Talk:JFK (film)/Archive 1

Garrison Played the Shaw Trial Judge - NOT Earl Warren
It was erroneously stated that Garrison appeared as Ealr warren in this movie. He did not. he actually appears as the judge in the Shaw trial. I have corrected this.
 * According to the IMDB he did in fact play Warren. I have changed it back. Count Ringworm 13:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Garrison plays Warren, and can be seen fairly early in the film interviewing Jack Ruby in jailKimwell (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.
 * I agree, the History channel has a show as well. This movie is a farce, and it's claims should be fully exposed in this article to avoid confusion and stop the conspiracy nonsense.Strunke 02:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is covered with the link to this website under the Historical Inaccuracies section. It does a pretty amazing job exposing where the film gets it wrong. --J.D. 13:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

"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)

"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.

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)

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.
 * 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.

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)

Cast (in credits order)

 * Kevin Costner	... 	Jim Garrison
 * Tommy Lee Jones	... 	Clay Shaw/Clay Bertrand
 * Kevin Bacon	... 	Willie O'Keefe
 * Gary Oldman	... 	Lee Harvey Oswald
 * Michael Rooker	... 	Bill Broussard
 * Jack Lemmon	... 	Jack Martin
 * Laurie Metcalf	... 	Susie Cox
 * Sissy Spacek	... 	Liz Garrison
 * Joe Pesci	... 	David Ferrie
 * John Candy	... 	Dean Andrews
 * Pruitt Taylor Vince	... 	Lee Bowers
 * Jay O. Sanders	... 	Lou Ivon
 * Walter Matthau	... 	Senator Long
 * Sally Kirkland	... 	Rose Cheramie
 * Donald Sutherland	... 	X
 * Edward Asner	... 	Guy Bannister
 * I've since integrated this information back into the article. Count Ringworm 19:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

GA comment
All of the images need fair use rationales or the article will be quick-failed. --Nehrams2020 07:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Count Ringworm 13:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

GA review
One of my favourite films, but I do wonder why there's barely anything on the plot? A concise plot description is needed. I mean it's 3 hours, there's plenty to write out. Alientraveller 13:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * True. Although, there is something to be said about being concise. --Count Ringworm 13:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's just I'd like something to describe what happens in the film, a more normal summary under 900 words. Alientraveller 14:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've fleshed out the Synopsis a bit more. --Count Ringworm 19:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the ISBN for False Witness?--165.173.137.82 15:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA
I am failing this article as: Good work, but not there yet. Alientraveller 09:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Failure to write a consise plot section.
 * No cast list.
 * I'll congratulate the editors on the Production and Reaction sections, but some paragraphs do not cite their sources, and the Reaction needs a cite on the Disclosure Act.
 * Yeah, it's one of those topics which really should be GA, and on first glance looks like it is. My biggest concern is the relatively low amount of cites. An article of this length really needs more than nine distinct references. There's bound to be loads of RS on this! A rule of thumb is that there should be at least one cite per section. Good work so far, and I'll look forward to seeing this reach GA. The JPS talk to me  09:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll probably find it useful to borrow some references from other related articles. Box office stuff could do with sources: take a look at some FAs and GAs like Jaws (film) and Jaws 2 to see where they got their refs for that sort of thing from... I've reorganised the 'reaction' section into more manageable subsections. Don't forget that Stone's commentary could be a reference too... do you have that? Curiously enough, I was listening to it last night, but fell asleep. The JPS talk to me  10:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Images
The images have fair use rationales, but they are lacking somewhat in depth. Do you think the DVD cover is necessary, considering it is effectively identical to the poster in the infobox? It tells us nothing that the text doesn't. The film has some strong frames, and I'm not convinced the article has chosen appropriate ones. The JPS talk to me  11:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

References to Popular Culture
Until this information can be substantiated with references, I'm placing it here for now. Count Ringworm 19:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

References in popular culture
The film has been homaged, parodied or referenced in several television shows, films and musical works.

