Oliver Stone - John Williams collaborations

[Josh500 1,615]

This has been done before, of course, but it's been some years now, and I'd be interested to know what you guys think now (or what currently active members have to say on this)... Also, what do you like about each movie/score? What are some of the so-called "freaking brilliant moments" of these scores?

Btw, I voted JFK, JFK, and no. (I will tell you about my favorite moments later...)

[Greg1138 3]

Much as though I like Nixon, both movie and score, my voting went JFK, JFK and Yes......and I'd be interested to know why you voted "No" for the third question, since the 2 collaborations so far have produced some of Williams' and Stone's best work....(or maybe I have just answered my own question!).

[Josh500 1,615]

Well, I don't know.

I think these 3 form a sort of OS-JW trilogy, and I think these movies offered JW the opportunity to compose for slightly different kind of movies: political, conspiratory, Vietnam-related, etc. But I don't really want the remaining JW scores to be on those lines... I'd much rather he keeps scoring Spielberg movies (although ironically Lincoln might actually be like an OS movie, come to think of it). I guess it's the way some people felt about a 4th Indy movie; very grateful for the 3 wonderful scores and movies, but 3 is quite good enough.

[Thor 7,478]

I voted BOT4OJ on the first, JFK on the second and 'yes' on the last, although it's highly unlikely that Williams will ever do a score for anyone else than Spielberg.

That being said, NIXON has a track that beats anything in the aforementioned scores, namely "Meeting with Mao".

They're all great scores, but the nobility of JFK is fantastic -- also how it turns sour at the end to denote his tragic fate.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,507]

It goes like this:

Score-

1- JFK,

2-NIXON,

3 Born On The 4th Of JUly.

This is non-negotional.

[tharpdevenport 4]

I've not seen any of the three films. And only heard excerpts from the first two scores. Can't vote.

[publicist 4,643]

Film: NIXON (JFK cannot be taken seriously, as much as i like the montages)

Score: BOTF (a humbling masterpiece) (then NIXON, then JFK)

More collabs: Yes, by any means.

[TownerFan 4,983]

All three movies are very heavy-handed and somehow too pretentious for one reason or another. Stone is a very polarizing director, very take-it-or-leave-it kind of one. I would say that JFK is probably the strongest one in terms of cinematic qualities--it's a movie quite ahead of its time in the way it mixes fiction and documentary, both from narrative and visual point of views. However, its main problem is the historical accuracy, which leaves a lot to be desired in many ways. I never connected too much with BOT4J because I always find it a really overblown film, a kind of Platoon inflated with estrogen. Nixon is again a very problematic film, with too many things on the plate. Stone wanted to make a kind of Shakespeare-ian drama, but the end result is almost parodistic.

All three scores are really great examples of Williams' dramatic sensibiliites. Stone pushed Williams to go in new directions and he totally complied and produced three very diverse and eclectic scores. The only problem I have with them (which is more of Stone's fault imho) is that sometimes the music is requested too much of a heavy melodramatic gesture, which when applied to the films themselves results very overbearing, like an assault to the audience's emotions. We know JFK was a good man, we know Ron Kovic was a very good man, we know Richard Nixon was a tricky, caricatural figure... so we shouldn't need the music to underline and reinforce too much these ideas/sensations.

But from a purely musical point of view, these scores are amazing:

The string writing on BOT4OJ is dense, inspired and truly heartfelt and the themes are all beautiful and touching. I love also the dissonant cues, where Williams goes into some wild CE3K-like territories.

JFK has two distinct souls: a very stoic and noble representation for Kennedy's persona and his ideals on one side and a very sordid, hallucinogenic and tense one for the conspiracy around his murder. Both are wonderfully depicted in musical terms, with noble hymn-like themes for the former and very interesting textured pieces (featuring lots of synths and percussions) for the latter.

Nixon is probably the straightest work, but again Williams chooses some very interesting musical devices to depict the main character and his own environment: minor mode fanfares and doom-laden string textures for the darkness into which Nixon pushed his own country... straight Americana writing featuring hymn-like tunes for Nixon's youth flashbacks (describing more innocent times)... ghost-like textures for strings and piano to accompany the political treachery of the President and his staff.

[publicist 4,643]

JFK has two distinct souls: a very stoic and noble representation fo Kennedy's persona and his ideals on one side and a very sordid, hallucinogenic and tense one for the conspiracy around his murder. Both are wonderfully depicted in musical terms, with noble hymn-like themes for one and very interesting textured pieces (featuring lots of synths and percussions) for the other.

