JFK's orchestrated bashing, Oliver Stone's challenge to the Kennedy assassination, Part 2

“JFK” synopsis

November 22, 1963. The 35th president, John F. Kennedy, was assassinated in Dallas, Texas, shocking the nation. Less than two hours The Day After, it was announced that Oswald had been the sole perpetrator of the assassination, but Oswald was shot to death while being escorted. New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, who has doubts about the Warren Commission's findings, launches his own investigation to uncover the truth. But mystery begets mystery. Jim Garrison takes on deep, heavy, and formidable puzzles. It was the beginning of a long battle with the United States, and the beginning of a rift with his beloved family.

A multifaceted examination of the difficult journey Oliver Stone took to complete the movie ``JFK'' (1991). The approximately 25,000-word article will be published in three parts: the first part, the second part, and the second part. This article is the sequel.

*Click here for the first part

*Click here for the middle part

Index

• Public disclosure and all-out attack from the media
• Is JFK a propaganda film?
• Fair evaluation spread through word of mouth
• What impact did “JFK” have on society?

Public disclosure and all-out attack from the media

In December 1991, pre-release publicity began to buzz the media. At the same time, major newspapers again began bashing him. The New York Times ran a special feature on the 20th, the day of the film's release, featuring criticism from political journalists, including an article by Oliver Stone. John P. McKenzie writes, ``Mr. Stone is as careless about The Truth as his protagonist, painting the prosecutor's fabrications as real events and adding his own fabrications...The film is ostensibly dedicated to The Truth; But in reality, they are using Clay Shaw to revive unjustified prosecutions and, like the prosecutor, promote outrageous conspiracy theories." (Quoted from the reprint of ``In Pursuit of the Truth About JFK Kennedy's Assassination '') and a complete denial.

In the same paper on the 25th, Tom Wicker, a journalist who was present at the moment of Kennedy's assassination, said, ``If it is possible for a conspiracy as large and serious as is alleged to be carried out and kept hidden for thirty years, why?'' "Did the masterminds or successors of the conspiracy let Mr. Stone make this film? Why didn't they murder him, as they probably did the others?" Ta.

The biggest point of criticism against ``JFK'' was its discrepancy with historical facts. Political journalists have written about the true story of Jim Garrison, how much of a farce the actual trial was, and the factual errors depicted in the play down to the smallest detail. The Los Angeles Times (December 30, 1991) said, ``It is irresponsible for movie industry moguls looking to make a profit to portray fiction as fact and defame not only the dead but also the living. This is unacceptable," he wrote.

“JFK” (C)2016 Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment LLC. All Rights Reserved.

A doctor who attended the autopsy immediately after the assassination lamented: "The autopsy scene is far from The Truth . The actors playing my roles are older than I am now." ( The Truth About the JFK Assassination)

What these criticisms have in common is that the film itself is not talked about at all. They only talk about whether or not the movie is true to historical fact, and they only talk about the ``facts'' that they themselves experienced, and they do not talk about the movie ``JFK'', which was ``reconstructed'' as fiction based on a true story. Much like the Washington Post, which criticized the film based on the first draft of the script during filming, most of the criticisms can be written without having seen the film.

However, people have little tolerance for fiction based on facts they know, including the Kennedy assassination. For example, when a familiar place appears in a movie, it may be strange to notice if the location is different from reality. Even if what is depicted is made up, when reality is placed in the background, the strong power of reality will drag you down.

When ordinary people appear on reality shows using their real names and their daily lives are broadcast on social media, many people find it difficult to distinguish between their JFK on the show and their real-life selves. It can be said that the bashing was meant to happen. Then, the movement to view this work as dangerous began to gain momentum.