In his 1993 miniseries, Wild Palms – set in 2007 – Stone had a small cameo appearance in which he played himself on a television interview program, where he revealed that the documents pertaining to the assassination had been made public and that the film's version of events had been proven right.

The scene in the courtroom where Garrison makes his "second shooter" demonstration was spoofed in a 1992 Seinfeld episode ("The Boyfriend"). In the episode, Jerry uses Newman as one of the people in his own "second spitter" demonstration. Wayne Knight, who plays Newman in the series, also had a small role in this film, and was one of the people in Garrison's demonstration. Coincidentally, Knight's character in "JFK" is named Numa.

A two-part episode of Quantum Leap ("Lee Harvey Oswald") was created largely as a response to Stone's film. The episode attempted to debunk many of the conspiracy theories proposed by the film, and suggested that Oswald was indeed the lone assassin.

In the film Dave, with Kevin Kline, Stone has a cameo appearance as himself in which he is interviewed on CNN by Larry King about his conspiracy theory regarding the president in the film. This parodies appearances he made during the time of JFK's initial release.

An episode of The Itchy & Scratchy Show, the cartoon within The Simpsons, was "guest directed" by Oliver Stone and shows Itchy shooting Scratchy in a manner similar to Jack Ruby's murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, in reference to JFK.

The song "Martin Sheen or JFK" by Yellowcard is a reference to this film.

Synopsis - order of events
In the film, Garrison interviews Shaw well before meeting Mr. X. Also X does not suggest that he should arrest anyone in particular. At the initial meeting with Garrison, Shaw denies knowing Ferrie et al rather than following his arrest as suggested in the synopsis. I can work up an alternative text but thought I would just mention it first to see if someone else wants to revise it. HDarke 18:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold
Very good work so far, now some minor issues: I'll check up tomorrow to offer further criticisms of the article, but it is shaping up fine for a GA article on such a controversial film. For FA, someone should track down JFK — The Book of the Film to really expand the article. Alientraveller 18:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "The first draft of the JFK screenplay was 190 pages long. Stone managed to pare it down to a 156 page shooting script" in Screenplay is uncited.
 * Could the casting information be moved up to the cast section section? Considering this is a historical film, based on reality, no matter how loosely, so real-world information on casting can go easily with real world characters.
 * This paragraph, "Two principle criticisms of the film were the depiction of Jim Garrison as not historically accurate..." could go into historical inaccuracies, alongside the note of Stone's commentary.
 * The 7.9. rating on IMDb should be removed, per WP:MOSFILMS.
 * The DVD section isn't sourced: this can be easy, due to Amazon or IGN pages for those releases. The British DVD, with its lack of documentary, could be mentioned.
 * Thanks for the many constructive comments. I've managed to make all of them except for mention of the UK DVD. I do have JFK - The Book of the Film and am going through it right now for info that could beef this article up to an FA status. --J.D. 18:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Some more suggestions: Alientraveller 19:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) You don't really need (credits order) for cast. In fact, consider combining relevant information to each entry, ala the Batman Begins article. The "Sean Stone..." paragraph should be combined with "Supposed assassination witness..." Also the quote should be centered and in italics if you really want to draw attention to it, or else just make it part of a paragraph.
 * 2) You could take "Filming was going smoothly... negligible conscience" and put it in reaction, to show how the press were always after Stone. Reception could get very long, so seperate all the reviews, awards, impact and editorials from finite elements such as box office performance and the DVD releases. That'd be fine due to the lack of information on the box office.
 * This is great. Thanks for the suggestions, some of which I've already implemented. --J.D. 20:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