I know that the fanfare represents the idea behind JFK, not so much the man itself, still, it sounds incredible hokey in key places within the movie. Certainly destroyed any hope that Stone would touch anything like 'nuance' even with a ten-foot pole.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

NIXON, NIXON and yes.

We know JFK was a good man

The Kennedeys were far from good people. Unfortunately history has romanticised them.

[Thor 7,478]

All three movies are very heavy-handed and somehow too pretentious for one reason or another. Stone is a very polarizing director, very take-it-or-leave-it kind of one. I would say that JFK is probably the strongest one in terms of cinematic qualities--it's a movie quite ahead of its time in the way it mixes fiction and documentary, both from narrative and visual point of views. However, its main problem is the historical accuracy, which leaves a lot to be desired in many ways. I never connected too much with BOT4J because I always find it a really overblown film, a kind of Platoon inflated with estrogen. Nixon is again a very problematic film, with too many things on the plate. Stone wanted to make a kind of Shakespeare-ian drama, but the end result is almost parodistic.

All three scores are really great examples of Williams' dramatic sensibiliites. Stone pushed Williams to go in new directions and he totally complied and produced three very diverse and eclectic scores. The only problem I have with them (which is more of Stone's fault imho) is that sometimes the music is requested too much of a heavy melodramatic gesture, which when applied to the films themselves results very overbearing, like an assault to the audience's emotions. We know JFK was a good man, we know Ron Kovic was a very good man, we know Richard Nixon was a tricky, caricatural figure... so we shouldn't need the music to underline and reinforce too much these ideas/sensations.

But from a purely musical point of view, these scores are amazing:

The string writing on BOT4OJ is dense, inspired and truly heartfelt and the themes are all beautiful and touching. I love also the dissonant cues, where Williams goes into some wild CE3K-like territories.

JFK has two distinct souls: a very stoic and noble representation for Kennedy's persona and his ideals on one side and a very sordid, hallucinogenic and tense one for the conspiracy around his murder. Both are wonderfully depicted in musical terms, with noble hymn-like themes for the former and very interesting textured pieces (featuring lots of synths and percussions) for the latter.

Nixon is probably the straightest work, but again Williams chooses some very interesting musical devices to depict the main character and his own environment: minor mode fanfares and doom-laden string textures for the darkness into which Nixon pushed his own country... straight Americana writing featuring hymn-like tunes for Nixon's youth flashbacks (describing more innocent times)... ghost-like textures for strings and piano to accompany the political treachery of the President and his staff.

Some excellent thoughts, Maurizio. Kudos!

[TownerFan 4,983]

Thanks Thor. I'm glad it made some sense!

[Romão 2,274]

Three score masterpieces, with some of the most intelligent writing JW has ever done, whether you judge it musically, dramatically or in terms of effectivness.

As for the movies, JFK is a terrific piece, with some of the best editing in any movie ever. I don't care how much of it is truth or fiction. It is a terrific movie, by far, IMHO, the best Oliver Stone has ever done.

I tend to see JFK and Nixon as two halves of the same score and they work amazingly well together (sans the source cues, though), so I have hard time judging them separately. I vote JFK for movie and Nixon for score

[Miguel Andrade 1,262]

I really can't reply, score wise. They are so wonderfully amazing on their own way. I agree when Merkel says that this is some of Williams most intelligent writing from Williams in the movies.

Film wise, I have no doubts about pointing JFK as the best of the three and, maybe, the best Stone film when considering is full canon of work.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

If you think the Stone films are pretentious, you need widen your grasp of cinema. The names Lars Von Trier, Peter Greenaway, Gus Van Sant, Todd Haynes and Todd Solondz spring to mind.

[Incanus 5,713]

Three score masterpieces, with some of the most intelligent writing JW has ever done, whether you judge it musically, dramatically or in terms of effectivness.

Yes I agree whole heartedly!

BOTFJ is the best score of the three by a narrow margin.

JFK the best film with inaccuracies and all. I found it and still find it a mesmerizing film.

And yes I would welcome another collaboration!

[Thor 7,478]

If you think the Stone films are pretentious, you need widen your grasp of cinema. The names Lars Von Trier, Peter Greenaway, Gus Van Sant, Todd Haynes and Todd Solondz spring to mind.

