~

Planet of the Arts Volume7 Issue5 page 11

JF K-THE DAY AFTER —

by Jeff Griffiths

Having finally gone to see the film, I would like to say just one thing. It was
very convincing. It proved to me the major intent of the film-that Jack Kennedy
was killed by a conspiracy that reached to the highest levels of the government.
On the other hand, I was pretty sure of that anyway. The film did bring to me
a sense of disgust, however, at how one event has soured almost thirty years of
history. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I can say with some personal
conviction that we wouldn’t be in nearly the political, environmental, and
social pickle we’re in now. This, of course, depresses me to no end, however it
doesn’t prevent me from finding some fault in the film itself.

JFK is propaganda, pure and simple, and like all good propaganda, it intends
to push all of the viewers’ buttons at the same time. Taking into consideration
that this movie’s target audience is the American public, we can see the intent
in the design Stone has laid for the movie. First and foremost, we have Kevin
Costner, a recent phenomena in American films. Costner represents to the
American people everything that is true, uncorruptable, honest, and believable
about America. In valiant speeches reverberating across the big screen, Ol’
Kevin speaks of Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Now bearing in mind
that quite a few Americans are going to be a tough sell on the conspiracy theory,
who better to tell them that everything they’ ve ever believed is wrong? Costner’s
image of being both liberal and wholesomely Yankee at the same time is perfect
for the role. Who else could do it? Jack Nicholson, maybe?

Now consider the recent rash of movies and television exploring the American
Justice System. The plot of JFK, though anchored for the most part in truth,
runs like an extended subplot on L.A. Law, cross-matched with cinematogra-
phy from Law and Order. Which leads us to the one glaring departure the film
takes from the historical facts. Oddly enough, it also happens to be the climax
of the whole movie, the erroneous final argument Jim Garrison never gave at
the trial of Clay Shaw. Stone, either intentionally or not, has played upon the
American preoccupation for passionate lawyerly debate to magnificent effect.
I’m sure if Costner had done the same job back in ’68, the jury would have had
a much tougher time with the whole thing.

Despite his solid performance in court, Costner falls well short in nearly
every other section of the movie. His delivery, which was interesting in Field of
Dreams, and a bit cheesy in Dances with Wolves, has become wooden in JFK.
In seizing the moral high ground, his character becomes an automated dispeller
of facts, suppositions and theories. Particularly odious is his treatment of the
drivelly sentimental sub-plot of his family. I fail to see how these issues, as they
were dealt with, had anything to do with the rest of the movie. Either they
should have gone into more depth about the man’s private life, or, as I would
have preferred, left it well enough alone.

JEK

M. H. Salemy

I’m living in the American age. The Ameri-
cans have brutally dominated the culture of
my time with their way of perceiving the world

Court to back their claim.

Even from a market point of view it is always
better to leave the questions unanswered so
business can always find a profitable way to
try to answer it. As an old Persian saying
claims; you can always keep your bread hot as
long as you keep it in the box. How many times
has the question of Kennedy’s death come up
in the Media industry and how much profit
will the attempt of solving this mystery gener-
ate for various businesses? Probably more than
a thousand times their original investment.

I really find it boring and unnecessary when
somebody with a big name and big media
attention recycles old material even when it is
Spike Lee interpreting Malcolm Xs’ life. The
humans of 1990’s have many uniquely weird
lives that can be the best source of inspiration
for any kind of art; something more powerful
and probably more profitable than any nos-
talgic over-consuming, myth-making factory .
What is Stone searching in the sixties for?
Solutions to the 90’s problems, analysis of the
contemporary American history, search for a
personal identity or a better personal bank
statement? Whichever it is, I just don’t feel
right involving myself as an audience and [|
have my own reasons for it.

and their over-simplification of things into
measurable units of dollars and gold. It seems
to me that their love for making heroes and
myths comes from their cultural complex, they
remind me of Greeks and Romans in pre-his-
torical period; the young cultures looking for
an identity, but with a big difference; Greek
and Romans wanted to make points and create
a moral code, while the Americans only want
to make money. The American tendency to see
everything as a ‘commodity’ irritates me
enough in my nine to five life that I really
don’t want to pay to see more of it in my spare
time.

It’s no an accident that all of this is happen-
ing, when 90% of the Canadian screens are
constantly showing American movies and
Canada is considered a part of their local
market in graphs and charts that illustrate
their mega-scale profits. How can I finan-
cially support a system where brilliant local
filmmakers such as Agoyan and his Adjuster
get maximum playtime of a week in an artsy
theatre like the Park or Starlight but Dances

with Wolves stays for more than a year in
major theatre chain. How can I even think
twice about raising the acting fee of a con-
servative yank like Kevin Costner when a thou-
sand brilliant young actors across North
America are washing dishes or serving execu-
tives their corporate lunches for minimum
wage? The same goes for the young directors
fresh out of school who are motivated by more
contemporary issues and inspired by their
own concerns and interests, not wasting eighty
million dollars to make eighty one million more
just to claim that you’ve turned a profit for
the company they work for.

These are only some of the reasons why I
don’t want to see JFK; I’ve already reserved
about seven or eight books on the same topic in
the public library for next month. You know,
I still find libraries a much cheaper and infi-
nitely more reliable source of truths than an
eight dollar gaze into the erystal ball of big
budget American movies.

