July 21, 2025 • 44 mins
For our first edition of Kennedy Film of the Month, we dive into Oliver Stone’s 1991 political thriller opus ‘JFK’. While nominated for 8 Oscars including Best Picture, it was also roundly condemned in the press for popularizing the theory that there was a government conspiracy to assassinate JFK. Los Angeles Times film critic and co-host of the Unspooled podcast, Amy Nicholson, joins us to unpack the film’s legacy.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
What do you think about Oliver Stones JFK.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
It's just it's a super well directed, entertaining, big movie.
So even if you don't agree with everything, or there
are holes in the case that he's making, which there
definitely are, it's still a super fun, great movie to watch.
There's also Joe Peshi in one of his best roles.
(00:35):
David Ferry is like the most insane character you can't
believe out of everything that's maybe made up in the movie,
that guy and all of his quirks are real. And
then Ed Asner, John Candy, Jack Lemon, Walter Mathow. It's like, oh,
you should watch the movie just for all of that cast.
Sissy Spacek, Laurie Metcalf.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
I'm George Severis, I'm Lyra Smith.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
And this is United States of Kennedy, a podcast about
our cultural fascination with the Kennedy Dynasty. Every week we
go into one aspect of the Kennedy story, and today
we have our first installment of the monthly Kennedy Movie Club.
So for today we watched Oliver Stone's JFK. Oliver Stone,
of course, you might know from such movies as Wall
(01:26):
Street and its sequel, Wall Street, Money, Never Sleeps, The
Doors movie, Heaven and Earth, Natural Born Killers, and then
for our Purposes. He's also a real chronicler of American
power and American politics. So he's done w about George W. Bush,
he's done Nixon about Nixon, and of course he's done
JFK about not quite JFK, but more the controversies around
(01:51):
JFK's assassination.
Speaker 4 (01:53):
Released in nineteen ninety one, it's very well known for
its real life impact. After the movie came out and
was very popular, the Assassination Records Review Board or a
ARRB publicly agreed with the film's message that quote, Americans
could not trust official public conclusions when those conclusions had
(02:17):
been made in secret.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
So it's a fascinating movie because on the one hand,
it was roundly criticized and mocked by people that said
it was completely conspiratorial. It really like leans into the
idea that we are constantly being lied to that there's
some sort of conspiracy involving the CIA, various other people
in power that essentially some combination of the American government
(02:40):
and various other American institutions along with the Mafia, random
gay guys, you name it, came together and murdered JFK.
So on the one hand, it was sort of in
a sense discredited by some mainstream people in mainstream media.
But on the other hand, it was incredibly critically acclaimed.
It was nominated for Oscars, It won the or for
(03:00):
at least editing, I believe, and it was nominated I
think Tommy Lee Jones was nominated for Best Supporting Actor.
It is an incredibly well made movie. It's a really
incredible feat of filmmaking. So it has this mixed reputation,
and so we thought who better to discuss it with
than Amy Nicholson, the Los Angeles Times film critic and
co host of the film podcast Unspoiled.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
Hi, Amy, thanks for being here. Hello, Hi, great to
be here.
Speaker 4 (03:27):
We are discussing Oliver Stones JFK today.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
Had you seen it before?
Speaker 5 (03:33):
I was one of those creepy kids with a bunch
of books on the JFK assassination that I would just
flip through and look at all the pictures and be
like WHOA without really understanding much about who JFK was
and what he represented in what he meant and pretty
much anything besides like glamor and glitz. So I had
watched jfk Oh when I was a child and not
(03:55):
really understood anything except you know, back into the left,
back into the left, yack into the left.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
After watching the movie and then having like adult sized
questions kind of like ruined the conspiracy of my youth.
It really is like had the opposite effect on me
that Oliver Stone intended.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
I sort of agree.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
I really wish I had watched it as a teen
like I had. I have such nostalgia for watching similar
things and being like mind blown, like they're lying to
us man, and I just like really wish I had
watched this when I was younger and more impressionable.
Speaker 5 (04:33):
I mean, I don't am I the only person here
who was a weekly world news teenager who like read
tabloids and just thought they were too and grew up
being like, yeah, this all makes sense.
Speaker 4 (04:42):
Well, I grew up thinking that literally every single person
on earth knew for a fact that this was a conspiracy,
and that conspiracy wasn't even the right word to use,
like this is just a fact Oswald didn't kill Kennedy
or was not the only one who shot at Kennedy.
That's what I grew up thinking. And apparently I think
(05:02):
it's less than thirty percent or something of Americans today
would disagree with that.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Yeah, that's tracks.
Speaker 4 (05:09):
Yeah, but the majority of people are like, yeah, the
CIA kill JFK, what are you talking about CIA or
the MOB or you know, like it's like a known
fact is the way it's treated.
Speaker 5 (05:20):
So we're living in Oliver Stones America. We are all
post all of our Stone children.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
I know.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
I think, well, I think there's a sort of It's
tough because on the one hand, there are things we
are not being told. On the other hand, I don't
think this specific conspiracy that is being laid out in
this movie is the correct one from beginning the end.
Speaker 1 (05:37):
But isn't it convincing?
Speaker 5 (05:39):
It's so convincing in the moment, right, I should say
maybe my strength and weakness as a folk critic because
I could be incredibly susceptible, Like my heart is very open.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
It's a things.
Speaker 5 (05:50):
So I saw a documentary a few years ago that
convinced me that Marilyn Monroe was murdered because she was
having an affair with RFK, and I was like, okay,
that all tracks, So yeah, I have to do a
lot of research when I finished watching something to try
to put my feedback on the ground, Well, I am.
Speaker 1 (06:05):
The same one.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
I mean, that's also the issue with conspiracy culture is
like it stems from a very correct impulse, which is
that at any given time we are not being told
like one hundred percent the truth, which is of course
right in any kind of like globalized world that is,
you know, where the systems of information are controlled by
(06:26):
various powerful people.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
I know, I already sound like.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
A conspiracy theorist, but then of course you're right, that
is sort of just like an obvious fact. And then
of course people let their imaginations run wild, and if
you're sort of like unmoored from wanting to remain within
like a respectable circle of discourse, then suddenly you just
like go all the way off and suddenly it's you know,
Tommy Lee Jones in a sort of like fabulous wig.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
I So I.
Speaker 4 (06:53):
Watched it twice this weekend, and the first time I
was and I believed it all, or at least I
was like, yes, okay, sure, all of the timelines that
they present, I'm like, yeah, you're right, he couldn't do it.
And I was just really fully on board to believe
(07:14):
even everything. You know, mister X said, And then I
watched it again while tracking along, I found this guy, which,
by the way, he's just some guy. This is what's
so hard about trying to find the truth online is
there's this man who has a scene by scene fact
check website of the movie. But it's Geo cities and
(07:37):
he doesn't really explain who he is or you know,
it's but it looks incredibly well researched. So then I
watched it again while looking for answers to my questions.
Speaker 3 (07:45):
I actually watched it once and I had to do
it in two parts. I enjoyed it for the record,
but I had to do it in two parts because
it's so the editing is so chaotic, and it really
is so dense. I mean, I had to watch it
with subtitles same. I was really, you know, struggling. So
the fact that you watched it twice is very impressive.
But what so then the second time?
Speaker 1 (08:04):
What happened?
Speaker 4 (08:05):
The second time I was following along with a GeoCities fact.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
Check, okay of jan and what did you learn?
Speaker 5 (08:13):
So?
Speaker 1 (08:14):
I learned that even things that on the first watch,
I thought, well, there's no way that they would be
lying about that. Why would they fictionalize that isn't that
a date and time?
Speaker 5 (08:27):
Like?
Speaker 4 (08:27):
Why would that be wrong? They're all wrong. Almost everything
is completely fictionalized. And it's very hard for me to
say that. I don't want it to be true, but
it is true.
Speaker 5 (08:38):
But are you saying that your experience of watching this
movie while listening to a person telling you why it's
wrong at every single minute, but also knowing that this
person is a stranger from GeoCities dot com means you
felt like you were living in a mystery wrapped inside
a riddle wrapped inside and enigma occur that I did
not realize came from this movie.
Speaker 4 (08:54):
Yes, I know, I truly because also, George, Yes, it
took me an entire day to watch it the first
time I watched it in multiple parts.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
I had to eat, I had to live. It's three
and a half hours long.
Speaker 3 (09:07):
I also, it really made me wish I could have
seen it in the theater because and I I really
did a good job of putting my phone in another room.
I was paying full attention, and yet still even the
fact of being able to even look at other things
was distracting enough where I had to rewind ten seconds
constantly because I didn't catch some line or another.
Speaker 5 (09:27):
Yeah, I mean there's something in the dizzying barrage of dates, numbers,
and your own suspicions trying to parry and fend them
off while you're taking them all in at the same
time that really, in a way makes this movie.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
And we can say a lot of it is fiction.
We can say much of it is fiction.
Speaker 5 (09:46):
The fiction of it, in some crazy way feels like
it gets closer to the truth of what it is
like just living in an information barrage and not being
sure if we should ever trust anything. Really, even if
you don't trust this movie, are we to trust anything?
Is the queasy C sixth sense I got enduring this movie.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Pleasurably enjoying this movie. I mean, this is the thing.
Speaker 4 (10:09):
It's separating the art from the artist, but it's separating
like the movie from the facts.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
As a movie, it very much accomplishes its goal.
Speaker 3 (10:18):
And also, I think, even exactly as you were saying, Amy,
it actually, whether consciously or not, replicates kind of the
feeling of manically going down a conspiratorial rabbit hole, whether
or not the rabbit hole you're going down is true
or not, it has this manic energy, and I think
so much of it has to do with the editing,
(10:39):
Like which is the in fact the one or I
think one of two oscars at one is editing. I
was wondering if you have any you know, as an
actual expert, like, how do you feel technically? It accomplished
that general vibe where for three hours you just feel
like you are on an intellectual roller coaster.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
Yeah, you feel like you're on a ride.