Excellent directors, all of them, for different reasons. Nothing pretentious about them at all. They have the guts to follow their unique style.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Oliver Stone is an overrated director. I walked out of W.

[Romão 2,274]

I miss this period of Oliver Stone's career. He aproached American History as it were Ancient History, with all the mytich qualities that come with it. I've always found it mesmerizing somehow. Probably not the best aproach from a purely historical, eventful point of view, but it does try to get to the core of the effect of such events in the american collective conscinceness. It's fascinating

[fommes 153]

Nothing pretentious about them at all.

Indeed, nothing pretentious at all about adding a "von" to your name!

[indy4 155]

For scores I'd rank them as follows: JFK, Born on the Fourth of July, Nixon. But they're all good or great.

While regarding these scores as a trilogy makes sense for purely organizational purposes, artistically they are completely different from one another, and I don't think you could say that a new Williams/Stone collaboration would tread old ground like a sequel score is almost obligated to.

I voted "Yes," mostly because at this point I want Williams to score any film he is willing to, and I know he would never sacrifice Stone for Spielberg so a Yes vote doesn't mean a No vote for the next Spielberg/Williams collaboration.

[Thor 7,478]

Nothing pretentious about them at all.

Indeed, nothing pretentious at all about adding a "von" to your name!

Nah. Just artistic eccentricity. Besides, I believe it was a nickname he got while in film school.

[Miguel Andrade 1,262]

Nothing pretentious about them at all.

Indeed, nothing pretentious at all about adding a "von" to your name!

I have the equivalent of a "von" in my name...

[Romão 2,274]

Me too, but I never use it

[Once 604]

Although it wasn't really something he came up with himself.

I voted "Yes," mostly because at this point I want Williams to score any film he is willing to, and I know he would never sacrifice Stone for Spielberg so a Yes vote doesn't mean a No vote for the next Spielberg/Williams collaboration.

Exactly my thoughts.

[Miguel Andrade 1,262]

Me too, but I never use it

Me neither...

[Red 75]

Born on the Fourth of July is the best score. One of Williams' unsung triumphs.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

They have the guts to follow their unique style.

It doesn't take guts to be a nihilistic, fraudulent, hipster.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

JFK has the superior cast and hammy acting of these three.

I also prefer the score, even the weird electronic parts. However, I'm not as familiar with Born on the Fourth of July's score since only 20 minutes (?) is featured on the OST. These complete scores would all be welcomed by me.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,507]

If you think the Stone films are pretentious, you need widen your grasp of cinema. The names Lars Von Trier, Peter Greenaway, Gus Van Sant, Todd Haynes and Todd Solondz spring to mind.

I like "Festen". In fact, I like a lot of the Dogma '95 stuff. I also like "A Zed And Two Noughts", "Drowning By Numbers", and especially "The Draughtman's Contract". Don't get "Belly Of An Architect", though, and I thought "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, And Her Lover" was pretentious beyond belief.

I caught "Far From Heaven" on Flim 4, the other week. A nice film, but I just kept lusting after Viola Davis.

[Josh500 1,615]

I rewatched JFK yesterday, and now that's one well-made film. The direction, the cinematography, the production design, the acting, the editing, and of course the music... everything is really flawless.

It's actually fascinating to watch Tommy Lee Jones, Gary Oldman, Joe Pesci, and Kevin Bacon in the same scene, shooting the breeze!

All three movies are very heavy-handed and somehow too pretentious for one reason or another. Stone is a very polarizing director, very take-it-or-leave-it kind of one.

Yes, that's for sure.

I would say that JFK is probably the strongest one in terms of cinematic qualities--it's a movie quite ahead of its time in the way it mixes fiction and documentary, both from narrative and visual point of views. However, its main problem is the historical accuracy, which leaves a lot to be desired in many ways.

Historical accuracy... what exactly are you referring to? In the audio-commentary to the movie, Oliver Stone points out several times that what is depicted in flashbacks are mere speculations... they are not O.S.'s own speculations, either, but what Jim Garrison herad from witnesses or encountered at various points during his investigations.

Now, I am not an expert when it comes to JFK or the assassination of JFK, but I don't think there are any gross inaccuracies.

Oliver Stone is an overrated director. I walked out of W.

What about his 2 dozen other movies? W. is just one movie!