GA passed. Alientraveller 11:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation Needed
"though thousands of pages are still being withheld as of 2007"...This line, referring to the ARRB, needs a citation, or I'm deleting it. Bugliosi's book flat-out denies this is the case, and I'll take his word over some conspiracy nut any day of the week. Also, the mention of destroyed documents is somewhat inflamatory. I'll do some checking on that to see if any documents were known to be destroyed. But come on, people, the Wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of facts, not nonsense.--Sm5574 (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I thought so too. I removed this statement. --J.D. (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oswald's qualification as a marksman
The words "sharpshooter" and "marksman" mean the same thing. Using the word "sharpshooter" after using the word "marksman" to describe Oswald's qualification makes it appear as though his marksmanship was of high quality, which is POV pushing. Robert Ham (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While the dictionary meanings of the words are nearly identical, the military designation of skill with a rifle differentiates between "marksman" (lower proficiency), "sharpshooter" (mid), and "expert" (high). I will be removing the following line from the article in the historical inaccuracy because "sharpshooters" are not highly-proficient "marksmen", often they are considered, at best, "average" marksmen (http://www.okinawa.usmc.mil/PDFs/2006/20061020.pdf) - on top of that, Oswald just BARELY eeked by in getting sharpshooter designation and is recorded to have generally scored lower. aerotheque (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Original quote:


 * Despite the movie's suggestion that Oswald was not a highly proficient marksman, upon his enlistment in the Marines in 1956, Oswald qualified as a "sharpshooter".


 * Original reference:


 * "While he was at San Diego, Oswald was trained in the use of the M-1 rifle. His practice scores were not very good, but when his company fired for record on December 21, he scored 212, 2 points above the score necessary to qualify as a "sharpshooter" on a marksman/sharpshooter/expert scale.  He did not do nearly as well when he fired for record again shortly before he left the Marines. He practiced also with a riot gun and a .45-caliber pistol when he was in the Marines but no scores were recorded  http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-13.html   "This excellent shot would have given him the ability to hit a ten-inch bull's eye, from a minimum of two hundred yards, eight times out of ten-from a standing position" (Case Closed, by Gerald Posner, ISBN-13: 978-0385474467, page 20).

Magic bullet trajectory
In "The scene indicates that the president was directly in front of the president" one incidence of "president" would be "governor"? MartinSFSA (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Edwin Walker
When Stone started his project, did he bother to do any research on Oswald's attempted assassination of Maj. Gen. Edwin Walker? According to Oswald biographer Priscilla MacMillan, it's the 'rosetta stone' for the Kennedy assassination. And003 (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Questionable Good Article
I have some serious doubts about the qualification of this article as a Good Article, mainly because of questionable sourcing. Specifically, references 18 to 23 appear to be self published sources and fail WP:RS. This is particularly disturbing given the fact that they're used to challenge or debunk the claims made in the film or otherwise issue criticism. I'm going to avoid pulling the GA status for now, but this should be addressed quickly. I make no claims as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the claims, I'm simply pointing out that such sourcing is disallowed on Wikipedia generally and in Good Articles specifically (especially given the controversial nature of the subject). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking of yanking this section from the article and putting in a mention of how Stone views his film as a "countermyth" to the what he sees as the "myth" of the Warren Commission Report. Let me dig up that source and I'll make the change.--J.D. (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, I've removed the questionable section. I'll place it here for posterity.--J.D. (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

{{divbox|grey|Archived text|3=

The following was removed per sourcing concerns. It has been copied to the talk page for historical purposes. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies
Stone responds to such criticisms and acknowledges some inaccuracies in his DVD audio commentary. Two principal criticisms of the film were the depiction of Jim Garrison as not historically accurate, and Stone's combination of simulated documentary footage with actual historical footage. Stone answered his critics by releasing a 593-page book, JFK &mdash; The Book of the Film with Sklar, which included the complete annotated screenplay, 97 commentaries by supporters and detractors and 340 research notes.

The scene where David Ferrie admits to Jim Garrison and his team that there was indeed a conspiracy against the president was entirely fictional. In reality, Ferrie never confessed that he was involved in a conspiracy, nor did he confirm that an underground effort was ever organized against Kennedy.