Speaker 5 (10:56):
Right, you feel like you're on I don't know, the
tea cups at Disneyland getting spun and spar and spun around,
and the movie goes faster and faster, and then about
two thirds of the way through, you have Kevin Costner
delivering a recap to his own team. All right, here's
what's going on. You suddenly realize he's broken them. The
machine has broken down, and everybody's just staring at him,
like I can't handle this anymore. And I appreciate that
(11:17):
that Oliver Stone in the chaos of this movie builds
in moments where you realize, I understand, I'm taking this
a little bit too much. I've lost the jury when
I say this. I've lost my own team when I
say this, And yet don't we all just feel caught up?
Speaker 1 (11:32):
I mean, Oliver Soona.
Speaker 5 (11:33):
Says something really interesting, which is, once you start accepting
that maybe you've been lied to about anything in history,
then you start wondering if anything.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
In history is true.
Speaker 5 (11:45):
That he says of himself, you know, he grew up
in the forties and fifties, and that he would read
books on American history about Washington and Columbus in the
Civil War, and then as soon as he experienced history
and the shakiness of it, he began to doubt everything,
which I feel like is an idea that I didn't
understand when I was a child in the nineties who
believed most things.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
I was taught.
Speaker 5 (12:04):
But it's an understanding I definitely have now when we're
fighting over what history even gets taught period.
Speaker 4 (12:10):
I mean, my moment for that was when I, as
a super fan of Pocahontas, the animated film, watched a
History Channel special on the true story of Pocahontas and
found out that she was just a child who is
kidnapped and abused, and not like a gorgeous woman like
living independently.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
Are you thinking Disney's Pocahontas is not actually correct, I'm saying.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
That was the moment that I learned never to trust again.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
We should at some point give, you know, attempt to
give a synopsis of the movie. But while we're on
the topic of like American mythologies that we you know,
sour on and we realize our lives and everything, something
that is fascinating to me is that he's almost replacing
one mythology with another. There is a such a romantization
of JFK in this movie that actually feels weirdly, if
(13:03):
not conservative, then then almost more optimistic than what he's
trying to debunk. Does that make sense? I mean this
idea that the conspiracy centers around the idea that JFK
is such a pacifist and such a liberatory figure that
all the powerful forces in America had to band together
(13:23):
to eliminate him. I just don't necessarily think JFK was
some like left wing, you know, figure that was going
to usher in a completely different decade of prosperity or something.
Speaker 4 (13:35):
I mean, that's one of the big things from mister
x Donald Sutherland's incredible performance, by the way, like truly,
truly I watched it a few times because I just
could not believe how he just shows up and gives
this incredibly wordy dates and locations monologue and it all
(13:59):
gets through and he's so.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
Also is especially impactful because the rest of it is
so choppy. I'm not saying that in a negative way,
like it's intentionally just so choppy. And it's like fifteen
million frames per second. And then the Donald Sutherland part
is almost like the first time it slows down and
you hear someone talking and delivering a long monologue where
(14:21):
the camera isn't like shaking in front of their face,
and also cutting to like historical footage and also cutting
to Jackie in the car, and so there's it's really
framed in this way to give it even more gravitas
and to be like, this is the real truth, right.
Speaker 5 (14:35):
And he has that line in that whole area where
he says, Hey, this feeling that you're having of being
barraged by all of this facts, all of these names.
The thing that this movie is doing, the way that
the people in the country felt even at this moment,
is to keep you from asking the extra question, which
is why, yeah, we have so much information thrown at
us that just begins to feel like a shell game,
(14:55):
like a parlor game. But I also think that what
he's getting at here is, you know, Kennedy, I always say,
was like the first television president, right, the first person
who understood the power of the visual medium and blah
blah blah and the Checkers speech. And he was handsome
and Nixon was sweaty, you know, the whole thing. And
because we've all grown up in like a post JFK America,
I think it's really natural for us to see our
(15:18):
presidents as TV characters, you know, more than even like
political figures. But we're getting the natural outgrowth of that.
I was literally born under like a movie actor president,
and we don't need to talk about the current people.
But like, because of that, I think I have a
way of seeing JFK not as a person, but as
a character, you know, Like I grew up thinking of
JFK as Camelot, and then I heard that JFK was
(15:40):
just like a cheating adulterer who slept around and was
kind of ineffectual. And then there's this JFK who was
a totally different JFK to me, like a JFK who
actually could have accomplished great.
Speaker 1 (15:52):
Practical things and kept us out of a war.
Speaker 5 (15:54):
And it was just it's like three characters, you know,
the way that you were saying that you feel as
though we have giant argument to fighting at each other.
This movie feels like a mech suit of different JFK's
battling for control of the legacy.
Speaker 1 (16:07):
Yes, exactly.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
That's actually something that keeps coming up when we do
research into other elements of the Kennedy story is the
Kennedys as people are almost secondary to the Kennedys as symbols.
It's just like there's sort of a Rshac test for
how you feel about, you know, how you feel about
twentieth century American politics, how you feel about liberalism, how
you feel about Catholicism, how you feel about you know,
(16:31):
the media ecosystem and the publicity ecosystem, and power and
the American dream. And it's like, I think, the average
despite the fact that JFK is one of the most
recognizable historical figures in America, the average person could not
really tell you what his legacy is as a president.
Speaker 1 (16:50):
Really. I mean, I guess.
Speaker 3 (16:51):
People could think of like the Bay of Pigs and
the assassination, but like could the average person that has
really strong opinions about Reagan or about George W. Bush,
sure about Trump, like actually produced what was the what
the Kennedy doctrine was No, thanks thanks, Lara.
Speaker 4 (17:09):
But I think also because specifically in this the Sutherland
monologue where and this is like a common piece of
this type of JFK love and the conspiracy is that
they often cite that he was going.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
To sign.
Speaker 4 (17:30):
And that he was he was going to sign this,
or he was not going to sign it, and by
not signing it, they were going to get troops out
of Vietnam immediately, and they were not going.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
To have a war.
Speaker 4 (17:42):
And then because he died, Johnson signed it gave them
their war. And if not for this assassination, like everything
would have been different.
Speaker 1 (17:51):
And we would have no one would have died in
Vietnam and we would have had civil rights immediately.
Speaker 4 (17:56):
Like it's just like a total reimagining because the fact
is that he was signing it. He had a draft
made up two days before Dallas. So this movie is
(18:28):
about the only murder case that was brought to trial
concerning JFK's assassination, and it is the story of the
New Orleans DA Jim Garrison collecting information, finding witnesses, and
basically in real life we know that he would come
(18:50):
up with a story and then try to find people
to support that story. But in JFK, it's that he
is uncovering the conspiracy to kill Kennedy and frame Oswald.
Speaker 3 (19:06):
Yeah, he's uncovering the conspiracy that some combination of the
CIA slash American Intelligence Apparatus and various other people in
power and the mafia and various people involved in Cuba
came together to assassinate JFK because he was going to
(19:27):
be basically too progressive of a president.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
Yeah, he was going to stop the war and he was.
Speaker 3 (19:32):
Not hard enough on communism and so and as the
New Orleans DA, Kevin Costner is the only person that is,
you know, seeking out the truth. Everyone is against him.
He's dealing with all these people in great positions of
power that want to discredit him. He in fact does
a solid job of proving that his theory is correct,
and despite that, he loses a trial. And you know,
(19:53):
the movie ends with this like plea that it's the
next generations that are going to keep seeking the truth.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (19:58):
It he is seen as almost this no he right,
like he enters the courtroom with this case against a
figure it named clay Bertram slash Clay Shaw, who's played
by Tommy Lee Jones, who he knows he doesn't have
that strong of an actual case specifically about him, you know.
But it's more like he just wants to get this
entire story on the record because he's really imagining himself
as like a figure in the court of public opinion.
(20:20):
He wants to get this all down. He wants to
get it in testimony. He wants people to be aware
of this. He wants the zup root of footage to
be out there so that even if his generation won't actually,
you know, stand for the principles that he thinks America
has has lost in terms of trusting that our government
won't lie to us, may maybe our future will live
in a much clearer news environment, which clearly did not
(20:41):
come to pass, even though his idea of the court
of public opinion definitely did.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
Mm hm. I mean that is the even on.
Speaker 4 (20:47):
The first viewing where I was totally sold, if I'm
being honest, when we get to the verdict and I
think we're supposed to be shocked and appalled and heart
broken that he's found not guilty, but even within the movie,
you're like, well, what are you proving him being guilty
of in court? You know, he really just has like
(21:10):
second hand stories. He doesn't have evidence, like tying clay Shaw.
Speaker 5 (21:15):
To it, right, he's basically tugging on that lie, right,
like you to believe you've been lied about one thing,
maybe later you'll believe you're lied to about the rest
of it.
Speaker 4 (21:24):
The other part of the real story is that Garrison
didn't have like a great reputation in the end for
being of sane mind.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
I mean, I don't like to say that, but just
that he had.
Speaker 4 (21:38):
There's like quotes of him saying that this was a
sexual thrill kill and he was just kind of like
throwing together anybody that he could find in New Orleans
that was part of any kind of underbelly.
Speaker 3 (21:51):
And yeah, I mean it's also, of course, when the
narrative is that everyone is out to get him and
everyone is out to discredit him. When that is the narrative,
than anything you hear against him almost like fits into that.
And then it makes you, if you're on his side,
let's say, it makes you even more conspiratorial because you're
like Oh, look, the media is in on it, and
the newspapers are in on it, and Shaw is in
(22:15):
fact controlling the public narrative, and so which is in
fact like one of the elements of conspiratorial thinking is
how self perpetuating. It is like, once you consider yourself
to be part of a community that is truth seeking
against all odds, than anything that is being set against
you is like further proof that you are correct and
(22:37):
that you are getting closer to the truth. I want
to sort of talk a little bit amy about the
way this was received at the time and where it
fits into Oliver Stone's filmography and Oliver Stones specifically like
work as a chronicler of American power and corruption. It
feels like a movie like this if it were released now,
(22:59):
it would be seen as so you know, quote unquote irresponsible,
like with the current conspiracy culture that exists at the time.