____

Here's a nice and interesting quote, referring to JFK:

Because of his enormous commitment to Steven Spielberg's Hook, which opened the same month as JFK, composer John Williams did not have time to compose a conventional score for the entire film. Instead he composed and conducted six musical sequences in full for JFK before he saw the entire film. Soon after recording this music, he traveled to New Orleans where Stone was still shooting the film and saw approximately an hour's worth of edited footage and some dailies. Williams remembers, "I thought his handling of Lee Harvey Oswald was particularly strong, and I understood some of the atmosphere of the film – the sordid elements, the underside of New Orleans". Stone and his team then actually cut the film to fit Williams' music after the composer had scored and recorded musical cues in addition to the initial six he had done prior to seeing the film. For the Motorcade sequence, Williams described the score he composed as "strongly kinetic music, music of interlocking rhythmic disciplines". The composer remembered the moment he learned of the assassination of Kennedy and it stuck with him for years. This was a significant factor in his deciding to work on the film. Williams said, "This is a very resonant subject for people of my generation, and that's why I welcomed the opportunity to participate in this film".

By the way, Oliver Stone seemed to appreciate JW's music more than any other director (except maybe for Spielberg and Lucas). He sounds positively gushing in his a.c. to JFK, mentioning Williams's name at least half a dozen times at various points...

I voted "Yes," mostly because at this point I want Williams to score any film he is willing to, and I know he would never sacrifice Stone for Spielberg so a Yes vote doesn't mean a No vote for the next Spielberg/Williams collaboration.

Yes, good point!

Three score masterpieces, with some of the most intelligent writing JW has ever done, whether you judge it musically, dramatically or in terms of effectivness.

As for the movies, JFK is a terrific piece, with some of the best editing in any movie ever. I don't care how much of it is truth or fiction. It is a terrific movie, by far, IMHO, the best Oliver Stone has ever done.

I tend to see JFK and Nixon as two halves of the same score and they work amazingly well together (sans the source cues, though), so I have hard time judging them separately. I vote JFK for movie and Nixon for score

Well said! I agree...

Although I have seen Nixon only once, on TV... I have to buy or rent the DVD, watch it again, to truly appreciate movie AND score. Although every score has one or two pieces that stand out, I think JFK's "Prologue" and "The Conspirators" beat them all in their creativity, passion, and emotional impact. At least, they do for me (although of course "Born on the Fourth of July" (the track) and Nixon's "Mao" are masterpieces too). Arghh, they are all so good!

[publicist 4,643]

Historical accuracy... what exactly are you referring to? In the audio-commentary to the movie, Oliver Stone points out several times that what is depicted in flashbacks are mere speculations... they are not O.S.'s own speculations, either, but what Jim Garrison herad from witnesses or encountered at various points during his investigations.

In a nutshell, the film is a gross propaganda piece worthy of Goebbels. Stone not only bends characters and historical facts to his liking, he even invents them (Mister X) and bulldozes everything that doesn't conform to his view and does that by very suggesting means, i. e. he takes a regular interrogation and makes it a filmic horror trip which of courses colors the way people perceive it afterwards. To say he innocently tried to illustrate Garrison's impressions is pure BS on Stone's part.

It's a beautiful piece of filmwork, but not to be taken seriously an any historical account.

[Josh500 1,615]

I have added another question to the poll... if you delete your already-cast votes, you can answer the 4th question as well!

This time I voted:

1. JFK

2. JFK

3. Yes

4. Yes

In a nutshell, the film is a gross propaganda piece worthy of Goebbels. Stone not only bends characters and historical facts to his liking, he even invents them (Mister X) and bulldozes everything that doesn't conform to his view and does that by very suggesting means, i. e. he takes a regular interrogation and makes it a filmic horror trip which of courses colors the way people perceive it afterwards. To say he innocently tried to illustrate Garrison's impressions is pure BS on Stone's part.

It's a beautiful piece of filmwork, but not to be taken seriously an any historical account.

You seem to have a very strong opinion on the subject (Goebbels, propaganda, bs?).

I have no idea what the truth is, of course, but it's interesting to see what might have been, based on various witness accounts...

[publicist 4,643]

You seem to have a very strong opinion on the subject (Goebbels, propaganda, bs?).

I have no idea what the truth is, of course, but it's interesting to see what might have been, based on various witness accounts...

The way Stone has set up his film is not OK, simple as that. This isn't PEARL HARBOR or escapism like RAIDERS, it's a film seemingly concerned with uncovering a big conspiration throughout US history.

