What I found very intriguing in Oliver Stone’s film, JFK, was the use of repetition in the film that Pat Dowell mentions in his article, “Last Year at Nuremberg: The Cinematic Strategies of JFK”.  The author writes:

“Back and to the left,” the prosecutor and the filmmaker tell us again,  “Back and to the left. Back and to the left.” A hypnotic refrain on the sound track, a grainy slow motion image disolving into pink and green and white blobs on the screen. The courtroom audience groans in agony– at the graphic detail hitherto spared them, at the confirmation of their worst fears about a government cover-up, at Garrison’s ceaseless invasion of Kennedy’s final moments (Dowell, 8).

This use of repetition, although for a very short time, is one of the few moments in Garrisons speech where there is a lack of both diegetic sound and music from the soundtrack. Except now it the only noise that is present in the film is Garrison’s voice repeating the phrase “back and to the left”, and the grainy film of Kennedy’s last moments running. This repetition of the phrase is so powerful in the film because it is one of the very few moments where the people were forced to see the truth, and were forced to confront the reality of what happened to their President. The moment is so intense that offscreen the viewers were even groaning during our Tuesday viewing of the film.

In all, I thought it was a very good strategy for the film maker to choose a very minimal use in sound as well as minimal cuts to certain shots in this moment because in my personal opinion this seemed to be “the moment of truth” to the audience in the courtroom, regardless of the verdict.

While watching this movie, I thought it was really unique and creative how Oliver Stone structured the film. While focusing on Jim Garrison’s case, Stone strategically plays real life footage from the 60’s that really added a sense of realism to the move. The movie was almost filmed like a documentary with real footage and opinions expressed from  those in the movie. I thought it was also interesting how Stone filmed scenes with his own actors and added black and white filters to make the scene seem as though it was real life footage. In the movie, Stone successfully was able to point out the discrepancy’s in the assassination case. Although Garrison was not able to convict Claw Shaw, he made it obvious that the story of Lee Harvey Oswald held water and that there must have been more than one gunman.

In Justin Simien’s presentation regarding his film “Dear White People,” he remarked on the role that satire played in furthering the message of his film. It was interesting to hear his beliefs regarding the use of satire in addressing social issues. In the informal question and answer session, it was discussed how satire is an important tool, one that can make volatile topics such as race more accessible to a wider audience.

This notion is backed up by a few historical parallels that I wanted to point out. An interesting anecdote that relates to the force of satire can be seen in the  decline of dueling in the 19th and 20th centuries. Dueling was a means of settling disputes in England and Continental Europe. It also existed in the early days of the United States. It was based on a code of honor, and revolved around a participant’s desire to “gain satisfaction” and restore one’s honor by demonstrating a willingness to risk one’s life. However, this practice began an irreversible decline by around the time of the civil war. This decline occurred, not because of legislation, but because of public opinion. Cartoons and news articles began to mock the unnecessarily violent practice.

Benjamin Franklin denounced the activity as unnecessarily violent and George Washington encouraged his officers to abstain from dueling. As the historian William Oliver Stevens put it: “Solemn gentlemen went to the field of honor only to be laughed at by the younger generation; that was more than any custom, no matter how sanctified by tradition, could endure.”

Satirists of the time furthered these critiques of dueling in their literary works. Political cartoons enjoyed poking fun at the activity by depicting pictures of lavishly dressed men wielding oversized pistols as they carried out an elaborate ritual to fight for their honor. This seemed to contrast the masculine nature of the activity with the excessive, almost feminine, theatrics with which it was associated.

I thought that this anecdote related to Justin Simien’s usage of satire to address to topic of racism in modern society. Its sensible that humor can be an effective vehicle with which to highlight absurdities in the world around us. Similarly, satirical portraits of Hitler in Nazi Germany were also used to undermine the absurdities of his beliefs. This served unify those who disagreed with his inhuman political ideologies.

The idea of a ‘post racial society’ is contested by many. America and other countries straddle an ambiguous and uncomfortable line; a line where legislation asserts equality for all while social beliefs and practices continue contradict what is professed to be a societal colorblindness. By confronting these issues more directly, a satirical critique allows an audience to witness the absurdity of certain view points.

Although JFK was set in the past and the real life event of his assassination is over the message of this movie still applies to us today, in my belief more than ever. Yes, JFK assassination is shrouded in mystery and could have been a conspiracy; however, the message I took away from this is to search for the truth in everything and how the seemingly smallest thing can lead you to the truth. Today confusion, lies, and deception are everywhere and the real truth isn’t to easy to find. People misconstrue or manipulate something in order to show you what they believe whether they do it purposely or not. This is not to say that withholding the truth isn’t necessary sometimes, like when Obama set out to kill Bin Laden. All this movie did was make me want to find out the truth more in things and how the truth is harder to find than one would think. And that point is what I believe to be the worst part of society today, that the truth is not right in front of you. Which brings me back to my original point of this movie sending a relevant message to us today, the truth is worth searching for.

I know that it wasn’t a huge part of the reading, but I thought that it was pretty interesting how Stephen Apkon dedicated a small section of “The Big Business of Images” to talking about PowerPoint and how important it has become in modern days.

