reject JFK's preposterous thesis, [yet] they are somehow willing to accept many of the film's factual misstatements." Mosk speaks as though the rest of the audience who do not share his views are sorely mistaken in their own opinions, later even stating that is was "strange . . . only a few well-informed commentators have noted how flawed JFK's representations were about Kennedy Administration policies regarding Vietnam and other foreign policy matters."
Stone takes the high road in his response and refuses to stoop down to Mosk's level of taking a vicious offense. He coolly refutes each one of Mosk's claims with evidence of his own. Stone does so by responding with a numbered list of evidence against each one of Mosk's arguments. For instance, "2 -- The neuromuscular reaction that Mosk claims accounts for the backwards snap of Kennedy's head when struck by a bullet from behind could happen only when a major coordinating center of the brain is damaged. According to the x-rays . . ." This is all cold, hard evidence, with no side comments or Stone's opinions. Stone also cites the work of other sources besides the U.S. Government, such as the Parkland Hospital doctors, even a military doctor who gave evidence he "was "ordered" by generals and admirals not to track the bullet through [JFK's] neck" at the autopsy. These are sources that have not been accused of a conspiracy to kill their own President and hence seem a bit more reliable when comparing the two reviews.
Stone does not include the malicious side comments that pepper Mosk's review, such as when the latter accused Stone of being "irresponsible and inexcusable," claiming that his conspiracy "defies logic and common sense." Stone just turns the other cheek and refuses to retaliate in such a sophomoric manner. He instead repeats that there has been much evidence of government officials holding back evidence and refusing to accept answers that make a good deal more sense than the findings of the Warren Commission, especially that of the magic bullet theory. Stone's consistent and well-supported evidence using numbered paragraphs disproving claims by citing "the NAA tests performed . . . were inconclusive" and "invalid" hold strong against Mosk's argument that the Warren Commission must be correct, merely because it was a conclusion found by the government, which, of course, would always tell the truth.
Only in the end does Stone criticize Mosk, along with the rest of the "'respectable' and 'honorable'" men of the government who continue to propagate a lie told to their own people. He accuses Mosk of "looking only to whitewash the Warren Commissions rather than to seriously look into Stone's conspiracy. Stone does not need to continually disparage Mosk throughout his response like the former did. He just makes a few well-chosen comments, bringing up the point that one could "ask any homicide detective how many times they've had to take into account neuromuscular reactions, jet effects and seven wounds in two men with one undamaged bullet . . . and you'll get an astounded stare in response. Although that is not a solid piece of evidence, it does serve to show further how preposterous the Warren Commission's "single bullet" claim is.
In the end, the "duel" between these two shows a man insisting so strongly and using such an offensive attack that he seems as if he has something to hide, while the object of his aggression merely responds in a collected manner with well-detailed evidence and a much more well-spoken denunciation of his attacker. Mosk is under the belief that if the so called "facts" of the Warren Commission are forced upon the people enough, they will finally be accepted. He fails to realize that Stone's approach of encouraging open-mindedness and the refusal to be ignorant will have a much larger effect on a public whose majority has been doubting the events of JFK's assassination for years.
