A Thread about the film JFK

has anyone watched the Stone doc

should i bother or no

only bother if it sticks with the one true theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Error

xp i watched it & dont regret it

theres some interesting stuff, never knew abt the potential assassination attmpts in chi and tampa and potential parallel patsies that wouldve taken the fall in each instance

https://64.media.tumblr.com/eb72537f4fe3ae7a0faa0c7e6b4df442/tumblr_p772c820j71we0p6lo1_640.gifv

I just found out I kept Oliver Stone waiting because the interview I did with Glenn Greenwald went long (Greenwald is supposed to meet Stone).

— Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) December 8, 2021

he'll look fuckin ridiculous without his beard!

Ganz hates fun.

it has a terrible script, ridiculous performances, and is just chock full of total fabrications that many people have taken to be the truth story of the assassination

— John Ganz (@lionel_trolling) April 25, 2022

he's right tho it's garbage

I can argue about the performances but I mean do people really believe that JFK wasn't killed by Oswald because of that film? That just seems totally wrong to me.

Was watching Apollo 13 the other day and thinking that the mission control cast in that movie and Costner's legal team in JFK are absolutely top-notch, A+ collections of 90s-era character actors ("hey, it's that guy! And that guy! And that guy!!").

Apollo 13 has the wrong ho-ho.

the only good takedown of the magic bullet theory is on seinfeld

I can argue about the performances but I mean do people really believe that JFK wasn't killed by Oswald because of that film? That just seems totally wrong to me.

― xyzzzz__, Tuesday, April 26, 2022 5:03 AM (two hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

People absolutely believe that. Maybe in a world where gunmen don't storm pizza places over message board posts, or where people don't take veterinary parasite medicines because of podcasters, or a world in which there weren't 10 investigations into the Benghazi attack, etc.

Yeah but I doubt they believe it specifically because they watched the Stone flick

https://movieassholes.tumblr.com/image/172937652141

https://i.imgur.com/IWjBJ3u.jpg

ganz's point (if anyone cares) is not that jfk changed anyone's mind over oswald solo vs larger conspiracy, it's that it foregrounded one really crappy and dumb version of the conspiracy (clay shaw gay orgy dunniit) and plus added a bunch of stuff known to be not true

also look at this misleading glamorising shit:
https://i.redd.it/tgdjp5f0som61.jpg vs https://i.redd.it/60lce6x2s0cz.jpg

it's true, Pesci looks worse than the real Ferrie

todd haynes shd remake this film

Only if it's a Gus Van Sant Psycho-style remake.

Split-screen: Stone's filmed orgy vs real Shaw-Ferrie orgy

douglas gordon shd remake this film: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_Hour_Psycho

i dreamt last night that the cause of jfk's assassination was bob-a-job week

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, October 15, 2003 5:52 PM (fifteen years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

still the only good theory imo

― mark s, Friday, 17 May 2019 15:02 (eight months ago) bookmarkflaglink

don't make me tap the sign

― mark s, Wednesday, 22 January 2020 14:23 (two years ago) bookmarkflaglink

also

ppl today may not cite the Oliver Stone movie JFK when asked about their JFK opinions, but no doubt that for a big percentage of ppl what they think about JFK is received wisdom that traces back to the movie. most of what the american public thinks they know about history comes from tv & movies. if there was a famous movie about a thing, the answer to "do people really believe ___ because of that film" is always "yes", ime.

"ganz's point (if anyone cares) is not that jfk changed anyone's mind over oswald solo vs larger conspiracy, it's that it foregrounded one really crappy and dumb version of the conspiracy (clay shaw gay orgy dunniit) and plus added a bunch of stuff known to be not true"

Don't think you can infer that much from the tweet. The only difference between this and 9/11 conspiracy is that the former has had a great film made about, one with high level acting.

But the conspiracy would've existed without the film, because lots of weirdos around it wrote the books that informed the film's script.

i can infer it bcz i can read, you can't infer it bcz you can't

once my old landlord told me i resembled a young jim garrison

so you was a fine-lookin' man!

You and he could have some fun.

i can infer it bcz i can read, you can't infer it bcz you can't

― mark s, Tuesday, 26 April 2022 bookmarkflaglink

Wow, harsh!

