Stone's Deceptive Game

By Dana Shakked

[1] In his summation, Jim Garrison walks the jurors through all the evidence that points to a government conspiracy to assassinate the President in which Clay Shaw participated. Oliver Stone makes it clear in interviews subsequent to the release of the movie that his intention was to present viewers with information and for them to draw their own conclusions. In these scenes, however, Garrison’s presentation to the jury and courtroom audience indicate that Stone left little room for debate on the topic. Garrison mocks the government’s theory for the purpose of convincing not only the reel jury to rule in his favor but the real audience as well.

[2] Garrison begins his summation with the initial viewing of the Zapruder film. He says that it has been kept from the public and “there’s a reason for that,” which he explains as the entirely different narrative told by the film in comparison to what the American people have been told by the government. The shades go down, and the audience is brought back in time five years ago to that ill-fated day when their leader was unjustly murdered. The silence in the room as the motorcade progresses around the bend depicts the discomfort of the audience watching in anticipation and knowing what is to come. There are gasps all around the courtroom as Kennedy’s head is blown to pieces. The shades go up, and everyone takes a deep breath, partially because most of them have been holding their breaths the whole time but also in an effort to process what they have just seen. The screen cuts to Clay Shaw, who is nervously rubbing his eyebrows in realization that he is suddenly vulnerable as the story is about to unravel.

[3] Garrison explains that what viewers witnessed in the Zapruder film is evidence itself that a conspiracy to assassinate the president in fact took place. He describes the Magic Bullet Theory as one of the “grossest lies ever forced on the American people.” Silence from the audience ensues as they digest the words “forced” and “lies,” and the implications of those words in conjunction with “government” and “conspiracy.” He uses his pointer to exaggerate the bullet’s trajectory as it makes its way through Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally’s stand-ins. In doing so, Garrison makes the theory’s impracticality more visually obvious so that the audience has no choice but to take his argument as truth. Garrison continues to mock the government’s theory in his explanation of how the bullet is found in “almost pristine condition,” while the screen jumps to a flashback of someone slipping the alleged bullet onto a stretcher in the hospital. He sums it all up by saying “That’s some bullet” in a sarcastic tone, making the jury and audience feel they have been tricked and lied to by the government so blatantly. Garrison encourages the jury to use their common sense when considering the evidence, just as Stone does with viewers of the movie.

[4] Garrison moves forward with his argument, explaining that in the obvious disbarring of the Magic Bullet Theory comes the revelation that there must have been a fourth shot, a second shooter, and a conspiracy, all the while the music intensifies and becomes more ominous. He describes the grassy knoll where 51 witnesses heard that fourth shot coming from and “to the front and right of the president,” which connects with his later description of Kennedy’s recoil from the shot as “back and to the left.” The screen cuts to flashbacks of the witnesses screaming in terror, reinforcing the vulnerability of the audience as they realize they have been deceived by their own government. In the heat of this realization comes evident anger in Garrison’s voice as it escalates while he describes the condition of Kennedy’s head that could have only come from a shot behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll.

[5] The next four minutes are used to recreate the confusion and secrecy during the autopsy of the president. Real-life images from the autopsy flash between reenacted inspections of the body, which confuse the viewer into believing those conversations and chain of events actually happened. The question arises, “Who’s in charge here?” in the autopsy room as a series of anonymous figures limit the investigation, giving more freedom for later interpretation in the midst of devious, nerve-wracking background tones. This question seems to linger as Garrison challenges the lead examiner, and Stone challenges the viewers to conclude that there were deeper reasons for Kennedy’s assassination. Garrison presses his argument on the audience and jury by suggesting Air Force One’s departure was like a getaway even as the defense objects. He slips in his opinion even though he knows it is going to be objected by the defense and sustained by the judge, because it appeals to the audience.

[6] As he explains his team’s request to view the archives on Kennedy’s brain, Garrison emphasizes that it was “your government” who claims it has disappeared, not to mention the mockingly spooky tone with which he says “disappear.” This is the key to convincing the audience that they have been duped by the government they trust, as well as the absurdity that the government would try to support this explanation. Not only is Garrison making the audience believe in this theory, he is convincing them that this is the only truth in Kennedy’s assassination, and everything else as told by the government has been lies.

[7] Many of Stone’s arguments defending the film claim that the intention was to raise questions and inspire the American people to challenge the government for definitive answers. The movie inspires independent thinking and challenging what is publicly known. Stone, in this sense, is incredibly successful as the movie stirred up questions and controversy. However, had Stone welcomed criticisms of his film, he would have been consistent with his stated intention rather than discrediting it: “In playing this deceptive game,” says Robert Burgoyne, “Stone lost an opportunity to win broader applause for finding imaginative ways to stimulate the public’s thinking about the past.” In other instances, Stone suggests that he thoroughly researched the assassination and his film was to allow history to speak for itself. If this movie was to present facts to the public, Stone, in fact, failed, since the use of artistic flair and fact littered with the fake ultimately presents a one-sided perspective that a conspiracy existed.