Stone's claims of a telephone "blackout" in Washington, D.C., prior to the assassination have been proven false. There was no telephone "blackout" at the time, but instead a rolling brownout caused by the massive volume of calls. Similar overloads happened in Boston and Chicago.

The famous "Magic Bullet" scene has also been proven to be questionable. The scene indicates that Governor Connally was directly in front of the president, sitting straight and at the same height as kennedy; he was actually six inches closer to the middle of the vehicle and three inches lower than Kennedy, making the bullet's path through both men straighter and more plausible.

According to John McAdams, a Political Science professor at Marquette University, and a researcher on the Kennedy assassination, the film is rife with inaccuracies and misrepresentations. Researcher Dave Reitzes has identified a hundred instances of what he considers an inaccuracy or misrepresentation in the film. The History Channel's documentary, Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy also notes many of the inconsistencies of the film,.

"The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it" is not a Hitler quotation, as is stated by Garrison in the film, but a quotation from Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels. Nevertheless, Hitler thoroughly explains this same theory in high detail in his book Mein Kampf, chapter X "Why the Second Reich Collapsed."

Lee Harvey Oswald qualified as a "sharpshooter" at Marine Marksmanship School. This is in contrast with the film's claims that Oswald was a below average marksman. However, while Oswald did in fact qualify as a "Sharpshooter", that information alone does not entirely represent his overall shooting ability. In the Marines, the level of "Sharpshooter" is the middle grade of three separate rifle qualifications. In Oswald's case, he tested for "Sharpshooter" after weeks of practice. Despite this, Oswald barely managed to qualify at the "Sharpshooter" level. He obtained a score of 212, two points above the minimum score needed. The next time Oswald fired for record in the Marines, he barely managed to qualify at all, obtaining a score of 191, which is just a "Marksman" qualification.

The film generally contends that Oswald was either not involved or minimally involved in the plot to assassinate Kennedy. However, the film makes no mention of several major events in Oswald's life that might suggest he was the assassin, such as his diagnosis for psychiatric illness and his April 1963 attempt on the life of General Edwin Walker. (The latter event is especially interesting, as the rifle ammunition used in the Walker attempt is believed to match the ammunition used in the JFK assassination.)

}}


 * Although the citations used go to what may be a self published web page, please note that the information on the website comes directly from sources that would be considered reliable if we cited directly to it, i.e. Warren Commision, and books done be researchers on the topic. I think the section could go back in, if the citation is made to the original work, and not the web site. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You have a valid point; to cite them directly would constitute synthesis of thought (original research). What is needed is a reliable secondary source that directly addresses the claims made by Stone in JFK.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how to handle it though. The website is relying heavily on the sworn testimony of the Warren Commission, the book False Witness by Patricia Lambert, and also works by Kirkwood, and James Phelan.  The problem is those works critize Garrison and his trial and pre-date the movie.  The movie revives many of the claims of Garrison that had already been "debunked" or discussed.  So finding an RS regarding specific allegations in the movie would be very difficult to find.  To wit, the movie has Ferrie confessing for the crime, in reality this never happened and there is sworn testimony by Ferrie denying all charges.  How do we find a third party source saying that Ferrie never confessed and the movie was wrong.  I'll try to see what I can come up with, though. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding Ferrie's "confession", I believe there exists documentation that Stone admitted this was "creative supposition" or something similar. I'm sure that there are at least a few fully qualified reliable sources that address the film's inaccuracies... When it came it out was a pretty hot subject, I can't imagine that the only criticism are fan/antifan sites.  I'll see what I can come up with too.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It just occurred to me that it doesn't have to be as difficult as finding 3rd party sources for each claim. Instead of being specific, we can simply state that the movie was not well received in the research community (which I can easily source) because of its reliance on Garrison's and Marrs's theories and that it contained inaccuracies.  If someone is interested in some of the inaccuracies there'd still be the external link to the websites, which aren't now being used as citations. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Ramsquire, it is very easy to simply say that the film was not viewed as accurate by the scientific community, which is a fact. This can be stated in one of the existing sections or in its own short section, such as culltural impact. This is a very acceptable middle ground, I suggest it is added as soon as possible. JakeH07 (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Reaction section incorporates a lot of the proposal I had above. If you think it should be expanded into a separate section, feel free to make that change.  Ramsquire (throw me a line)

21:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't read that part of the section close enough. This is a nice compromise. I think I will make a scientific reaction section inside the reaction section, but I'm not quite sure yet. Input is appreciatedJakeH07 (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies?
Over the years I have seen critics give a negative review for this film because "Oliver Stone lied." There was even an episode of "History vs. Hollywood" (a History Channel show where films are shown and then historians discuss the actual events portrayed and the movie's accuracy or inaccuracy) which unlike any other film ever shown, simply showed the entire film (edited for content and length of course) and then had less than a few minutes allocated at the end for the historical analysis which was simply something to the effect that "Oliver Stone lied."

Now I realize the Kennedy assassination is controversial, and it does seem to me that the version of the conspiracy offered in this film seems pretty fanciful, but it has always seemed odd to me that no treatment actually explains what specific historical facts are misrepresented. This article seems to be the same.

In the Criticism section there are several points where people give the same kind of line, with no specifics, many of them printed before the film was even shot. Then there are several reports of people rejecting the film out of hand, in some cases it would seem this is because the film purports a conspiracy, again without actually watching the film or responding to anything in it. We even have Jack Valenti quoted comparing Kennedy to Hitler and Oliver Stone to Leni Reifenstahl. Other than for pure hyperbole, I'm not sure why the Valenti quote even belongs here. After all, he is one to talk when it comes to something like that.

The closest we get to anything like a real critique, after all that screed, is the following: "In his book Reclaiming History, a history of the Kennedy assassination published 16 years after the release of JFK, Vincent Bugliosi devoted an entire chapter to Jim Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw and Oliver Stone's subsequent film.[50] Bugliosi lists thirty-two separate 'lies and fabrications'[51] in Stone's movie and describes the film as 'one continuous lie in which Stone couldn't find any level of deception and invention beyond which he was unwilling to go.'"

Okay, so now we are getting somewhere. Someone actually listed thirty-two points which might be contested. Unfortunately, although the quotes are sourced to a book, not one of them is repeated. It would seem to me that an article like this, especially about a film as controversial as this, would beg to have something like that in it. It's just this sort of treatment that only serves to feed the conspiracy theories.

