Oliver Stone
JFK

In 1991, Oliver Stone directed JFK, the box office hit film that tells the story of Jim Garrison, a New Orleans judge played by Kevin Costner, in search of the truth behind one of the most important events of the mid-20th century: the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy on November 22, 1963.

Stone creates a work that teeters between documentary and historical film, starting from the book written by Garrison himself, which describes the investigations that led him to form his controversial theory: JFK was supposedly the victim of a conspiracy, organized by the two real American power entities, the CIA and the high military commands, with the tacit approval of Vice President Johnson, to stop Kennedy, who intended to halt the carnage in Vietnam, thereby interrupting the commercial outlet to the American arms market.

Fantasy? Harsh reality? Oliver Stone has not officially revealed his point of view ("with this film I do not intend to say at all: look here, things went exactly as described. Rather, I simply limited myself to hypothesizing a reconstruction of the facts as a good detective would, that's all"), but it's clear to infer what he thinks.

In presenting his analysis, Garrison had to face the skepticism of his loved ones, bureaucratic obstacles, high power ranks, and the superficial government commission (headed by Earl Warren, played by none other than the real Jim Garrison), which accepted the official version without too many questions: John Kennedy was killed by the fanatic Lee Harvey Oswald, who, with a background as a spy and a life shrouded in ambiguity, will go down in history for this insane act. In his very American final plea, which concludes the film, Costner demands the truth, the truth that the whole world wants to know, the right that no citizen can be deprived of, obscured by shady power plays, after meticulously presenting evidence that not only Oswald but more men attempted on the president’s life. And more people means conspiracy. I think this is one of the films that most stimulates various types of discussion.

Cinematically speaking, the choice to shoot this film also with the typical techniques of documentaries was certainly spot on; the direction is technically impeccable, as is the editing. But I simply cannot purely praise Stone because I am too convinced that this is a work thematically too easy, too inclined towards commercial outlets. And then that final plea dramatically reduces the work to the classic "American" film, and I believe that American has by now become the adjective that best conveys the idea of the mix of naivete, pride, ideal of freedom, misunderstanding of the principles typical of much of the United States. Certainly worth mentioning is the casting: besides Costner, Tommy Lee Jones, Kevin Bacon, Joe Pesci, Walter Matthau, Jack Lemmon, Gary Oldman, all came together to form a fantastic group of actors, although some of them have minimal parts. And this briefly sums up the film cinematically. But the film wants to go beyond the film reel. And it forces us to go beyond.

Some speak of paranoia. The desire to look for the snag, the scandal, the conspiracy behind anything. I partly agree. I agree that sometimes this paranoia is even instrumentalized (a quick example: Diana may have been assassinated, but this is not the way to talk about it. I know for certain that I will never know the truth from open studio), but sometimes we are forced to endure this obsession. And JFK tragically plants the worm. For those who didn't already have it. First question: Can the simple arms market justify such an act? Mr. Stone may not want to answer, but if you allow me, I will, because it is one of the things I am sure of: yes. Because it is an unimaginable market that, together with oil dominance, also justifies the most recent Bush wars. Second question: Was JFK a real obstacle for the CIA and the army in their Vietnamese ambitions? To this, I do not know how to answer, because Kennedy was beatified after his death, but more in-depth investigations reveal that as president, he was no saint. Especially in the early years of his administration, he was not as lenient as remembered, both towards the USSR and Cuba and Latin America. Third question: Even if JFK's death was desirable for the American oligarchy, would it have been possible to organize a murder in Dallas in broad daylight, hide it from an entire population, and blame an innocent like Oswald? I limit myself to saying that the USA is powerful. But perhaps it is just paranoia, it is just a culture of suspicion, it is just a desire to stir things up. Maybe.

There would be many questions. With this review, I did not only want to talk about the film, I also wanted to surely anticipate what would have been the topic of the comments. I do not have the truth, neither about this nor about other alleged American misdeeds. I have an idea, which is clearly different. The conclusion of this review escapes me. But maybe in this way too, I remain on topic.