There were definitely detractors, but it was, you know, a
critical hit. It was nominated for Oscars. What would you say?
The immediate response was.
Speaker 5 (23:15):
Well, the Jack Villinti, who ran the NBA, the most
measured Picture Association of America. He likened it to Lenny
Riefenstahl's triumph of the Will. So there was also some
pretty strong detractors who were going after the film very,
very harshly.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
You know, there were a lot of people who were alive.
Speaker 5 (23:33):
Of course, to witness this whole trial go down, and
they came into the movie with very strong opinions about
Garrison the way that I'm sure years from now we're
going to have really strong opinions if somebody ever does
a movie about, you know, James Comey. And so a
lot of the immediate reaction was like, you're leaving out
everything about this guy, you know. In Stone's rebuttals to
that was like, well, if I really made this a
movie about Jim Garrison and all of his flaws, then
(23:54):
the film becomes a biography, it becomes smaller, and I
think that that takes the focus off of the larger issue.
But then you also have to say, you're casting Kevin
Costner at one of the peaks of his career, you know,
a pre water World Kevin Costner, when everybody was in
love with him, including my mother, and you're gonna think, yeah, Garrison,
totally reasonable guy, perhaps the greatest living American, you know.
(24:15):
And so it's interesting, like I find movies like this
that challenge the audience honestly by asking us to be
aware that every movie we ever go see is at
some point a film with an agenda, is at some
point not going to tell the truth. That fiction actually
can never recreate the truth exactly, it's impossible. There's a
(24:39):
really fantastic documentary by Noam Chomsky with Michelle gondikelt Is
The Man who is Tall Happy that's about almost this
like paradox of absolute zero. You can never make a
fictional recreation of anything that is the truth. And yet
we live in a world where it always gets shaky
and people are obligated to say, like, depiction is not endorsement.
And I think this is a film that, to me,
(25:00):
regardless of what you feel about JFK in the present,
regardless of how much people even think about JFK, speaks
to our common crisis that we're all in right now
about not knowing what to believe. And it's almost like
a vaccine or an inoculation, right Like, can you watch
this movie trusting that it's okay that it has an agenda?
Speaker 4 (25:21):
You know?
Speaker 1 (25:21):
Because I think, honestly every film should have an agenda.
Why are you even bother making it.
Speaker 5 (25:24):
You know, I want minecraft to have an agenda, even
if that agenda is just like make kids really excited
and throw popcorn around.
Speaker 3 (25:31):
Yeah, no, completely, And I think that is I mean,
I think it's also about almost respecting your audience in
that way, like I think you can trust that they
can draw the different conclusions than you do, but still
appreciate the way you told the story and the way
you put forth an argument.
Speaker 5 (25:49):
Exactly like Oliver Stone thought that if he could get
free things across, he would be content, and those three
things are not pleased by everything in this conspiracy. But
it's a I want to prove that Oswald was actually
anti communist or at least hung around with anti communist people.
B I want you guys to know that there were
doctors being getting bossed around by military officers in the autopsy.
(26:11):
That that is a fact, and I just need that
on the record. And see really putting the zapruder footage
on a big screen, because isn't that impactful? Like I
found that really astonishing. You know, when JFKA get shot
at the beginning, it's represented by a flock of birds.
Two hours and forty five minutes in the movie, you
see his actual death, and after talking about it for
(26:31):
minutes and minutes and minutes and minutes, it's such a
breakneck speed. For some reason, watching it then hit me
harder than I think it's ever hit me.
Speaker 4 (26:39):
Yeah, I had very similar experience where it felt like
the most gruesome thing I've seen. And I've seen it before,
but it really is hard to watch and it is
a shock every time, and then especially the way they
do it with like repeating it over and over again.
And I always think about either Jackie OH said the
(27:00):
or somebody said it after speaking to Jackie O, or
describing what she does in the zeppid Or film is
that she jumps to the back and reaches for parts
of JFK's head.
Speaker 1 (27:13):
She reaches to get them and collect them.
Speaker 4 (27:17):
It's such an human response that's not based in logic,
and so like watching that over and over again really
struck me.
Speaker 5 (27:26):
I love that description of it because I think that's
something that's really easy to miss when we look back
at history, that things don't always add up because we're
flailing and figuring out the best time. I mean, I
could just imagine being in that moment and thinking like,
let me grab for my husband's brains.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
Maybe I can fix this mm.
Speaker 3 (27:45):
Yeah, it's interesting that, you know, compared to other biopic
like depictions of the Kennedy's that go to great lengths
to have these long speeches or you know, show Jackie
with the blood on her dress and all this stuff,
like the impact of just that tiny moment being played
over and over again is actually can be so much
(28:05):
more meaningful than you know, an entire two hour movie
that's like about her staring into the distance and mourning
her her husband.
Speaker 5 (28:13):
Yeah, and I found it so touching. As soon as
the assassination happens, you see Americans in this movie running
to a bar where they know that there's a TV
to sit together. Like the idea of I feel like
right now, I spent a lot of time witnessing what
feels like epic tragedy is alone on my couch, on
my cell phone, and the idea that you could sit
(28:33):
with your community, even if some of your community is
clapping because they're happy JFK Is dead, which wow, you
know it really it really affected me.
Speaker 1 (28:44):
It was interesting how in that scene there was actually
relative civility in the bar, Like in my mind when
I imagine how people of different political views react to
I don't know, a Trump executive order or something. I
don't imagine people like yelling at the TV, but then
ultimately remaining civil and consuming it communally. There was something
(29:06):
about which is of course.
Speaker 3 (29:07):
The difference between consuming information remotely and consuming it physically
together in the same space, Like you have no choice
but to exist communally with your fellow person, and it
would it takes much more like courage or something to
actually start like yelling or fighting in real life. I
wanted to go back to just in terms of your
(29:28):
relationship with Oliver Stone, like how what do you think
of him as a filmmaker and how do you think
this fits into his filmography?
Speaker 4 (29:35):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (29:35):
I think he's vital, passionate and frustrating. I have a
soft spot in my heart for filmmakers who stirs it up.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
Can I say stirshit up on this? Yes? Yeah?
Speaker 5 (29:47):
Okay, because how else are you going to describe Oliver Stone?
That's what he does. This is a guy who went
to war when he was young, grew up or grew
cynical super fast, and then wanted to translate his experience
to the screen.
Speaker 1 (30:00):
A ton of powerful movies.
Speaker 5 (30:02):
I think Born on the fourth of July, a movie
he made right before this with Tom Cruise, is one
of the better things anybody's ever made about war, and
it's also one of the better Tom Cuse performances. So
I don't know what I think about Oliver Stone as
a human being, because I try to really keep that
out of the movie themselves.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
But I think that people like.
Speaker 5 (30:22):
Him who use the power of cinema to put a
hot laser beam on things they want us to be
talking about. I love them even when they make people mad,
you know, even when they make me mad. And so this,
to me feels like one of the ultimate Oliver Stone movies.
Although I have to say, on a tiny side note,
when he made The Doors, my boyfriend was a gigantic
(30:44):
Doors fan, went to go see it as a kid
and was so furious he went outside and like lit
a cassette tape on fire and started screaming.
Speaker 1 (30:52):
So that's just the effect Oliver Stone has on people.
Speaker 4 (30:56):
Well, my personal experience with this one is that I
am from Tennessee and some of the accents are phenomenal,
and I feel like a lot of the cast, like
you know, a lot of the cast already has accents
or Southern accents, and it's like Sissy's Basic and Tommy
Lee Jones and they're making these like kind of like
subtle adjustments to fit the region.
Speaker 1 (31:18):
And I really love that.
Speaker 4 (31:19):
And I actually find that Costner's accent is like very reserved,
and I did really like it. But I hate to
say it, but like John Candy's accent is really rough.
Speaker 1 (31:32):
He's from Canada. You can't you can't, you know, blame him.
Speaker 4 (31:35):
Also, I read that he was sweating profusely the entire
time they were filming because he was so nervous to
be in a dramatic film, and that that was just
real sweat.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
Oh that's so funny.
Speaker 3 (31:45):
I mean everything about it seems so intentional, to be honest,
even the accent being insane.
Speaker 1 (31:50):
I thought it just adds to the character. Well, that's
the thing.
Speaker 4 (31:53):
Also, is it like when Joe Peshi first shows up
and you're like, is that a bad wig?
Speaker 1 (31:57):
On the productions?
Speaker 4 (31:59):
I mean the eyebrows, yeah, But then towards the end
you realize, like, no, it's a bad wig because he
wore a bad wig and now we're going to show
you how bad it is. Like he starts tearing, like
pulling it and moving it around while he's like having
his episode. And here's the thing, though, the same way
(32:33):
that there's the idealized JFK memory being presented, I feel
like there's like a lot of southernisms that are thrown in.
Some of them I've never heard of before in my life,
and I don't know if Oliver Stone got them from
anyone that he knows or what, but it's like they're
really trying to remind you that these are simple Southern,
(32:55):
good Americans and they don't take no crap from no
But I wrote down some of them that I really liked.
But I think my favorite one that I never heard
before is her reputation's lower than crocodile piss, which I.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
Will be like using for the rest of my life.
But the one that like, really.
Speaker 4 (33:14):
The one that really took me out of it, though,
is that when they're talking about the magic bullet, and
he says theoretical physicists can also prove that an elephant
can hang off a cliff with its tail tattoo a daisy.
Speaker 3 (33:27):
I actually think the sort of florid nature of the
Southern people as imagined by as imagined by Oliver Stone,
kind of adds to the weirdly fictionalized, almost like dreamscape vibe.
Speaker 1 (33:42):
Of the movie.
Speaker 3 (33:43):
Like when you're in a courtroom and someone is speaking
like that and they're saying, theoretical physicists can prove that
an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail
tied to a daisy. You're sort of like, Okay, we're
in this kind of like suspended world, and I don't
have to fully believe this conspiracy theory to engage with it,
Like I actually think it sort of helps put you
(34:03):
in a you know, in a reality that's halfway between
truth and fiction.