While the section gave me some flashbacks to the thousands of PPT presentations I had to make in high school, it is weird to think that something so common to our lives (and that I think a lot of us take for granted) can really be so influential to both our student and professional careers. Almost everybody uses some form of PPT, whether that’s middle school students or the professionals we hope to be in the future, and they really are a testament to everything Apkon says in the book about the power of images. Most presentations can be pretty dull (unless the speaker is charismatic), but if the presentation makes use of a visual aid, more than likely our attention is going to be grabbed (at least to a greater extent than before). PowerPoints prove, for both good and bad, that humans are very visual creatures–we just don’t like our stories told to us, we like our stories shown to us.

The scene that make the most impact of the film on me was the beginning scene while opening credits were still rolling. To me, you could know very minimal about JFK and his disastrous decision in Pay of Pigs or his idea to send military advisors over in Vietnam, but still manage to create a correct historical image of him by the time the scene of everyone in the bar came on. To me, this is extremely important because it is the precedent that sets up the feeling in the US after the shooting. The combination of old and new film to be has always been interesting, and it gives me a new respect for the progression of media. Likewise, it gives me a new found respect of progression of the unraveling mystery of JFK’s murder because like a historical image, the use of old film showing his wife and kids also reaches down to a personal level creating him as not only a president, but a father and husband as well.

Throughout JFK, but mostly towards the end of the film, there are a variety of allusions made towards Shakespeare’s works, in particular Julius Caesar. I haven’t had the chance to read the full play, but it deals with heavy themes of loyalty and betrayal, which is a direct reflection of the film’s plot about the potential betrayal of John F. Kennedy at the hands of the U.S. Government/C.I.A.

Julius Caesar is a parallel to JFK himself, as both men are viewed as legendary leaders who radically changed their respective nations, but were betrayed by the people they trusted most. Caesar’s council members, in particular the character of Brutus, who betray and assassinate Caesar during the play are meant to embody the C.I.A. and U.S. Government politicians who secretly planned JFK’s assassination for their own personal/political agendas (that is, if we are following Jim Garrison’s conspiracy theory).

Garrison uses this play almost as justification for his investigation, referencing it most noticeably during the scenes before Shaw’s trial, in the crowded room where he his trying to convince his partners to see the case through. He asks Bill if he has ever seen or read Julius Caesar when Bill begins questioning the team’s accusations against the government, and while his argument is not particularly effective on Bill, it makes for a poetic, literary allusion that implies that assassinations of political figures by their trusted advisors are not impossible (it builds rational, at least for him, that the case has a chance of succeeding).

During the court room scene at the end of the film, Garrison also uses the phrase “shuffle off my mortal coil,” to describe how many of the documents concerning JFK’s assassination would be released after he is dead, and when they would no longer be of use to him. This is a direct reference to the famous “To Be or Not to Be” soliloquy in Hamlet (which most of us have probably experienced-or suffered through-in some way, shape, or form).

I’m sure that there were a few other, more subtle Shakespeare references in the film, but these were the ones that stood out to me the most. If any of you remember any more references, or can elaborate on any of these connections in greater detail, that would be awesome (of course, we could always watch the movie again to find out. It’s only 200 minutes).

In the movie JFK, the director decides to use real broadcasts from the time of JFK’s death. I feel that by doing this, the director makes the conspiracy seem like a more realistic possibility. One scene that really exemplifies how the real broadcasts affected the realistic aspect of the movie is when the lawyers are first starting their investigation in Dallas. They decide to walk down the street where JFK was shot and search the buildings around the area. Before this scene happened, the live footage of the parade was shown multiple times giving the setting of the movie a historic feel. As the lawyers searched, I kept thinking of how they were in the same locations as JFK before he was shot. By adding these clips, it made the movie seem as if it was more of a documentary then a historic thriller. It definitely gave the movie creditability and made the conspiracy seem more believable.

After watching Oliver Stone’s 1991 film JFK, I am in complete awe of how fascinating this movie was. Aside from all the A-list actors that did a great job in their roles, the editing of the movie presented an incredible amount of facts about the assassination of President Kennedy in a way that was true genius. In a way, the editing helped to simplify a great deal of information to the audience with the constant overlapping of past and present footage in what was being discussed at that moment in the film.

Having read the recent reading in Stephen Apkon’s Age of Image, Stone’s film goes hand in hand when Apkon talks about this “new age of literacy.” Apkon talks about how visual media is transforming most professions in this world and he is 100 percent correct! Still-life images are not enough anymore to prove a story and convince people of the truth. When an event is actually seen  by someone, it brings on a whole new meaning to them. JFK is the perfect example of this, in the movie and the movie itself. At the end of the movie, in the courtroom, DA Garrison exhibits many pictures to the jury and audience, but once he presents to them the actual video of President Kennedy being shot, the courtroom is in complete silence. The event had become real to everyone because it wasn’t something they were reading about, it was something they were actually witnessing. Personally, the movie itself made this historical event feel more realistic to me because for the first time I wasn’t reading in a history textbook about the conspiracy theories of JFK’s death, I was seeing a movie picture that was expressing to me actual facts and providing an image to go along with them. For me, words became a reality.