Stone vs. Critics -- Real, Politics, or Marketing?

By Yue Chen

[1] What was Oliver Stone’s real intention in making the film? Stone says every film he makes has a purpose, and under heavy attacks from critics and historians who denounced JFK as an attempt to re-write history, Stone responded with his own vigorous rebuttals. Stone created a heated debate surrounding the film -- was he simply trying to promote and generate buzz for the movie, did he truly believe in the conspiracy theories, was there a political agenda, or maybe it was a combination of all the above?

[2] Stone knew he was making a controversial movie and didn’t want the script getting out because he “knew the material was dangerous.” JFK was no small budget indie-film -- it was a $41-million Hollywood production financed by a major studio that was being released during the busy Christmas season. His film was going to reveal the “truth” behind the JFK assassination -- that it was a coup d’état planned and covered up by the government and media -- and he was courageously going against the Establishment and setting the record straight. The battle between Stone and his critics was brilliant marketing -- people love controversies and the feud generated attention and buzz for the movie. And critics stepped right into the trap -- their extreme attacks on the film’s veracity simply fueled the idea of Stone as a crusader who was exposing the government’s secret conspiracies. Stone fired back at his critics in interviews and print -- it was part real indignation, part partisan politics, and part marketing ploy.

[3] It might be easy, after seeing Stone’s staunch defenses of the movie’s “truths” and theories, to pass him off as a crazy conspiracy nut. But he is much too smart for that -- he must have known he was embellishing and altering facts and realized the actual, underlying political messages in the movie. Stone claimed he was being vilified for fighting a myth created by the government and media -- “The Establishment” -- and for trying to bring the “truth” and “facts” to the public.

[4] Except that 70% of Americans (down from 80% in 1983) doubt the official Warren Commission report, making “the Establishment” in the JFK assassination, in actuality, the conspiracy theorists. Since JFK’s assassination in 1963, and long before Stone’s movie, the majority of the public did not believe Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman. Despite the public perception that Stone was going against the majority on some established “myth,” in reality he was taking on as much risk as exposing the truth that Bill Clinton, indeed, had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. Except, of course, that was true, and JFK was not. So Stone already had the public on his side -- then who is the imaginary “Establishment” he is battling here? The people actually fighting the “established myth” are the minority who are trying to refute the conspiracies and prove, through scientific evidence and facts, that Lee Harvey Oswald did kill JFK.

[5] Stone’s main purpose for the film, more so than to have viewers “think” and re-examine the history of the assassination, was obviously political, which is why it initially attracted the scathe of political writers like George Lardner and Tom Wicker. Stone did receive criticism from liberal and conservative reporters, but politics is a topic that brings out vitriol from people across the political spectrum. Stone was surprised with the critical responses he received from the New York Times, a liberal newspaper, including Anthony Lewis: “Lewis is supposed to be a liberal, but to me he represents the failure of the old-line liberal establishment to fully investigate the JFK assassination.”

[6] The political implication of the movie was that John F. Kennedy, a young liberal President, was moving and changing America (to the left) and was stopped and killed by right-wing groups and corporations. Innocence and peace were lost in the post-Kennedy era and have been taken over by a fascist system of conspiracies and deception -- Americans need to “question their [conservative] leaders,” “question authority.” and fight the (conservative) media and government. In essence, to counter the apathy in Americans and encourage them to get involved in (liberal) politics -- partisan politics aside, it is a well-meaning and important message. Unfortunately, that point is lost on most viewers of the film.

[7] But then again, the film was released on December 20, 1991, and less than one year later, Bill Clinton, the first Democratic president to serve a second term since FDR in 1936, was elected as our 42nd President.