Speaker 5 (34:09):
Right, we are all Joe Peshy's wig, feeling like we're
sliding off of it, exactly as a girl who grew
up in Texas. If we want to talk about presidents
creating characters or politicians creating characters, do not get me
started on George W. Bush in his Texas accent, or
most people who moved to Texas and suddenly reinvent themselves
as a real American.
Speaker 1 (34:27):
Oh my goodness. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (34:29):
And then the other thing that I kept noticing, I
didn't know if anybody else had seen it. Pes she
keeps playing with people's nipples and it's like a character choice.
Speaker 3 (34:38):
Yeah, actually, you know, Pesche playing with everyone's nipples is
a great segue into the the depiction of like the
homosexual underground then.
Speaker 1 (34:52):
Underbelly, Yes, Kevin Bacon, Yes, that.
Speaker 3 (34:55):
Is depicted in this film, which I know I'm supposed
to be offended by, but I have to say I've
found it to be so fun and like the scenes
of them, you know, having the sort of like weird
sex parties where one of them is covered head to
toe in gold paint and the other.
Speaker 1 (35:11):
One is dressed like what was it. I'm trying to think.
Speaker 3 (35:17):
Thing.
Speaker 5 (35:17):
Yeah, well, and they've clearly got a lot of time
on their hands to put on that gold paint and
then wash it off. That gold paint. They clearly could
be planning a conspiracy.
Speaker 4 (35:26):
I loved Tommy Lee Jones in this movie, and I
wanted to hang out with them. The character, but he's
definitely in that cinematic gay villain. I don't know if
it starts with Peter Lorie, but he's definitely doing like
a kind of Maltese falcon Peter Lori.
Speaker 3 (35:41):
It's a very you know, Javier Bardem in that Bond
movie where he's very clearly like gay coded. Although I
will say one thing, and maybe this is just because
I love Tommy Lee Jones, but I felt like you
could argue that it's written in a kind of latantly
homophobic way. But I actually think the performance is a
very lost portrayal of a closeted gay man. Like I
(36:04):
think he's not going over the top, he's not going
super flamboyant in this very kind of stereotypical way. I
really think there's like a dare I say, a quiet
dignity to the performance.
Speaker 4 (36:16):
No, yes, I because I think he also he rides
this line of is it that he's hiding this or
is it that he's actually being quite condescending mm hmm
to the people around him who don't get it.
Speaker 3 (36:32):
Yes, And I think that is a there's a there's
a certain mix of like self loathing and also narcissism
that is a speake from experience often unique to gay
man and I honestly think that like that is portrayed
in such a clear way, and it's actually very difficult
(36:52):
to get right.
Speaker 1 (36:53):
Gosh, it is so wild because like when this came out,
there was backlash h.
Speaker 3 (36:57):
Yes, no, absolutely, which of course, I you know, of
course you get when there's like a you know, a
group of kind of like slightly gross, sexually perverse gay
men that are basically in charge of murdering the president
because he's because he wants to end war.
Speaker 4 (37:15):
You know, I will say, Kevin Bacon, Tommily Jones, not gross, No,
not at all.
Speaker 1 (37:20):
They're very, very handsome. In this movie, Did.
Speaker 5 (37:22):
You wish that the wife, Sissy Spacek, you know who,
is kind of establishing that Jim Garrison's the opposite of
all that he's a married man with five children that
he barely has enough time to hang out with. She
has that tiny little dig at him, like are you
going after this man because you're big at it?
Speaker 1 (37:38):
Because you're homophobic?
Speaker 5 (37:41):
And I was kind of I kind of wanted the
film to dig into that just a little bit more,
like is that it all part of it? Because it
lets him shrug it off really easily. But I think
people at the time thought that that was the case,
that he was basically bringing these charges against the Tommily
Jones character to make him say on the record in
front of America that he was out of the clock.
Speaker 1 (38:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (38:01):
I actually thought that that was part of a larger
character choice to not make him overtly chauvinistic and super masculine.
Speaker 1 (38:11):
You would expect a character.
Speaker 3 (38:12):
Like that, especially in the movie that is so like
that really wears its arguments on its sleeve.
Speaker 1 (38:17):
You would expect a character like that to be so
much more abrasive.
Speaker 3 (38:20):
And there's something about Costner's performance that's actually like relatively
understated considering the movie he's in.
Speaker 5 (38:27):
Yeah, I would agree with that. He's almost more of
just an interviewer passing the mic around to hear other
crazy people talk. Because there are performances in this that
are massive to your point. I mean, we didn't even
get in John Candy saying the word daddio like this happens.
You've got Joe Peshi with mice everywhere in his apartment
because he's trying to work on a cure for cancer.
I mean, you get the sense that Costner's Jim Garrison
(38:49):
is a guy who's just sort of quiet with his
own Roman empire that's keeping him up at night, right,
and these are all the caligulas making his life interesting.
Speaker 4 (38:58):
Yeah, to me, it's almost the comparison of what the
response was then to how we see it now.
Speaker 1 (39:06):
I feel like is a.
Speaker 4 (39:08):
Sign of like progress in acknowledging and accepting and enjoying
that there are complex gay characters and that it's not
just an automatic that you have to be a good
guy if you're a gay character, or else it's an attack.
Speaker 1 (39:26):
Yeah, no, I agree.
Speaker 3 (39:27):
I was because I knew that it had this sort
of reputation in this criticism, I expected it to be
much more.
Speaker 1 (39:33):
I don't know, bother some or something. Let's see it.
Speaker 3 (39:36):
Why or should we go into sort of final questions? Well,
first of all, Amy, our first question for our last
question for you is who killed JFK.
Speaker 1 (39:43):
Well, I don't know.
Speaker 5 (39:44):
What the scarier answer would be. I mean, coming out
of this movie, you get two options. A either believe
it one ass asked and can change the world, or
be you believe that a very powerful president cannot change
the world it will wind up getting murdered. Oh gosh,
I don't want to be to goolag by anybody, But
I don't think Oswald acted alone.
Speaker 1 (40:03):
Oh me, yeah, I think we can all agree there.
Oh okay, good awesome.
Speaker 5 (40:07):
I get it's when you talk about conspiracy and then
you believe it a little part of the conspiracy.
Speaker 1 (40:11):
Don't you feel like you're insane? Yes?
Speaker 4 (40:14):
Well, and I'm also I cannot tell you how many
times I've been there's kind of like a an ongoing
joke about like when you meet like new mom friends
and you have to kind of subtly at first see
if they're anti VAXX or not. You're just like kind
of checking out the vibes in the beginning, like right.
(40:35):
But that's how I have felt talking about JFK with people,
is that I'm like, well, but I can see this,
and then by the end you're all just like, yes,
of course, and there was a second shooter at least
that you know, And it's like every single person I
think is on the same page with that once you
get down to it.
Speaker 3 (40:55):
Yeah, you know, I would honestly love to see more
big directors tackle what happened with the JFA assassination. It's
one every year, Yeah, like when every year, just seventeen
in a row, and then we'll decide which one is
the best one in terms of the actual theory and
which one is the best one in terms of the filmmaking,
because I actually think, you know, do I think this
(41:16):
movie is very explicitly spreading unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Yes, but
do I think it's sort of like the right instinct
to question the official learner of a history. Also, Yes,
so you know, let's fund I don't know Darren Aronofsky's JFK.
Let's actually not do that.
Speaker 1 (41:33):
But you know, it's just an idea. Who would do
the best JFK assassinations? Oh that's a great question.
Speaker 4 (41:40):
Oh.
Speaker 5 (41:40):
The first thing in my head was I want the
comb brothers to get back together so they can do it.
Speaker 1 (41:43):
I do think that, yes, that would be the right reference,
that's their homework.
Speaker 4 (41:49):
But who would do the most truthful or most accurate?
Does anyone come to mind that, like, does like extremely
accurate but powerful period pieces?
Speaker 1 (41:57):
Or I mean, I don't know about accurate.
Speaker 3 (42:00):
But you know, Scorsese is in a sort of you know,
has done morally nuanced historical films.
Speaker 5 (42:08):
You know, I feel like this guy's version of it
will get maybe a little closer to Oliver Stone one.
But the director that I thought really captured this idea
of fiction nailing the truth better than the truth does
is David Chisel, with the movie Babylon, which got the
chaos of Silent Film exactly right, even though we got
the year right. I think his film feels like it's
very nineteen nineteen, but he's trying to say it in
(42:29):
like nineteen twenty seven anyways, like the idea of making
a movie where you're like, here's the truth, but it
also has orgies and elephants and fire breathers and all
sorts of mania. Yeah, and yet that is closer to
the Silent Film and how it felt to that era
of like wild people coming to La inventing a new
form of art and just being the outcasts with a
new dream than almost anything I've ever seen that tried
(42:51):
to get it right and does it too soberly.
Speaker 2 (42:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (42:53):
No, I do think focusing on the chaos of it
is the right way to go rather than being like,
who is you know, who is a meticulous enough filmmaker
to get.
Speaker 1 (43:02):
The truth exactly right? Like, you know, give it to
boz Luhrman, Yeah, boz Larman's JFK. Okay.
Speaker 3 (43:08):
Well, speaking of buzz Larwin's JFK. As we wrap up, Amy,
I was wondering, what are your favorite Kennedy related pieces
of pop culture and films and everything else? We Lyra
and I have a real soft spot for Grey Gardens,
and I also recently watched House of Yes for the
first time.
Speaker 1 (43:27):
I mean, Grey.
Speaker 5 (43:27):
Gardens is fantastic. I don't know if you can pick
a better choice than that, but I really came to
admire the Natalie Portman take on Jackie because I never
quite vibed with Natalie Portman often as an actress, But
when you cast her in a role where she's playing
somebody incredibly aware of what her image is in trying
to keep it together for everyone else's sake and doing
(43:49):
a bad job, that's the lane that I love Natalie
Portman in. And I felt like that movie. Even if
I don't necessarily think it's a proper synergy of either
one of those women individually, her or Jackie O, I
do think it captures a venn diagram of them really well.