To lie to get YOUR point across (and that's what is effectively happening in more than one sequence) is shady at best. Stone's film isn't about THE truth or what might have been (since parts of it are pure fabrication, which Stone knew back in '91), it's about feeding one man's beliefs to a world-wide audience. It's as if the X-FILES are presented as fact to a future generation.

Still, it's a fascinating paranoia movie in a 70's kind of way realized with 90' technology. It's immensely watchable on that account.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I see films like Nixon or JFK as Shakespearean tragedies. No one ever complains that Richard III or Henry V are historically inaccurate.

[publicist 4,643]

I see films like Nixon or JFK as Shakespearean tragedies. No one ever complains that Richard III or Henry V are historically inaccurate.

Oh please....

[Josh500 1,615]

By the way, anybody seen this extended edition of Nixon (28 minutes added!!!)? I don't think in Europe this is available on DVD...

Does it also feature additional JW cues?

http://www.amazon.co...22134247&sr=1-1

[Thor 7,478]

If you think the Stone films are pretentious, you need widen your grasp of cinema. The names Lars Von Trier, Peter Greenaway, Gus Van Sant, Todd Haynes and Todd Solondz spring to mind.

I like "Festen". In fact, I like a lot of the Dogma '95 stuff. I also like "A Zed And Two Noughts", "Drowning By Numbers", and especially "The Draughtman's Contract". Don't get "Belly Of An Architect", though, and I thought "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, And Her Lover" was pretentious beyond belief.

I caught "Far From Heaven" on Flim 4, the other week. A nice film, but I just kept lusting after Viola Davis.

FESTEN was Thomas Vinterberg, not von Trier. But yeah, the whole Dogma 95 thing is fascinating and has some true film gems. I love von Trier's IDIOTENE the most of these films myself, if you don't include the tv series RIGET, which is in a class of its own.

Historical accuracy... what exactly are you referring to? In the audio-commentary to the movie, Oliver Stone points out several times that what is depicted in flashbacks are mere speculations... they are not O.S.'s own speculations, either, but what Jim Garrison herad from witnesses or encountered at various points during his investigations.

In a nutshell, the film is a gross propaganda piece worthy of Goebbels. Stone not only bends characters and historical facts to his liking, he even invents them (Mister X) and bulldozes everything that doesn't conform to his view and does that by very suggesting means, i. e. he takes a regular interrogation and makes it a filmic horror trip which of courses colors the way people perceive it afterwards. To say he innocently tried to illustrate Garrison's impressions is pure BS on Stone's part.

It's a beautiful piece of filmwork, but not to be taken seriously an any historical account.

Maybe, but it would have been very boring if it were. It's not meant as a documentary, it's a portrait through the eyes of Oliver Stone.

[Josh500 1,615]

Maybe, but it would have been very boring if it were. It's not meant as a documentary, it's a portrait through the eyes of Oliver Stone.

Actually through the eyes of Jim Garrison . . . through the eyes of Oliver Stone.

[publicist 4,643]

Maybe, but it would have been very boring if it were. It's not meant as a documentary, it's a portrait through the eyes of Oliver Stone.

It's a film posing as journalistic document - its whole aesthetic is drenched in archive footage and effects which signal news reports etc.

That would be OK if Stone at least would value some of the cornerstones of journalistic integrity, like balance, but this doesn't happen, he even proudly hams it up with the usual lost-family clichés for emotional manipulation.

I find it puzzling how many peopel (not only here) are so nonchalant about stuff like this. And i am willing to take a bet that almost nobody felt propelled to find out about i. e. the Warren commission after watching JFK but rather adopting Stone's POV.

[Thor 7,478]

I think it would be wrong to judge this by the standards of documentary filmmaking, publicist, which it seems like you do. It's a fictional re-telling of a real event, with Stone's own ideas and style permeating it. No different from other fictional versions of real events and persons.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Yeah, it's very far from a documentary. I prefer to think of it as a sort of tone poem on conspiracies theories and post-war America. Unfortunately some have taken it for real, which to me is as nutty as believing CAPRICORN ONE to be fact.

[Josh500 1,615]

I think Roger Ebert (my favorite film critic) expressed it best when he wrote, "The achievement of the film is not that it answers the mystery of the Kennedy assassination, because it does not, or even that it vindicates Garrison, who is seen here as a man often whistling in the dark. Its achievement is that it tries to marshal the anger which ever since 1963 has been gnawing away on some dark shelf of the national psyche."