I'm not defending Stone's version of the assassination. As a matter of fact I am pretty sure that Oswald killed Kennedy by firing three shots from the book depository just like the Warren report said he did, and that it is likely he had no co-conspirators both because none were required for the assassination and because he had a history of not working well with other people. (For some help, Penn and Teller did a pretty decent treatment of at least the ballistics in their episode on conspiracy theories). But if we're going to have half a page of quotes saying the film is inaccurate it only makes sense that we should say what people said was wrong with it. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Wikipedia discourages use of self published sources. The vast majority of the sources that would do what you want would fall under this umbrella.  If you want to find out specific innaccuracies you can check out this site or this one as well as the Bugliosi book.  The problem is that both are self published and it would be problematic to use them in the article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I recall some critique of this movie which pointed out that Gov. Connally is depicted as being directly in front and on the same level as President Kennedy. Such critique points out, as I recall, that Gov. Connally was seated a little further left and a little lower. I am making a similar point in the talk page for the JFK assassination, which article is, at this writing, stating that Gov. Connally was seated 3 inches further left than President Kennedy was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The JFK film is extremely important as it deals with the assasination of a recent President whose perpetrator has not been found and there have been allegations of a coverup, which has not been adequately explained. The film has also been widely criticised in the Critical Reaction section, with the claim that the film is all lies. The Historical Innacurracies section normally lists the discrepancies against accepted facts. If the discrepancies are not listed, then presumably there are no accepted facts. The Historical Innacurracies section should say something like: a list of discrepancies cannot be provided as there are no accepted facts. Or otherwise it should list the discrepancies like every other movie that deviates from the accepted facts. The section as it stands is a cop out and completely useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.150.208 (talk) 10:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Jared Chandeler vandalism.
At the bottom of synopsis is vandalism. I cant seem to remove it because the text doesn't show up when i try to edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.157.59 (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Breaking the 4th wall.
When Kevin Costner gives his long speech at the end of the trial, at the very end of the speech he looks at the camera and breaks the fourth wall (in my opinion.) when he says it is "our" job meaning the viewers job. When i saw this in the movie i thought it was kind of important and was wondering if it should added during the synopsis. It isn't a big deal but many movie synopsis's mention when a character breaks the 4th wall when it occurs in the movie and was just wondering if it was good enough to be added to this movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.157.59 (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that assertion is tenuous at best; it requires a pretty nuanced interpretation of the scene. One could just as easily say that Costner's character was speaking to the jury, and Oliver Stone just chose shots that give emphasis to the words.  I have no idea which is true, but I'd support inclusion of your thesis if there are multiple independent reliable sources that also raise this question.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Plot
The plot is currently 1,474 characters long, more than twice the maximum length suggested at WP:FILMPLOT. Even if it is argued that this is a special case, and the plot should be a bit longer, 800-900 words should be sufficient. Looking back over the article history, I see numerous edits in which new details were added, and very few edits in which the plot was trimmed. This needs to be discussed, because the current length is absurd. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  14:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The plot laid out in this page is different than the version I've seen. Maybe this page is describing the "Director's Cut," because the version on the Encore network is different. For example, there is no scene where Bill Broussard meets Jim Garrison at an airport to tell him that the Canadian Mob wants to kill him. Also, Mr. X doesn't talk about Joe Kennedy asking the Mafia to help get JFK elected, and no time in the movie do they mention Bobby Kennedy going after the Mob, or the Mob feeling betrayed (even though it was true). They do mention throughout the film that the Mob was part of the Cuban operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.156.106 (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

For future reference
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/apr/28/jfk-oliver-stone-john-f-kennedy contains plot summary and review; http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/jfk.htm. Location (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on JFK (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100410230541/http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/1037756-jfk/ to http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/1037756-jfk/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://luna.cc.lehigh.edu/STONE%3A16%3AFRAME%3AX%3A41
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908200137/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20041215%2FCOMMENTARY%2F41215001%2F1023 to http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20041215%2FCOMMENTARY%2F41215001%2F1023

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Please explain the seating arrangement used in this movie for President Kennedy & Governor Connally
I don't have the information in front of me, but is it true that this movie has Gov. C. seated directly in front of, and on the same level, as Pres. K.? That would not be right; if I recall, there was some TV program which showed this and then shifted the Connally figure to its correct position, in a jump seat which is lower than where Pres. K. was sitting, and also being closer to the center than Pres. K. was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.56.186 (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

More or less all of the supposed facts in the film are false, including of course the Costner character's absurd exposition of the 'magic bullet' theory. A number of criticisms are cited in the article. A recent critique of the film's fundamental dishonesty, and its malign influence on the young, can be found here. https://quillette.com/2018/11/22/my-misspent-years-of-conspiracism/ Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Bad links
In the section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JFK_(film)&oldid=807268100#Legislative_impact, the links in footnotes 70 and 71 don't work. It may be a problem in the use of template:sfn, which I wasn't able to figure out and correct. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I took a second shot at it and got it fixed. diff --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Back and to the left
Comments are welcome in the following discussion: Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 13, where the current article appears like a possible target. – Uanfala 11:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)