Planet ofthe Arts Volume7 Issue S page 11

JFK-THE DAY AFTER

by Jeff Griffiths

Having finally gone to see the film, I would like to say just one thing. It was
very convincing. It proved to me the major intent of the film-that Jack Kennedy
was killed by a conspiracy that reached to the highest levels of the government,
On the other hand, I was pretty sure of that anyway. The film did bring to me
a sense of disgust, however, at how one event has soured almost thirty years of
history. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I can say with some personal
convietion that we wouldn't be in nearly the political, environmental, and
social pickle we're in now. This, of course, depresses me to no end, however it
doesn’t prevent me from finding some fault in the film itself.

JFK is propaganda, pure and simple, and like all good propaganda, it intends
to push all of the viewers’ buttons at the same time. Taking into consideration
that this movie's target audience is the American public, we can see the intent
in the design Stone has laid for the movie. First and foremost, we have Kevin
Costner, a recent phenomen

in American films. Costner represents to the
American people everything that is true, uncorruptable, honest, and believable
about America. In valiant speeches reverberating across the big screen, Ol?
Kevin speaks of Truth, Justice, and the Ameriean Way. Now bearing in mind
that quite a few Americans are going to be a tough sell on the conspiracy theory,
who better to tell them that everything they've ever believed is wrong? Costner’s
image of being both liberal and wholesomely Yankee at the same time is perfect
for the role. Who else could do it? Jack Nicholson, maybe?

Now consider the recent rash of movies and television exploring the American
Justice System. The plot of JFK, though anchored for the most part in truth,
runs like an extended subplot on L.A. Law, cross-matehed with cinematogra-
phy from Law and Order. Which leads us to the one glaring departure the film
takes from the historical facts. Oddly enough, it also happens to be the climax
of the whole movie, the erroneous final argument Jim Garrison never gave at
the trial of Clay Shaw. Stone, either intentionally or not, has played upon the
American preoccupation for passionate lawyerly debate to magnificent effect.
I'm sure if Costner had done the same job back in "68, the jury would have had
a much tougher time with the whole thing.

Despite his solid performance in court, Costner falls well short in nearly
every other section of the movie. His delivery, which was interesting in Field of
Dreams, and a bit cheesy in Dances with Wolves, has become wooden in JFK.
In seizing the moral high ground, his character becomes an automated dispeller
of facts, suppositions and theories. Particularly odious is his treatment of the
drivelly sentimental sub-plot of his family. I fail to see how these issues, as they
were dealt with, had anything to do with the rest of the movie. Either they
should have gone into more depth about the man’s private life, or, as | would
have preferred, left it well enough alone.

pan Seen. I'm living in the American age. The Ameri-

cans have brutally dominated the culture of
my time with their way of perceiving the world

Court to back their claim

Even from a market point of view it is always
better to leave the questions unanswered so
business can always find a profitable way to
try to answer it. As an old Persian saying
claims; you can always keep your bread hot as
long as you keep it in the box- How many times
has the question of Kennedy's death come up
in the Media industry and how much profit
ill the attempt of solving this mystery gener-
ate for various businesses? Probably more than
a thousand times their original investment.

I really find it boring and unnecessary when
somebody with a big name and big media
attention recycles old material even when it is
Spike Lee interpreting Malcolm Xs” life. The
humans of 1990's have many uniquely weird
lives that can be the best source of inspiration
for any kind of art; something more powerful
and probably more profitable than any nos-
talgic over-consuming, myth-making factory .
What is Stone searching in the sixties for?
Solutions to the 90's problems, analysis of the

contemporary American history, search for a
personal identity or a better personal bank
statement? Whichever it is, I just don’t feel
tht involving myself as an audience and I
have my own reasons for it

and their over-simplification of things into
measurable units of dollars and gold. It seems
to me that their love for making heroes and
myths comes from their cultural complex, they
remind me of Greeks and Romans in pre-his-
torical period; the young cultures looking for
an identity, but with a big difference; Greek
and Romans wanted to make points and create
a moral code, while the Americans only want
to make money. The American tendency to see
everything as a ‘commodity’ irritates me
enough in my nine to five life that I really
don’t want to pay to see more of it in my spare
time

It’s no an accident that all of this is happen
ing, when 90% of the Canadian sereens are
constantly showing American movies and
Canada is considered a part of their local
market in graphs and charts that illustrate
their mega-scale profits. How can I finan
cially support a system where brilliant local
filmmakers such as Agoyan and his Adjuster

get maximum playtime of a week in an artsy
theatre like the Park or Starlight but Dances

Wolves stays for more than a ye:
major theatre chain. How can I even think
twice about raising the acting fee of a con-
servative yank like Kevin Costner when a thou-

sand brilliant young actors across North

America are washing dishes or serving execu
tives their corporate lunches for mi
wage? The same goes for the young directors
fresh out of school who are motivated by more
contemporary issues and inspired by their
own concerns and interests, not wasting eighty
million dollars to make eighty one million more
just to claim that you've turned a profit for
the company they work for.

These are only some of the reasons why I

don’t want to see JFK; I've already reserved
about seven or eight books on the same topic in
onth. You know,

h cheaper and infi

nitely more reliable source of truths than an
eight dollar gaze into the crystal ball of big
budget American movies