Speaker 1 (44:06):
Well, thank you so much for joining us today. This
was so fun. Oh my pleasure always down to get
conspiratorial with y'all. Thank you so much, Amie. So that's
it for this week's episode.
Speaker 3 (44:17):
Next week, we're diving into the life of Rosemary Kennedy
with historian Kate Clifford Larsen, author of the biography.
Speaker 1 (44:24):
Rosemary, the hidden Kennedy daughter. So subscribe and follow United
States
Speaker 4 (44:28):
Of Kennedy for all things Kennedy every week,
What do you think about Oliver Stones JFK.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
It's just it's a super well directed, entertaining, big movie.
So even if you don't agree with everything, or there
are holes in the case that he's making, which there
definitely are, it's still a super fun, great movie to watch.
There's also Joe Peshi in one of his best roles.
(00:35):
David Ferry is like the most insane character you can't
believe out of everything that's maybe made up in the movie,
that guy and all of his quirks are real. And
then Ed Asner, John Candy, Jack Lemon, Walter Mathow. It's like, oh,
you should watch the movie just for all of that cast.
Sissy Spacek, Laurie Metcalf.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
I'm George Severis, I'm Lyra Smith.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
And this is United States of Kennedy, a podcast about
our cultural fascination with the Kennedy Dynasty. Every week we
go into one aspect of the Kennedy story, and today
we have our first installment of the monthly Kennedy Movie Club.
So for today we watched Oliver Stone's JFK. Oliver Stone,
of course, you might know from such movies as Wall
(01:26):
Street and its sequel, Wall Street, Money, Never Sleeps, The
Doors movie, Heaven and Earth, Natural Born Killers, and then
for our Purposes. He's also a real chronicler of American
power and American politics. So he's done w about George W. Bush,
he's done Nixon about Nixon, and of course he's done
JFK about not quite JFK, but more the controversies around
(01:51):
JFK's assassination.
Speaker 4 (01:53):
Released in nineteen ninety one, it's very well known for
its real life impact. After the movie came out and
was very popular, the Assassination Records Review Board or a
ARRB publicly agreed with the film's message that quote, Americans
could not trust official public conclusions when those conclusions had
(02:17):
been made in secret.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
So it's a fascinating movie because on the one hand,
it was roundly criticized and mocked by people that said
it was completely conspiratorial. It really like leans into the
idea that we are constantly being lied to that there's
some sort of conspiracy involving the CIA, various other people
in power that essentially some combination of the American government
(02:40):
and various other American institutions along with the Mafia, random
gay guys, you name it, came together and murdered JFK.
So on the one hand, it was sort of in
a sense discredited by some mainstream people in mainstream media.
But on the other hand, it was incredibly critically acclaimed.
It was nominated for Oscars, It won the or for
(03:00):
at least editing, I believe, and it was nominated I
think Tommy Lee Jones was nominated for Best Supporting Actor.
It is an incredibly well made movie. It's a really
incredible feat of filmmaking. So it has this mixed reputation,
and so we thought who better to discuss it with
than Amy Nicholson, the Los Angeles Times film critic and
co host of the film podcast Unspoiled.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
Hi, Amy, thanks for being here. Hello, Hi, great to
be here.
Speaker 4 (03:27):
We are discussing Oliver Stones JFK today.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
Had you seen it before?
Speaker 5 (03:33):
I was one of those creepy kids with a bunch
of books on the JFK assassination that I would just
flip through and look at all the pictures and be
like WHOA without really understanding much about who JFK was
and what he represented in what he meant and pretty
much anything besides like glamor and glitz. So I had
watched jfk Oh when I was a child and not
(03:55):
really understood anything except you know, back into the left,
back into the left, yack into the left.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
After watching the movie and then having like adult sized
questions kind of like ruined the conspiracy of my youth.
It really is like had the opposite effect on me
that Oliver Stone intended.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
I sort of agree.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
I really wish I had watched it as a teen
like I had. I have such nostalgia for watching similar
things and being like mind blown, like they're lying to
us man, and I just like really wish I had
watched this when I was younger and more impressionable.
Speaker 5 (04:33):
I mean, I don't am I the only person here
who was a weekly world news teenager who like read
tabloids and just thought they were too and grew up
being like, yeah, this all makes sense.
Speaker 4 (04:42):
Well, I grew up thinking that literally every single person
on earth knew for a fact that this was a conspiracy,
and that conspiracy wasn't even the right word to use,
like this is just a fact Oswald didn't kill Kennedy
or was not the only one who shot at Kennedy.
That's what I grew up thinking. And apparently I think
(05:02):
it's less than thirty percent or something of Americans today
would disagree with that.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Yeah, that's tracks.
Speaker 4 (05:09):
Yeah, but the majority of people are like, yeah, the
CIA kill JFK, what are you talking about CIA or
the MOB or you know, like it's like a known
fact is the way it's treated.
Speaker 5 (05:20):
So we're living in Oliver Stones America. We are all
post all of our Stone children.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
I know.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
I think, well, I think there's a sort of It's
tough because on the one hand, there are things we
are not being told. On the other hand, I don't
think this specific conspiracy that is being laid out in
this movie is the correct one from beginning the end.
Speaker 1 (05:37):
But isn't it convincing?
Speaker 5 (05:39):
It's so convincing in the moment, right, I should say
maybe my strength and weakness as a folk critic because
I could be incredibly susceptible, Like my heart is very open.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
It's a things.
Speaker 5 (05:50):
So I saw a documentary a few years ago that
convinced me that Marilyn Monroe was murdered because she was
having an affair with RFK, and I was like, okay,
that all tracks, So yeah, I have to do a
lot of research when I finished watching something to try
to put my feedback on the ground, Well, I am.
Speaker 1 (06:05):
The same one.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
I mean, that's also the issue with conspiracy culture is
like it stems from a very correct impulse, which is
that at any given time we are not being told
like one hundred percent the truth, which is of course
right in any kind of like globalized world that is,
you know, where the systems of information are controlled by
(06:26):
various powerful people.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
I know, I already sound like.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
A conspiracy theorist, but then of course you're right, that
is sort of just like an obvious fact. And then
of course people let their imaginations run wild, and if
you're sort of like unmoored from wanting to remain within
like a respectable circle of discourse, then suddenly you just
like go all the way off and suddenly it's you know,
Tommy Lee Jones in a sort of like fabulous wig.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
I So I.
Speaker 4 (06:53):
Watched it twice this weekend, and the first time I
was and I believed it all, or at least I
was like, yes, okay, sure, all of the timelines that
they present, I'm like, yeah, you're right, he couldn't do it.
And I was just really fully on board to believe
(07:14):
even everything. You know, mister X said, And then I
watched it again while tracking along, I found this guy, which,
by the way, he's just some guy. This is what's
so hard about trying to find the truth online is
there's this man who has a scene by scene fact
check website of the movie. But it's Geo cities and
(07:37):
he doesn't really explain who he is or you know,
it's but it looks incredibly well researched. So then I
watched it again while looking for answers to my questions.
Speaker 3 (07:45):
I actually watched it once and I had to do
it in two parts. I enjoyed it for the record,
but I had to do it in two parts because
it's so the editing is so chaotic, and it really
is so dense. I mean, I had to watch it
with subtitles same. I was really, you know, struggling. So
the fact that you watched it twice is very impressive.
But what so then the second time?
Speaker 1 (08:04):
What happened?
Speaker 4 (08:05):
The second time I was following along with a GeoCities fact.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
Check, okay of jan and what did you learn?
Speaker 5 (08:13):
So?
Speaker 1 (08:14):
I learned that even things that on the first watch,
I thought, well, there's no way that they would be
lying about that. Why would they fictionalize that isn't that
a date and time?
Speaker 5 (08:27):
Like?
Speaker 4 (08:27):
Why would that be wrong? They're all wrong. Almost everything
is completely fictionalized. And it's very hard for me to
say that. I don't want it to be true, but
it is true.
Speaker 5 (08:38):
But are you saying that your experience of watching this
movie while listening to a person telling you why it's
wrong at every single minute, but also knowing that this
person is a stranger from GeoCities dot com means you
felt like you were living in a mystery wrapped inside
a riddle wrapped inside and enigma occur that I did
not realize came from this movie.
Speaker 4 (08:54):
Yes, I know, I truly because also, George, Yes, it
took me an entire day to watch it the first
time I watched it in multiple parts.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
I had to eat, I had to live. It's three
and a half hours long.
Speaker 3 (09:07):
I also, it really made me wish I could have
seen it in the theater because and I I really
did a good job of putting my phone in another room.
I was paying full attention, and yet still even the
fact of being able to even look at other things
was distracting enough where I had to rewind ten seconds
constantly because I didn't catch some line or another.
Speaker 5 (09:27):
Yeah, I mean there's something in the dizzying barrage of dates, numbers,
and your own suspicions trying to parry and fend them
off while you're taking them all in at the same
time that really, in a way makes this movie.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
And we can say a lot of it is fiction.
We can say much of it is fiction.
Speaker 5 (09:46):
The fiction of it, in some crazy way feels like
it gets closer to the truth of what it is
like just living in an information barrage and not being
sure if we should ever trust anything. Really, even if
you don't trust this movie, are we to trust anything?
Is the queasy C sixth sense I got enduring this movie.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Pleasurably enjoying this movie. I mean, this is the thing.
Speaker 4 (10:09):
It's separating the art from the artist, but it's separating
like the movie from the facts.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
As a movie, it very much accomplishes its goal.
