A Thread about the film JFK

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!

You’re attacking this man because he’s a homosexual!

WHat?!? How could I do that if I have zero idea if he is a man or what his sexual preferences are? I've never bothered to find out and probably would forget if I ever knew.

And "attack"? You consider anything I have said as an a attack? I'm incredulous. This is getting seriously crazy now. Go do whatever it is you do when you aren't talking shit at me.

He was paraphrasing a line from the movie, dude.

So JFK

if it’s a suicide, i’ve seen weirder

oh man why dont you fuckin stop it?!

He was paraphrasing a line from the movie, dude.

― Precious, Grace, Hill & Beard LTD. (C. Grisso/McCain), Wednesday, 27 April 2022 bookmarkflaglink

Aimless indeed.

how's your mousse

The fuckin' posters don't even know! Don't you get it?

all I wanted in the world was to be a catlick priest

I have my doubts about this picture, boss...

Boss, maybe you're bein' too hahd on Aimless.

You are one stubborn sonuvabitch.

The cool kids table has met.

That is precisely the point of a long dining table. The splendor of the meal adds to the enjoyment of it.

I hope you like squab!

Aimless, JD, Eric H., The Mafia, keeps 'em guessing like some kind of parlor game, prevents 'em from asking the most important question: why? Why was King Boy Pato banned? Who benefited? Who has the power to cover it up? Who?

I played JFK Reloaded a bunch of times when it was released and my conclusion was - most of the people posting in this thread could have made the shot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5U5iu85oUM

hey man i wasnt even IN dallas that day

Grassy knoll creeps

http://www.quartzcity.net/ilx/steelydan-grassyknoll.jpg

if yr not allergic to podcasts or to john ganz and his delivery and inablity to finish sentences lol here's the bouie/ganz "unclear and present danger" pod on jfk and the politics of its moment: https://open.spotify.com/episode/57rDv0n23lnQ5xZIob9wLr?si=0b23ffdca8a34fb0

i like ganz tho i get why some dont lol (he trolls a lot and he's irritably dismissive of ppl he thinks are idiots, some of whom probably aren't) and i like him partly bcz you can read him or on the podcast hear him thinking thru an idea that's just struck him in real time: here he gets a bit fixated on JFK being pernicious bcz (he claims) it mainstreamed a kind of conspiracy-centred mindset which he (correctly) thinks is bad for historical analysis and (also correctly) is inherently bad politics… where i think he overtstates the case is that this kind of thinking is always always always already a pretty constant pretty mainstream in american culture:
eg https://www.historytoday.com/archive/history-matters/illuminating-conspiracy

stone gets it mainly from the 60s counterculture of course, where it did exhibit some anti-war characteristics (important to his own personal psychodramas) -- this is primarily where the notion that it's a leftwing kneejerk comes from i suppose. QAnon is also marinated in 60s counterculture (and JFK-worship lol); it has curdled as it aged (and as difft wings of boomerdom learn to live with and exchange sensibilities that once clashed)

it occurs to me that cockburn's hostility to conspirary as a mode of analysis upthread at least partly reflects his (cockburn's) battles within the 70s counterculture to establish a politics less inclined to veer off towards reaction -- not that he didn't end up pushing bad CTs of his own in the end (e.g. he became a bit of a climate change truther iirc)

Ganz speedrunning a conversion to historical materialism as he worked his way through marxists.org was thrilling ngl

I will listen to that podcast, here he is on the Wes Anderson tweet (I haven't watched that film)

i didn't think the french dispatch was that good but i dunno about all that stuff about the fascioid carceral state and so on

— John Ganz (@lionel_trolling) May 1, 2022

yes he wrote a pissy review of it, i think for gawker

lol this film is so bad (i tried to rewatch it)

the truth is on your side, bubba!

I say "let justice be done, though the heavens fall"!

also i for the record: this is the only Stone movie i still truly, genuinely, enjoy & rewatch regularly