Talk:JFK (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review JFK (film) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the JFK (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies


This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top
This article has been rated as Top-Importance on the importance scale.
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed by the Films WikiProject.

Contents

[edit] Added Content

I added several paragraphs articulating possible criticisms of the movie in the second section. I'm not sure whether these additions are compatible with the NPOV policy. I would welcome a second opinion on this matter. (Dkostic 23:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC))

  • From what I saw the page looks fine. Anyway, I took out the paragraph expressing confusion about Oswald switching politics. I don't think that's an unexplained continuity error- I think Stone was heavily implying, if not outright saying, that Oswald was an anti-Communist who faked Communist sympathies for the purposes of making the Kennedy assassination look like it was done by a radical as opposed to the government. CanadianCaesar 8 July 2005 05:54 (UTC)
I've also edited somewhat. I've retained the relevant facts as presented, but I can't agree that Garrison's rejection of FBI ballistic evidence (regardless of the merits of his argument) is logically inconsistent with his acceptance of FBI evidence about the difficulty of placing three accurate shots in such quick succession. Not that the case as presented was POV. It just didn't make much sense.
An argument could be made that Garrison was deliberately trying to employ false logic, ie
a) The FBI is biased towards the lone gunman theory (premise)
b) The FBI wanted to make the shots if at all possible (fact)
c) If anyone could make the shots, it's the FBI (premise)
d) the FBI couldn't make the shots (fact)
e) therefore, there was more than one gunman (false conclusion based on a and c, unproven).
However, the critism presented did not attempt to present such an argument. It seemed only to suggest that Garrison's rejection of one part of the FBI's evidence as potentially tainted means that he should then reject all their evidence, regardless of whether it supports their bias or not. That doesn't make sense to me.
If the FBI had been arguing against the theory of a lone gunman firing three shots from the Texas School Book Depository, and if one was to reject their ballistics evidence as tainted against the "magic bullet" aspect of that theory, then it would be consistent to reject their sharpshooter evidence on the same grounds (ie, they could have made the shots if they'd really tried).
However, Garrison contended that the FBI's evidence might be tainted in the interests of promoting the lone gunman theory. If that contention was correct, then it would obviously be in the FBI's interest to show that those shots could be so placed. Their failure to do does somewhat support the opposing contention, that the fatal shot did not come from that building, regardless of their alleged bias. (It doesn't actually prove anything, of course.)
It does not follow that rejecting one part of the FBI's evidence as potentially biased in favour of one version of events means that Garrison should then reject another, unrelated part of their evidence when it apparently supports the opposing version.
Unfortunately, we're now left with an article which alleges inconsistencies, without saying what they actually are. TheMadBaron 21:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Jennings

I just saw a great show on the History Channel by Peter Jennings that went through the film piece by piece and proved most of the film's portrayal as utterly baseless. It would be great if someone could add a little more about this - I haven't seen the film myself, so I don't feel qualified to make any more contribution than the one liner I put in - in the controversy section.

[edit] Production History

I've started working on a detailed history of the film's production. Unless otherwise stated, all quotes come from Stone: A Biography of Oliver Stone by James Riordan. Let me know how it sounds and if you have suggestions, changes, etc. There is more to come. J.D. 01:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Dallas in Wonderland"

One reviewer (Washington Post, 1991) called it that. Can somebody say who? Trekphiler 03:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Washington Post national security correspondent George Lardner. Count Ringworm 20:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Wayne Knight's Character"

Is listed here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001431/ (imdb) as "Numa Bertel", Not Neuman. Although it clearly DOES sound like "Newman" in the film. So, the assertion that he is called Newman in both films is essentially mis-informed.

[edit] Trivia Section

In order to get this article in shape for a possible GA status, I've removed the Trivia section as most of the points really don't fit anywhere else in the article and don't seem to merit inclusion but I am posting it here in the Talk section in case someone can find a way to make these points fit. Count Ringworm 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

  • Of several films featuring both Walter Matthau (Senator Long) and Jack Lemmon (Jack Martin), JFK is the only one in which they do not share a scene.
  • The film makes extensive use of suggestive imagery. In one scene, a close-up of the "Umbrella Man" is replaced by Tommy Lee Jones as Clay Shaw—only to vanish a second or two later. Some frames have apparently been doctored to contain images of Presidents Reagan and Bush. The film contains a number of images of skulls, often glimpsed for just a few frames. One repeated shot of the Clay Shaw character, sitting against a green background and waving to someone, has a large skull in the background. [1]
  • Gary Oldman, who played Lee Harvey Oswald, also voiced Oswald in the 1992 mini-series Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?.
  • There are numerous references to William Shakespeare and Julius Caesar, including:
    • John F. Kennedy is compared to Caesar with the government ready to assassinate him by Mr. X. Later, he is compared to Caesar in Garrison's closing summation.
    • Garrison quotes Hamlet, "One may smile, and smile, and be a villain" (Act I, Scene V).
    • Garrison quotes Caesar's father-in-law Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, "Let justice be done though the heavens fall (Fiat justitia ruat caelum)".
    • The quote in the epilogue, "What is past is prologue" is from The Tempest (Act II, Scene I).
    • David W Ferrie quotes Shakespeare by saying "Oh what deady web we weave when we practice to deceive"
  • Oliver Stone says that the character of Jim Garrison in the film is partly based on the real Jim Garrison and partly used as a composite character for presenting various conspiracy theories.

[edit] Cast

As there is no "Cast" section, I'm proposing the following - if someone wouldn't mind adding it to the more appropriate place. I was thinking after "Casting", but couldn't make up my mind. SkierRMH 09:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cast (in credits order)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/f/k/Talk%7EJFK_%28film%29_19ca.html"