Speaker 3 (10:18):
And also, I think, even exactly as you were saying, Amy,
it actually, whether consciously or not, replicates kind of the
feeling of manically going down a conspiratorial rabbit hole, whether
or not the rabbit hole you're going down is true
or not, it has this manic energy, and I think
so much of it has to do with the editing,
(10:39):
Like which is the in fact the one or I
think one of two oscars at one is editing. I
was wondering if you have any you know, as an
actual expert, like, how do you feel technically? It accomplished
that general vibe where for three hours you just feel
like you are on an intellectual roller coaster.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
Yeah, you feel like you're on a ride.
Speaker 5 (10:56):
Right, you feel like you're on I don't know, the
tea cups at Disneyland getting spun and spar and spun around,
and the movie goes faster and faster, and then about
two thirds of the way through, you have Kevin Costner
delivering a recap to his own team. All right, here's
what's going on. You suddenly realize he's broken them. The
machine has broken down, and everybody's just staring at him,
like I can't handle this anymore. And I appreciate that
(11:17):
that Oliver Stone in the chaos of this movie builds
in moments where you realize, I understand, I'm taking this
a little bit too much. I've lost the jury when
I say this. I've lost my own team when I
say this, And yet don't we all just feel caught up?
Speaker 1 (11:32):
I mean, Oliver Soona.
Speaker 5 (11:33):
Says something really interesting, which is, once you start accepting
that maybe you've been lied to about anything in history,
then you start wondering if anything.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
In history is true.
Speaker 5 (11:45):
That he says of himself, you know, he grew up
in the forties and fifties, and that he would read
books on American history about Washington and Columbus in the
Civil War, and then as soon as he experienced history
and the shakiness of it, he began to doubt everything,
which I feel like is an idea that I didn't
understand when I was a child in the nineties who
believed most things.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
I was taught.
Speaker 5 (12:04):
But it's an understanding I definitely have now when we're
fighting over what history even gets taught period.
Speaker 4 (12:10):
I mean, my moment for that was when I, as
a super fan of Pocahontas, the animated film, watched a
History Channel special on the true story of Pocahontas and
found out that she was just a child who is
kidnapped and abused, and not like a gorgeous woman like
living independently.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
Are you thinking Disney's Pocahontas is not actually correct, I'm saying.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
That was the moment that I learned never to trust again.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
We should at some point give, you know, attempt to
give a synopsis of the movie. But while we're on
the topic of like American mythologies that we you know,
sour on and we realize our lives and everything, something
that is fascinating to me is that he's almost replacing
one mythology with another. There is a such a romantization
of JFK in this movie that actually feels weirdly, if
(13:03):
not conservative, then then almost more optimistic than what he's
trying to debunk. Does that make sense? I mean this
idea that the conspiracy centers around the idea that JFK
is such a pacifist and such a liberatory figure that
all the powerful forces in America had to band together
(13:23):
to eliminate him. I just don't necessarily think JFK was
some like left wing, you know, figure that was going
to usher in a completely different decade of prosperity or something.
Speaker 4 (13:35):
I mean, that's one of the big things from mister
x Donald Sutherland's incredible performance, by the way, like truly,
truly I watched it a few times because I just
could not believe how he just shows up and gives
this incredibly wordy dates and locations monologue and it all
(13:59):
gets through and he's so.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
Also is especially impactful because the rest of it is
so choppy. I'm not saying that in a negative way,
like it's intentionally just so choppy. And it's like fifteen
million frames per second. And then the Donald Sutherland part
is almost like the first time it slows down and
you hear someone talking and delivering a long monologue where
(14:21):
the camera isn't like shaking in front of their face,
and also cutting to like historical footage and also cutting
to Jackie in the car, and so there's it's really
framed in this way to give it even more gravitas
and to be like, this is the real truth, right.
Speaker 5 (14:35):
And he has that line in that whole area where
he says, Hey, this feeling that you're having of being
barraged by all of this facts, all of these names.
The thing that this movie is doing, the way that
the people in the country felt even at this moment,
is to keep you from asking the extra question, which
is why, yeah, we have so much information thrown at
us that just begins to feel like a shell game,
(14:55):
like a parlor game. But I also think that what
he's getting at here is, you know, Kennedy, I always say,
was like the first television president, right, the first person
who understood the power of the visual medium and blah
blah blah and the Checkers speech. And he was handsome
and Nixon was sweaty, you know, the whole thing. And
because we've all grown up in like a post JFK America,
I think it's really natural for us to see our
(15:18):
presidents as TV characters, you know, more than even like
political figures. But we're getting the natural outgrowth of that.
I was literally born under like a movie actor president,
and we don't need to talk about the current people.
But like, because of that, I think I have a
way of seeing JFK not as a person, but as
a character, you know, Like I grew up thinking of
JFK as Camelot, and then I heard that JFK was
(15:40):
just like a cheating adulterer who slept around and was
kind of ineffectual. And then there's this JFK who was
a totally different JFK to me, like a JFK who
actually could have accomplished great.
Speaker 1 (15:52):
Practical things and kept us out of a war.
Speaker 5 (15:54):
And it was just it's like three characters, you know,
the way that you were saying that you feel as
though we have giant argument to fighting at each other.
This movie feels like a mech suit of different JFK's
battling for control of the legacy.
Speaker 1 (16:07):
Yes, exactly.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
That's actually something that keeps coming up when we do
research into other elements of the Kennedy story is the
Kennedys as people are almost secondary to the Kennedys as symbols.
It's just like there's sort of a Rshac test for
how you feel about, you know, how you feel about
twentieth century American politics, how you feel about liberalism, how
you feel about Catholicism, how you feel about you know,
(16:31):
the media ecosystem and the publicity ecosystem, and power and
the American dream. And it's like, I think, the average
despite the fact that JFK is one of the most
recognizable historical figures in America, the average person could not
really tell you what his legacy is as a president.
Speaker 1 (16:50):
Really. I mean, I guess.
Speaker 3 (16:51):
People could think of like the Bay of Pigs and
the assassination, but like could the average person that has
really strong opinions about Reagan or about George W. Bush,
sure about Trump, like actually produced what was the what
the Kennedy doctrine was No, thanks thanks, Lara.
Speaker 4 (17:09):
But I think also because specifically in this the Sutherland
monologue where and this is like a common piece of
this type of JFK love and the conspiracy is that
they often cite that he was going.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
To sign.
Speaker 4 (17:30):
And that he was he was going to sign this,
or he was not going to sign it, and by
not signing it, they were going to get troops out
of Vietnam immediately, and they were not going.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
To have a war.
Speaker 4 (17:42):
And then because he died, Johnson signed it gave them
their war. And if not for this assassination, like everything
would have been different.
Speaker 1 (17:51):
And we would have no one would have died in
Vietnam and we would have had civil rights immediately.
Speaker 4 (17:56):
Like it's just like a total reimagining because the fact
is that he was signing it. He had a draft
made up two days before Dallas. So this movie is
(18:28):
about the only murder case that was brought to trial
concerning JFK's assassination, and it is the story of the
New Orleans DA Jim Garrison collecting information, finding witnesses, and
basically in real life we know that he would come
(18:50):
up with a story and then try to find people
to support that story. But in JFK, it's that he
is uncovering the conspiracy to kill Kennedy and frame Oswald.
Speaker 3 (19:06):
Yeah, he's uncovering the conspiracy that some combination of the
CIA slash American Intelligence Apparatus and various other people in
power and the mafia and various people involved in Cuba
came together to assassinate JFK because he was going to
(19:27):
be basically too progressive of a president.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
Yeah, he was going to stop the war and he was.
Speaker 3 (19:32):
Not hard enough on communism and so and as the
New Orleans DA, Kevin Costner is the only person that is,
you know, seeking out the truth. Everyone is against him.
He's dealing with all these people in great positions of
power that want to discredit him. He in fact does
a solid job of proving that his theory is correct,
and despite that, he loses a trial. And you know,
(19:53):
the movie ends with this like plea that it's the
next generations that are going to keep seeking the truth.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (19:58):
It he is seen as almost this no he right,
like he enters the courtroom with this case against a
figure it named clay Bertram slash Clay Shaw, who's played
by Tommy Lee Jones, who he knows he doesn't have
that strong of an actual case specifically about him, you know.
But it's more like he just wants to get this
entire story on the record because he's really imagining himself
as like a figure in the court of public opinion.
(20:20):
He wants to get this all down. He wants to
get it in testimony. He wants people to be aware
of this. He wants the zup root of footage to
be out there so that even if his generation won't actually,
you know, stand for the principles that he thinks America
has has lost in terms of trusting that our government
won't lie to us, may maybe our future will live
in a much clearer news environment, which clearly did not
(20:41):
come to pass, even though his idea of the court
of public opinion definitely did.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
Mm hm. I mean that is the even on.
Speaker 4 (20:47):
The first viewing where I was totally sold, if I'm
being honest, when we get to the verdict and I
think we're supposed to be shocked and appalled and heart
broken that he's found not guilty, but even within the movie,
you're like, well, what are you proving him being guilty
of in court? You know, he really just has like
(21:10):
second hand stories. He doesn't have evidence, like tying clay Shaw.
Speaker 5 (21:15):
To it, right, he's basically tugging on that lie, right,
like you to believe you've been lied about one thing,
maybe later you'll believe you're lied to about the rest
of it.
Speaker 4 (21:24):
The other part of the real story is that Garrison
didn't have like a great reputation in the end for
being of sane mind.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
I mean, I don't like to say that, but just
that he had.
Speaker 4 (21:38):
There's like quotes of him saying that this was a
sexual thrill kill and he was just kind of like
throwing together anybody that he could find in New Orleans
that was part of any kind of underbelly.
Speaker 3 (21:51):
And yeah, I mean it's also, of course, when the
narrative is that everyone is out to get him and
everyone is out to discredit him. When that is the narrative,
than anything you hear against him almost like fits into that.