And yeah, it's a superbly made film!

[Romão 2,274]

Maybe, but it would have been very boring if it were. It's not meant as a documentary, it's a portrait through the eyes of Oliver Stone.

It's a film posing as journalistic document - its whole aesthetic is drenched in archive footage and effects which signal news reports etc.

That would be OK if Stone at least would value some of the cornerstones of journalistic integrity, like balance, but this doesn't happen, he even proudly hams it up with the usual lost-family clichés for emotional manipulation.

I find it puzzling how many peopel (not only here) are so nonchalant about stuff like this. And i am willing to take a bet that almost nobody felt propelled to find out about i. e. the Warren commission after watching JFK but rather adopting Stone's POV.

I did read a lot of literatura on the subject after seeing the movie, and I'm inclined to think th Warren Comission got as mamny or more things wrong than Oliveri Stone.

Stone felt, in his own words, that the Warren Comission was a sort of myth that was fed to the American Public, so he felt compelled to create a counter myth, that's what's his movie is

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Publicist is barking up the wrong tree if he accuses Stone for not being factually accurate.

Oliver stone is not a journalist, nor a historian or scientist or researcher Those people have a duty to provide a factually accurate piece based on information that can be factually proven or obtained via a scientific method.

Stone is an artist, he's not bond by any duty to deliver factual truth. Instead he's looking for a greater truth.

Van Gogh's painting of the night sky does not look anything hoe the night sky looks like, yet we get the deeper meaning.

[publicist 4,643]

Publicist is barking up the wrong tree if he accuses Stone for not being factually accurate.

Oliver stone is not a journalist, nor a historian or scientist or researcher Those people have a duty to provide a factually accurate piece based on information that can be factually proven or obtained via a scientific method.

Stone is an artist, he's not bond by any duty to deliver factual truth. Instead he's looking for a greater truth.

Yeah, i can hear the bells and whistles when Stone (or another filmmaker) makes a film about Auschwitz, the happy workers camp, completely basing it on real names, with archival footage from the very place and puts a scientist at the end who tells you there was never an oven at work there. Preposterous, you say? Polemic? Well, but he's an artist, not bound by any duty to deliver factual truth.

As i see it, it's celluloid-born propaganda, which is as bad if it comes from a liberal camp as if it's from a fascist regime. I'm inclined to think that a powerful filmmaker is especially responsible, at least he shouldn't base his movie on real-life persons and bend their words and actions to his political beliefs.

[Josh500 1,615]

Publicist is barking up the wrong tree if he accuses Stone for not being factually accurate.

Oliver stone is not a journalist, nor a historian or scientist or researcher Those people have a duty to provide a factually accurate piece based on information that can be factually proven or obtained via a scientific method.

Stone is an artist, he's not bond by any duty to deliver factual truth. Instead he's looking for a greater truth.

Van Gogh's painting of the night sky does not look anything hoe the night sky looks like, yet we get the deeper meaning.

For once, I agree with Steef.

Publicist, it occurs to me that you accuse the film of being a sort of propaganda, of having many incaccuracies, of a biased presentation of events, etc. but the film is about challeging the Warren Report, the generally accepted facts (that Oswald was the lone gunman). Also you mention not a single example of WHY you think so, i.e. what is so inaccurate, what makes the movie a propaganda, etc.? (and yes, Mr. X is a character based on two real life characters, big deal and so what? the movie has to be condensed somewhere, and this really is no big deal).

I dare you to mention 3 things in the movie that are grossly inaccurate (things that are presented as facts--and not mere speculation--that are outright false)

A reviewer on amazon.com, Michael Crane, hit the nail on the head, I think. This is not so much about presenting the facts (nobody knows the facts, after all), but this movie is about telling us that the generally accepted facts are full of holes.

Oliver Stone's "JFK" is a monstrous epic that revolves around the whole mystery around President Kennedy's assassination. While it is a dramatic picture and Stone most likely twisted a few things to make this a more relevant and better movie, it is still an undeniable powerhouse that has you go through a whole set of emotions, ranging from fear, anger, paranoia and sadness. There's no question that the majority of the country believes that there is more to the assassination than we were lead to believe. I don't think it's exactly how it is in the movie, but that's not important. What is important is that the film works for many reasons.

