My review of "Parkland" and the Re-cut "JFK"
Parkland (and JFK)
By
Jim Castagnera
Special to The History Place
10/16/13
Next month we’ll observe the fiftieth anniversary of John
F. Kennedy’s assassination. Newsreel footage from the first few weeks
following his death reveal that even then many Americans questioned the
official explanation that a lone gunman killed their president. In the
ensuing five decades competing conspiracy theories have abounded.
Suspects include the CIA, J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ, the Mafia, Castro,
Anti-Castro Cubans, and the KGB. Estimates of the number of published
books on the subject range between one and two thousand, depending upon
the source.
In 2007, Attorney/Author Vincent Bugliosi, who
successfully prosecuted Charles Manson and then co-authored the
best-seller on the case, Helter Skelter, tried to turn the juggernaut of conspiracy theories around with his massive (1600 page) tome, Reclaiming History. Despite
its scrupulous and fastidious sifting of the facts from the fiction,
the book was immediately attacked by authors whose reputations rested
on their contrary conclusions.
Parkland gives Bugliosi a second bite at the
apple. Based on his book, the film is a straightforward, frequently
moving, account of the assassination through the eyes of a Dallas
Secret Service agent (Billy Bob Thornton), a Parkland Hospital
physician (Zac Efron), Abraham Zapruder (Paul Giamatti), whose
22-second, 8mm home movie is the only complete photographic record of
the murder, and the Oswald family: Lee (Jeremy Strong), his mother
Marguerite (Jacki Weaver), and brother Bob (James Badge Dale).
I found two main problems with Parkland. First,
it’s exceptionally hard to find. In suburban Philadelphia, within a
week after opening in a handful of theaters, that number had dropped to
just one. My assumption is that it’s the same across the country.
Second, trying to do this epic tale justice entails too
many story lines. When Bugliosi’s book was released six years ago, the
publisher (W.W. Norton) wisely also issued a 400-page extract, Four Days in November: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which covered only the events immediately before, during, and after the killing. That, essentially, is Parkland, too. And it’s still a lot to cover in a film of only 93 minutes.
By contrast, Oliver Stone has released in video a 205-minute director’s cut of his controversial 1991 film JFK. Stone’s
epic attempt has generated nearly as much controversy as Kennedy’s
assassination itself. The film was under attack by adherents of the
lone-gunman theory before the movie had even premiered. Stone parried
opponents’ every thrust, responding to articles in major magazines and
newspapers with surprising vigor. Ultimately, the footnoted/annotated
film script was published, along with hundreds of articles, reviews
and Stone's responses in a large paperback volume that remains in print.
JFK was a bit bloated in 1991 at 189 minutes and
is a bulbous balloon at three hours and 25 minutes. Stone throws
everything into his boiling pot, except his kitchen sink. Starting out
with Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell address in which he famously warned
us about the power of the “military industrial complex,” we wind up
with LBJ, the Joint Chiefs, the CIA, the Mob, anti-Castro Cubans, Earl
Warren, and a purely fictional Deep Throat character, all working like
so many hands in so many gloves to kill Kennedy and then bury the story
so deep that New Orleans DA Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner, hot off of Dances with Wolves) can never dig up the truth.
Therein, to paraphrase Hamlet, lies the problem: the
Kennedy assassination is an historical incident of enormous complexity,
even as historical incidents go. Whether one sides with Bugliosi and
his lone-gunman position or swings with Stone and his gumbo of
conspiracy theories, the cast of characters is large and unwieldy. The
documentary record is incomplete, still partially classified, and most
certainly confusing. Many men had motives for wanting Kennedy
killed. Many aspects of the murder–such as Kennedy’s backward head-snap
when he’s hit by the fatal shot–lend themselves to conflicting
interpretations.
Neither Parkland nor the re-cut JFK, nor a
close comparison of the two, will provide viewers with a satisfactory
solution to what JFK’s David Ferrie (Joe Pesci) called “a mystery
wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma.”
And, frankly, as films, neither gives me much
satisfaction. Despite some fine acting in both cinematic versions of
the greatest mystery of the American Century, both come off as
confusing and not a little tedious in my opinion.
Rated PG-13 for bloody sequences of ER trauma procedures, some violent images and language, and smoking throughout.
Academy Awards® and Oscar® are registered trademarks of The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
Jim Castagnera is the author of 19 books. His latest is Counter Terrorism Issues: Case Studies in the Courtroom
I saw "Parkland" two weeks ago and really thought it added little to our knowledge of the JFK assassination. The film took no real sides in the lone gunman vs. conspiracy debate. This was likely its intent, but it left a picture that laid out the very basic facts that we're very familiar with. At least people of my age (61) have experienced it as it happened and have heard and read about it ever since. The Stone movie "JFK" was controversial and deserved the criticism it received. My theory on the assassination is downright scary. It's this: One person (Oswald) did it, very likely without help from anyone else, and national grief, LBJ, 2,000 books, and countless conspiracy theories followed. That's frightening. Bugliosi's book comes closest to the truth. I know the debate will rage on for the rest of my life and beyond, but that's my opinion after reviewing the Zapruder film and reading books on both sides.
ReplyDelete