And then it makes you, if you're on his side,
let's say, it makes you even more conspiratorial because you're
like Oh, look, the media is in on it, and
the newspapers are in on it, and Shaw is in
(22:15):
fact controlling the public narrative, and so which is in
fact like one of the elements of conspiratorial thinking is
how self perpetuating. It is like, once you consider yourself
to be part of a community that is truth seeking
against all odds, than anything that is being set against
you is like further proof that you are correct and
(22:37):
that you are getting closer to the truth. I want
to sort of talk a little bit amy about the
way this was received at the time and where it
fits into Oliver Stone's filmography and Oliver Stones specifically like
work as a chronicler of American power and corruption. It
feels like a movie like this if it were released now,
(22:59):
it would be seen as so you know, quote unquote irresponsible,
like with the current conspiracy culture that exists at the time.
There were definitely detractors, but it was, you know, a
critical hit. It was nominated for Oscars. What would you say?
The immediate response was.
Speaker 5 (23:15):
Well, the Jack Villinti, who ran the NBA, the most
measured Picture Association of America. He likened it to Lenny
Riefenstahl's triumph of the Will. So there was also some
pretty strong detractors who were going after the film very,
very harshly.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
You know, there were a lot of people who were alive.
Speaker 5 (23:33):
Of course, to witness this whole trial go down, and
they came into the movie with very strong opinions about
Garrison the way that I'm sure years from now we're
going to have really strong opinions if somebody ever does
a movie about, you know, James Comey. And so a
lot of the immediate reaction was like, you're leaving out
everything about this guy, you know. In Stone's rebuttals to
that was like, well, if I really made this a
movie about Jim Garrison and all of his flaws, then
(23:54):
the film becomes a biography, it becomes smaller, and I
think that that takes the focus off of the larger issue.
But then you also have to say, you're casting Kevin
Costner at one of the peaks of his career, you know,
a pre water World Kevin Costner, when everybody was in
love with him, including my mother, and you're gonna think, yeah, Garrison,
totally reasonable guy, perhaps the greatest living American, you know.
(24:15):
And so it's interesting, like I find movies like this
that challenge the audience honestly by asking us to be
aware that every movie we ever go see is at
some point a film with an agenda, is at some
point not going to tell the truth. That fiction actually
can never recreate the truth exactly, it's impossible. There's a
(24:39):
really fantastic documentary by Noam Chomsky with Michelle gondikelt Is
The Man who is Tall Happy that's about almost this
like paradox of absolute zero. You can never make a
fictional recreation of anything that is the truth. And yet
we live in a world where it always gets shaky
and people are obligated to say, like, depiction is not endorsement.
And I think this is a film that, to me,
(25:00):
regardless of what you feel about JFK in the present,
regardless of how much people even think about JFK, speaks
to our common crisis that we're all in right now
about not knowing what to believe. And it's almost like
a vaccine or an inoculation, right Like, can you watch
this movie trusting that it's okay that it has an agenda?
Speaker 4 (25:21):
You know?
Speaker 1 (25:21):
Because I think, honestly every film should have an agenda.
Why are you even bother making it.
Speaker 5 (25:24):
You know, I want minecraft to have an agenda, even
if that agenda is just like make kids really excited
and throw popcorn around.
Speaker 3 (25:31):
Yeah, no, completely, And I think that is I mean,
I think it's also about almost respecting your audience in
that way, like I think you can trust that they
can draw the different conclusions than you do, but still
appreciate the way you told the story and the way
you put forth an argument.
Speaker 5 (25:49):
Exactly like Oliver Stone thought that if he could get
free things across, he would be content, and those three
things are not pleased by everything in this conspiracy. But
it's a I want to prove that Oswald was actually
anti communist or at least hung around with anti communist people.
B I want you guys to know that there were
doctors being getting bossed around by military officers in the autopsy.
(26:11):
That that is a fact, and I just need that
on the record. And see really putting the zapruder footage
on a big screen, because isn't that impactful? Like I
found that really astonishing. You know, when JFKA get shot
at the beginning, it's represented by a flock of birds.
Two hours and forty five minutes in the movie, you
see his actual death, and after talking about it for
(26:31):
minutes and minutes and minutes and minutes, it's such a
breakneck speed. For some reason, watching it then hit me
harder than I think it's ever hit me.
Speaker 4 (26:39):
Yeah, I had very similar experience where it felt like
the most gruesome thing I've seen. And I've seen it before,
but it really is hard to watch and it is
a shock every time, and then especially the way they
do it with like repeating it over and over again.
And I always think about either Jackie OH said the
(27:00):
or somebody said it after speaking to Jackie O, or
describing what she does in the zeppid Or film is
that she jumps to the back and reaches for parts
of JFK's head.
Speaker 1 (27:13):
She reaches to get them and collect them.
Speaker 4 (27:17):
It's such an human response that's not based in logic,
and so like watching that over and over again really
struck me.
Speaker 5 (27:26):
I love that description of it because I think that's
something that's really easy to miss when we look back
at history, that things don't always add up because we're
flailing and figuring out the best time. I mean, I
could just imagine being in that moment and thinking like,
let me grab for my husband's brains.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
Maybe I can fix this mm.
Speaker 3 (27:45):
Yeah, it's interesting that, you know, compared to other biopic
like depictions of the Kennedy's that go to great lengths
to have these long speeches or you know, show Jackie
with the blood on her dress and all this stuff,
like the impact of just that tiny moment being played
over and over again is actually can be so much
(28:05):
more meaningful than you know, an entire two hour movie
that's like about her staring into the distance and mourning
her her husband.
Speaker 5 (28:13):
Yeah, and I found it so touching. As soon as
the assassination happens, you see Americans in this movie running
to a bar where they know that there's a TV
to sit together. Like the idea of I feel like
right now, I spent a lot of time witnessing what
feels like epic tragedy is alone on my couch, on
my cell phone, and the idea that you could sit
(28:33):
with your community, even if some of your community is
clapping because they're happy JFK Is dead, which wow, you
know it really it really affected me.
Speaker 1 (28:44):
It was interesting how in that scene there was actually
relative civility in the bar, Like in my mind when
I imagine how people of different political views react to
I don't know, a Trump executive order or something. I
don't imagine people like yelling at the TV, but then
ultimately remaining civil and consuming it communally. There was something
(29:06):
about which is of course.
Speaker 3 (29:07):
The difference between consuming information remotely and consuming it physically
together in the same space, Like you have no choice
but to exist communally with your fellow person, and it
would it takes much more like courage or something to
actually start like yelling or fighting in real life. I
wanted to go back to just in terms of your
(29:28):
relationship with Oliver Stone, like how what do you think
of him as a filmmaker and how do you think
this fits into his filmography?
Speaker 4 (29:35):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (29:35):
I think he's vital, passionate and frustrating. I have a
soft spot in my heart for filmmakers who stirs it up.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
Can I say stirshit up on this? Yes? Yeah?
Speaker 5 (29:47):
Okay, because how else are you going to describe Oliver Stone?
That's what he does. This is a guy who went
to war when he was young, grew up or grew
cynical super fast, and then wanted to translate his experience
to the screen.
Speaker 1 (30:00):
A ton of powerful movies.
Speaker 5 (30:02):
I think Born on the fourth of July, a movie
he made right before this with Tom Cruise, is one
of the better things anybody's ever made about war, and
it's also one of the better Tom Cuse performances. So
I don't know what I think about Oliver Stone as
a human being, because I try to really keep that
out of the movie themselves.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
But I think that people like.
Speaker 5 (30:22):
Him who use the power of cinema to put a
hot laser beam on things they want us to be
talking about. I love them even when they make people mad,
you know, even when they make me mad. And so this,
to me feels like one of the ultimate Oliver Stone movies.
Although I have to say, on a tiny side note,
when he made The Doors, my boyfriend was a gigantic
(30:44):
Doors fan, went to go see it as a kid
and was so furious he went outside and like lit
a cassette tape on fire and started screaming.
Speaker 1 (30:52):
So that's just the effect Oliver Stone has on people.
Speaker 4 (30:56):
Well, my personal experience with this one is that I
am from Tennessee and some of the accents are phenomenal,
and I feel like a lot of the cast, like
you know, a lot of the cast already has accents
or Southern accents, and it's like Sissy's Basic and Tommy
Lee Jones and they're making these like kind of like
subtle adjustments to fit the region.
Speaker 1 (31:18):
And I really love that.
Speaker 4 (31:19):
And I actually find that Costner's accent is like very reserved,
and I did really like it. But I hate to
say it, but like John Candy's accent is really rough.
Speaker 1 (31:32):
He's from Canada. You can't you can't, you know, blame him.
Speaker 4 (31:35):
Also, I read that he was sweating profusely the entire
time they were filming because he was so nervous to
be in a dramatic film, and that that was just
real sweat.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
Oh that's so funny.
Speaker 3 (31:45):
I mean everything about it seems so intentional, to be honest,
even the accent being insane.
Speaker 1 (31:50):
I thought it just adds to the character. Well, that's
the thing.
Speaker 4 (31:53):
Also, is it like when Joe Peshi first shows up
and you're like, is that a bad wig?
Speaker 1 (31:57):
On the productions?
Speaker 4 (31:59):
I mean the eyebrows, yeah, But then towards the end
you realize, like, no, it's a bad wig because he
wore a bad wig and now we're going to show
you how bad it is. Like he starts tearing, like
pulling it and moving it around while he's like having
his episode. And here's the thing, though, the same way
(32:33):
that there's the idealized JFK memory being presented, I feel
like there's like a lot of southernisms that are thrown in.
Some of them I've never heard of before in my life,
and I don't know if Oliver Stone got them from
anyone that he knows or what, but it's like they're
really trying to remind you that these are simple Southern,
(32:55):
good Americans and they don't take no crap from no
But I wrote down some of them that I really liked.
But I think my favorite one that I never heard
before is her reputation's lower than crocodile piss, which I.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
Will be like using for the rest of my life.
But the one that like, really.
Speaker 4 (33:14):
The one that really took me out of it, though,
is that when they're talking about the magic bullet, and
he says theoretical physicists can also prove that an elephant
can hang off a cliff with its tail tattoo a daisy.