:)

ppl believe there was a conspiracy because oswald was shot by ruby and because the HSCA, in the late 70s, concluded that jfk had been shot by more than one person. if you read any old associated press stories, book reviews, etc., from this era, they almost invariably refer to oswald was "the accused assassin." this was a widespread mainstream view; it was not the then-equivalent of sandy hook trutherism or whatever.

stone's movie, arguably, ultimately made ppl LESS likely to believe in a conspiracy by making the whole thing look much crazier and more complicated and implausible than it ever had before. this was partly because he made jim garrison his hero and garrison's story is just too easy to debunk, but it didn't help that he seemed to be suggesting that the entire federal government had been in on the murder (i think the reaction to stone's movie would've been very different if he'd gone with one of the mafia theories).

i thought revisited was a slog with not much to justify itself, but i did enjoy him Michael Moore-ing his way through the schoolbook depository etc

made me think of the old bill hicks bit where he says "you can go to the schoolbook depository now as a tourist, it's like a museum, and it's an amazing replica of the day of the assassination, with the schoolbook boxes everywhere, and NO FUCKIN OSWALD in the window. they wall the window off with plexiglass so you can't actually see any kind of "gunsight view" from there -- they don't want that, cause you'd look at the line of sight one time and go NO FUCKIN WAY!! THERE'S NO FUCKIN WAY HE DID THAT!! HEYYY EVERYBODY! NO FUCKIN WAYYY"

Give me a Baz Luhrmann JFK. Hurt me.

Starring Nicole Kidman as the Magic Bullet

It strikes me as endlessly hilarious that folks believe the HSCA. Folks, the House has always been packed full of that era's braindead equivalent of jetski dealership owners.

stone's movie, arguably, ultimately made ppl LESS likely to believe in a conspiracy...

arguably? lol sure. but I only tend to believe arguments with a bit more substance behind them.

did you read the rest of the post?

does the pope shit in the woods? yes I read your argument.

are you capable of addressing another human being without being a condescending asshole? rhetorical question.

And your asking me if I'd read your argument wasn't condescending bullshit iyo? think again.

Aimless, chill out. You tend to do this.

Suppose for a moment if I asked you whether you'd read my posts, Alfred. I think JD got the kind of answer he deserved.

if you don't want to be asked that question, then maybe don't pop up out of nowhere to go "lol" and dismiss an argument as unconvincing while making no attempt to engage with it. pretty simple!

anecdotally j.d. is correct that if someone in the wild's talking to me about oliver stone's jfk it's always because they're telling me they'd never be taken in by such poppycock, but i wasn't talking about it in 1991.

iirc the HSCA's conclusion was based on quite a technical dealey-acoustics argument and not one that's stood up well since. nevertheless i don't know if citing them-- especially in an argument specifically about "why" these awful infowars sheeple don't believe the warren report-- is a "look what this learned body concluded!" move so much as an "even these guys couldn't repeat the official story w a straight face" one.

anyway surely they are disdained by true assassination heads for their (v funny) conclusion that while it was a conspiracy it definitely did not involve any of the people you're thinking of, no matter who you are.

pop up out of nowhere to go "lol" and dismiss an argument as unconvincing while making no attempt to engage with it.

I 'popped up' just like anyone else who has contributed to this thread, so that's a bit of rhetorical trash. And going 'lol' and dismissing a post is such a frequent occurrence on ilx, I could probably cite thousands of examples. But I won't.

Lastly, as for wishing my 'engagement with your argument', while that sounds noble enough I promise you we'd both find the exercise very tedious in the end. And it'd just piss off everyone else on the thread. That's why there are thousands of examples where others chose the same course I did. I did engage with your condescension. I should havbe spit out the bait. More fool I.

I’m tired! I want this thread back! You’re attacking this man because he’s a homosexual!

do me a favor and don’t read or respond to my posts from now on, aimless. this isn’t the first time you’ve had a bizarre overreaction to one of my posts and i’m fucking sick of it.

Both of them? Both brothers?

go to sleep!

goddammit i’ve been sleeping for three years!