President Kennedy has been assassinated. Lee Harvey Oswald is the suspect and gets shot shortly after. There is a secretive and brief hearing on the whole assassination, and it is in stone that Oswald was a lone gunman and nobody else was involved. Seems like an open-and-shut-case, but District Attorney Jim Garrison isn't willing to buy it. With his staff, they decide to work on the case, until they are shut down by the government. Three years later, Garrison isn't willing to stand by in silence anymore and decides to go ahead with the case. The further he digs, the more horrible truths he uncovers. Not only that, but people high up in the ranks are willing to do anything to make sure that the American Public will never find out about them.

As I said, this isn't meant to be an entirely accurate portrayal of how everything happened. It suggests to you that it could've been this way, and it even does a good job of presenting its case to you. What I think Stone was trying to achieve was to create his own commentary on how people feel about the handling of the whole assassination and how sloppily the case was handled. The film wasn't made to merely exploit the death of Kennedy, but what it does exploit is the fact that we're willing to believe anything they tell us in the media. It's a hard concept to grasp, because it's not too far from the truth. The movie is brilliantly directed and well-acted. Kevin Costner gives one of the best performances of his career. The film has a whole list of famous actors in it, like Gary Oldman, Kevin Bacon, Tommy Lee Jones, Joe Pesci, Sissy Spacek and a whole bunch more. They are all fantastic in their roles.

...

JFK" is an amazing picture that did not bore me for a single second. Not only does it work as a powerful drama, but it also works as an intense thriller. Did everything happen the way the movie proposes? Maybe, maybe not. What the film does is make you think about everything that happened around the assassination. Any film that can get the brain thinking is more than okay in my book. A very character-driven and passionate epic that is perfectly executed by Oliver Stone.

[Thor 7,478]

Yeah, i can hear the bells and whistles when Stone (or another filmmaker) makes a film about Auschwitz, the happy workers camp, completely basing it on real names, with archival footage from the very place and puts a scientist at the end who tells you there was never an oven at work there.

LA VITA ET BELLA is a concentration camp film, yet does in no way aspire to be a factual, objective presentation of the events. Instead, it's somewhat of a black comedy in tone while keeping the horrible events as backdrop. Similarly, Stone doesn't set out to make an objective film about the events, but rather tries to explore other issues with the events as backdrop. NIXON is a character portrait, it's not supposed to recount the Nixon events from afar. He's more concerned with the underlying, mythological aspects.

You keep bringing up archival footage as some sort of 'proof' that it's more than just a fiction film, but I'm sure even you can think of quite a few examples where real archive footage, newspaper clips etc. are used to frame the fictional universe.

I find it odd that you keep presenting the Stone films as if they were unbiased documentaries or news reports with factual errors.

[Josh500 1,615]

Stone felt, in his own words, that the Warren Comission was a sort of myth that was fed to the American Public, so he felt compelled to create a counter myth, that's what's his movie is

Yes, exactly.

LA BELLA ET VITA is a concentration camp film, yet does in no way aspire to be a factual, objective presentation of the events. Instead, it's somewhat of a black comedy in tone while keeping the horrible events as backdrop. Similarly, Stone doesn't set out to make an objective film about the events, but rather tries to explore other issues with the events as backdrop. NIXON is a character portrait, it's not supposed to recount the Nixon events from afar.

You keep bringing up archival footage as some sort of 'proof' that it's more than just a fiction film, but I'm sure even you can think of quite a few examples where real archive footage, newspaper clips etc. are used to frame the fictional universe.

I find it odd that you keep presenting the Stone films as if they were unbiased documentaries or news reports with factual errors.

Your post also somehow seems to imply that this movie is half fiction... but what is fictional about it (and I am not talking about "artistic licences" here and there, which every feature movie in the world has)? The movie doesn't purport to tell us the truth about JFK's assassination. Instead the movie tells us about Jim Garrions' investigation and experiences, what various witnesses told him, how he charged Shaw, what resistance he encountered along the way, his personal speculations and thoughts, his disintegrating family life etc.

[Thor 7,478]

Your post also somehow seems to imply that this movie is half fiction... but what is fictional about it (and I am not talking about "artistic licences" here and there, which every feature movie in the world has)? The movie doesn't purport to tell us the truth about JFK's assassination. Instead the movie tells us about Jim Garrions' investigation and experiences, what various witnesses told him, how he charged Shaw, what resistance he encountered along the way, his personal speculations and thoughts, his disintegrating family life etc.

No, I'm not saying it's half fiction, I'm actually saying it's 100% fiction.......BASED on real events.