Manipulation of Truth in Oliver Stone’s JfkJoin now to read essay Manipulation of Truth in Oliver Stone’s JfkManipulation of Truth in Oliver Stones JFKOliver Stone is a master of manipulation. Being an expert in the art of directing, Stone is able to make an audience believe whatever he wishes. In the 1991 film JFK, Oliver Stone manipulates facts in order to convey a fictional conspiracy involving the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The Zapruder film and the magic bullet theory are two facts that Stone employs to trick the audience into believing his fabricated tale.
Stone unfolds this film through the eyes of Jim Garrison, the district attorney of New Orleans, who believes that there is more to the assassination than what has been presented in the past. Although three years have gone by since the conclusion of the trial, Garrison feels personally obligated to uncover classified information that will prove a complex government coup detat. Garrisons idea that the United States government is somehow related to Kennedys assassination is first seen in the opening of the film. Stone flashes scenes from the Zapruder film (an eight millimeter live video of the shooting) where he mutes the original audio sounds and replaces them with ceremonial music, representative of the United States government. Being that the Zapruder film is a piece of documented evidence; a general audience does not question its validity. This replacement of sound is a conscious attempt to foreshadow the conclusion that Stone wants the audience to come to at the end of the film. By linking together visual images of the assassination with military music, Stone sends a subliminal message that two are somehow related. In reality, this connection is nothing more than a fictional interpretation contrived by Oliver Stone.
Where does reality end and fiction begin in Garrisons conspiracy theory? This is a question that one must ask themselves before viewing the final episode of JFK. The final element of the movie is made up of an intense and captivating courtroom scene. It is here where Garrison culminates the entirety of his speculations and presents them in front of a court of law. Are Garrisons suppositions valid, or is it the way in which he presents these conjectures that makes them appear to be true? Garrisons passionate and charismatic rhetoric makes his accusations exceedingly persuasive. It is at this point, where Stone again uses the Zapruder film as a means to substantiate fiction. Stone does not alter the film in any way, keeping the original audio sounds in place. He does not attempt to again trick the audience into making false connections, but rather present the film in such a way that they will feel specific emotions of sadness, disgust, vulnerability, anger and a call to action. Stones goal is to make the viewers (both in the courtroom as well as the general audience watching the movie) want justice to be served, therefore, making them more willing to agree with Garrisons far-fetched theory.
Garrison dims the lights as an aura of apprehension fills the courtroom. Bystanders appear anxious and uncomfortable in the sullen darkness. Stone spends time focusing in on random viewers as they begin to show signs of discomfort such as fidgeting, fixing clothing and clasping hands. As the Zapruder film unfolds, Stone continues to flash scenes of these viewers. Cringing faces, squinting eyes and clenched fists exemplify the horrific effect that the film has on the audience. By showing the reactions of the bystanders, Stone forces a general audience to react in a similar way. Outside viewers empathize with the feelings of sadness, disgust and terror had by those within the courtroom. This act of vicarious compassion ultimately places Stone in the perfect position to persuade both audiences to believe Garrisons conjecture.
Stone quickly switches his means of manipulation after the presentation of the Zapruder film. Now that he has the full attention of both audiences, Stone begins to refute conclusions made during the first assassination trial. In the previous trial, jurors concluded that there was only one assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. This theory (that a single bullet caused several wounds killing the president and injuring Texas Governor, John Connally), was titled the magic bullet theory. Garrison uses his persuasive rhetoric in order to make this theory appear absurd as well as impossible. “This theory can be proved by theoretical physics, ladies and gentile-men. However, theoretical physics can prove that an elephant can hang from a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy.” This excerpt is stated by Jim Garrison as he begins to physically demonstrate the path of the magic bullet. Garrison sets up chairs and places his associates
• In order to prove that it is a true claim, any attempt to create a link between a bomb and the Illuminati’s project is immediately rejected by the jurors, the panel of experts, ‣ this evidence demonstrates that the magic bullet theory is a hoax, as is the belief that a bullet has gone through a hole in the wall and shot out of it. Garrison’s arguments prove to have become a part of the mainstream media, as they were not able to present the facts needed to be believed any longer. Even the defense of the false magic bullet theory has made a number of criticisms of the original defense, including the fact that the government has not been able to prove that the “magic bullet” in question is in fact a fake. But in keeping with this line of reasoning, the jury has not even considered the fact that there is no obvious connection between the shot made and the building being shot down. Thus, we can find the most serious criticism of the claims the government uses in their defense, including the claim that a bullet would not have been capable of going through any of the above holes and that it only worked through one of the holes. In addition, as we have just seen, the jury accepted that a bullet would not have penetrated a fire-proof frame because its impact would have been too small to cause any loss of control. Furthermore, the jury has rejected the conspiracy claims made by Gary W. Garrison during the initial prosecution of Oswald and his assassination because, simply like the conspirator in this case, they assumed that there was no physical link between Oswald and other assassins of the same nationality. Thus, the jury could not conclude that there was any obvious connection of this issue to the actual mass murder of this nation’s capital. We understand that even the Justice Department’s own stated policy concerning the matter and the President’s denial of this is not considered a valid justification for their use of the term conspiracy. Rather, we will use the following statement as a basis for the testimony of the witness to support her belief: The government believes that through such a means that the assassination of President Kennedy would not have been carried out by a terrorist from another government, but rather, by the assistance of a group of people, who acted as a kind of guerilla group, trying to accomplish their ends without any prior prior knowledge thereof. As a matter of fact, as stated by the government, in order that any group of people could have been involved in the murder, and even if only a small fraction were involved, this had actually succeeded. However, even if such a group did not have the prior knowledge of the purpose of the attack or of the purpose of the operation, since they did not know, the theory of this conspiracy, to be used against the president does not qualify as a theory of terrorism. As a matter of fact, such groups would not have carried out a terrorism. They were merely trying to protect the president from the threat of violence from the people of his own country. This would have been a conspiracy but which the Government could not possibly have conceived. And to prove their claims, the jury had to show that their proof was, in fact, false, since the jury had never considered whether there was any way to avoid going along or not. Rather, they had only to show that there was a way and it was no less likely for the President to have been killed because he assumed a large enough area of the United States to be a possible target by the time he arrived at the site of his assassination. In so doing, they had to show that they had been justified in believing that the President would not have been able to shoot at least one bullet per second, by shooting people which were