Speaker 3 (33:27):
I actually think the sort of florid nature of the
Southern people as imagined by as imagined by Oliver Stone,
kind of adds to the weirdly fictionalized, almost like dreamscape vibe.
Speaker 1 (33:42):
Of the movie.
Speaker 3 (33:43):
Like when you're in a courtroom and someone is speaking
like that and they're saying, theoretical physicists can prove that
an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail
tied to a daisy. You're sort of like, Okay, we're
in this kind of like suspended world, and I don't
have to fully believe this conspiracy theory to engage with it,
Like I actually think it sort of helps put you
(34:03):
in a you know, in a reality that's halfway between
truth and fiction.
Speaker 5 (34:09):
Right, we are all Joe Peshy's wig, feeling like we're
sliding off of it, exactly as a girl who grew
up in Texas. If we want to talk about presidents
creating characters or politicians creating characters, do not get me
started on George W. Bush in his Texas accent, or
most people who moved to Texas and suddenly reinvent themselves
as a real American.
Speaker 1 (34:27):
Oh my goodness. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (34:29):
And then the other thing that I kept noticing, I
didn't know if anybody else had seen it. Pes she
keeps playing with people's nipples and it's like a character choice.
Speaker 3 (34:38):
Yeah, actually, you know, Pesche playing with everyone's nipples is
a great segue into the the depiction of like the
homosexual underground then.
Speaker 1 (34:52):
Underbelly, Yes, Kevin Bacon, Yes, that.
Speaker 3 (34:55):
Is depicted in this film, which I know I'm supposed
to be offended by, but I have to say I've
found it to be so fun and like the scenes
of them, you know, having the sort of like weird
sex parties where one of them is covered head to
toe in gold paint and the other.
Speaker 1 (35:11):
One is dressed like what was it. I'm trying to think.
Speaker 3 (35:17):
Thing.
Speaker 5 (35:17):
Yeah, well, and they've clearly got a lot of time
on their hands to put on that gold paint and
then wash it off. That gold paint. They clearly could
be planning a conspiracy.
Speaker 4 (35:26):
I loved Tommy Lee Jones in this movie, and I
wanted to hang out with them. The character, but he's
definitely in that cinematic gay villain. I don't know if
it starts with Peter Lorie, but he's definitely doing like
a kind of Maltese falcon Peter Lori.
Speaker 3 (35:41):
It's a very you know, Javier Bardem in that Bond
movie where he's very clearly like gay coded. Although I
will say one thing, and maybe this is just because
I love Tommy Lee Jones, but I felt like you
could argue that it's written in a kind of latantly
homophobic way. But I actually think the performance is a
very lost portrayal of a closeted gay man. Like I
(36:04):
think he's not going over the top, he's not going
super flamboyant in this very kind of stereotypical way. I
really think there's like a dare I say, a quiet
dignity to the performance.
Speaker 4 (36:16):
No, yes, I because I think he also he rides
this line of is it that he's hiding this or
is it that he's actually being quite condescending mm hmm
to the people around him who don't get it.
Speaker 3 (36:32):
Yes, And I think that is a there's a there's
a certain mix of like self loathing and also narcissism
that is a speake from experience often unique to gay
man and I honestly think that like that is portrayed
in such a clear way, and it's actually very difficult
(36:52):
to get right.
Speaker 1 (36:53):
Gosh, it is so wild because like when this came out,
there was backlash h.
Speaker 3 (36:57):
Yes, no, absolutely, which of course, I you know, of
course you get when there's like a you know, a
group of kind of like slightly gross, sexually perverse gay
men that are basically in charge of murdering the president
because he's because he wants to end war.
Speaker 4 (37:15):
You know, I will say, Kevin Bacon, Tommily Jones, not gross, No,
not at all.
Speaker 1 (37:20):
They're very, very handsome. In this movie, Did.
Speaker 5 (37:22):
You wish that the wife, Sissy Spacek, you know who,
is kind of establishing that Jim Garrison's the opposite of
all that he's a married man with five children that
he barely has enough time to hang out with. She
has that tiny little dig at him, like are you
going after this man because you're big at it?
Speaker 1 (37:38):
Because you're homophobic?
Speaker 5 (37:41):
And I was kind of I kind of wanted the
film to dig into that just a little bit more,
like is that it all part of it? Because it
lets him shrug it off really easily. But I think
people at the time thought that that was the case,
that he was basically bringing these charges against the Tommily
Jones character to make him say on the record in
front of America that he was out of the clock.
Speaker 1 (38:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (38:01):
I actually thought that that was part of a larger
character choice to not make him overtly chauvinistic and super masculine.
Speaker 1 (38:11):
You would expect a character.
Speaker 3 (38:12):
Like that, especially in the movie that is so like
that really wears its arguments on its sleeve.
Speaker 1 (38:17):
You would expect a character like that to be so
much more abrasive.
Speaker 3 (38:20):
And there's something about Costner's performance that's actually like relatively
understated considering the movie he's in.
Speaker 5 (38:27):
Yeah, I would agree with that. He's almost more of
just an interviewer passing the mic around to hear other
crazy people talk. Because there are performances in this that
are massive to your point. I mean, we didn't even
get in John Candy saying the word daddio like this happens.
You've got Joe Peshi with mice everywhere in his apartment
because he's trying to work on a cure for cancer.
I mean, you get the sense that Costner's Jim Garrison
(38:49):
is a guy who's just sort of quiet with his
own Roman empire that's keeping him up at night, right,
and these are all the caligulas making his life interesting.
Speaker 4 (38:58):
Yeah, to me, it's almost the comparison of what the
response was then to how we see it now.
Speaker 1 (39:06):
I feel like is a.
Speaker 4 (39:08):
Sign of like progress in acknowledging and accepting and enjoying
that there are complex gay characters and that it's not
just an automatic that you have to be a good
guy if you're a gay character, or else it's an attack.
Speaker 1 (39:26):
Yeah, no, I agree.
Speaker 3 (39:27):
I was because I knew that it had this sort
of reputation in this criticism, I expected it to be
much more.
Speaker 1 (39:33):
I don't know, bother some or something. Let's see it.
Speaker 3 (39:36):
Why or should we go into sort of final questions? Well,
first of all, Amy, our first question for our last
question for you is who killed JFK.
Speaker 1 (39:43):
Well, I don't know.
Speaker 5 (39:44):
What the scarier answer would be. I mean, coming out
of this movie, you get two options. A either believe
it one ass asked and can change the world, or
be you believe that a very powerful president cannot change
the world it will wind up getting murdered. Oh gosh,
I don't want to be to goolag by anybody, But
I don't think Oswald acted alone.
Speaker 1 (40:03):
Oh me, yeah, I think we can all agree there.
Oh okay, good awesome.
Speaker 5 (40:07):
I get it's when you talk about conspiracy and then
you believe it a little part of the conspiracy.
Speaker 1 (40:11):
Don't you feel like you're insane? Yes?
Speaker 4 (40:14):
Well, and I'm also I cannot tell you how many
times I've been there's kind of like a an ongoing
joke about like when you meet like new mom friends
and you have to kind of subtly at first see
if they're anti VAXX or not. You're just like kind
of checking out the vibes in the beginning, like right.
(40:35):
But that's how I have felt talking about JFK with people,
is that I'm like, well, but I can see this,
and then by the end you're all just like, yes,
of course, and there was a second shooter at least
that you know, And it's like every single person I
think is on the same page with that once you
get down to it.
Speaker 3 (40:55):
Yeah, you know, I would honestly love to see more
big directors tackle what happened with the JFA assassination. It's
one every year, Yeah, like when every year, just seventeen
in a row, and then we'll decide which one is
the best one in terms of the actual theory and
which one is the best one in terms of the filmmaking,
because I actually think, you know, do I think this
(41:16):
movie is very explicitly spreading unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Yes, but
do I think it's sort of like the right instinct
to question the official learner of a history. Also, Yes,
so you know, let's fund I don't know Darren Aronofsky's JFK.
Let's actually not do that.
Speaker 1 (41:33):
But you know, it's just an idea. Who would do
the best JFK assassinations? Oh that's a great question.
Speaker 4 (41:40):
Oh.
Speaker 5 (41:40):
The first thing in my head was I want the
comb brothers to get back together so they can do it.
Speaker 1 (41:43):
I do think that, yes, that would be the right reference,
that's their homework.
Speaker 4 (41:49):
But who would do the most truthful or most accurate?
Does anyone come to mind that, like, does like extremely
accurate but powerful period pieces?
Speaker 1 (41:57):
Or I mean, I don't know about accurate.
Speaker 3 (42:00):
But you know, Scorsese is in a sort of you know,
has done morally nuanced historical films.
Speaker 5 (42:08):
You know, I feel like this guy's version of it
will get maybe a little closer to Oliver Stone one.
But the director that I thought really captured this idea
of fiction nailing the truth better than the truth does
is David Chisel, with the movie Babylon, which got the
chaos of Silent Film exactly right, even though we got
the year right. I think his film feels like it's
very nineteen nineteen, but he's trying to say it in
(42:29):
like nineteen twenty seven anyways, like the idea of making
a movie where you're like, here's the truth, but it
also has orgies and elephants and fire breathers and all
sorts of mania. Yeah, and yet that is closer to
the Silent Film and how it felt to that era
of like wild people coming to La inventing a new
form of art and just being the outcasts with a
new dream than almost anything I've ever seen that tried
(42:51):
to get it right and does it too soberly.
Speaker 2 (42:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (42:53):
No, I do think focusing on the chaos of it
is the right way to go rather than being like,
who is you know, who is a meticulous enough filmmaker
to get.
Speaker 1 (43:02):
The truth exactly right? Like, you know, give it to
boz Luhrman, Yeah, boz Larman's JFK. Okay.
Speaker 3 (43:08):
Well, speaking of buzz Larwin's JFK. As we wrap up, Amy,
I was wondering, what are your favorite Kennedy related pieces
of pop culture and films and everything else? We Lyra
and I have a real soft spot for Grey Gardens,
and I also recently watched House of Yes for the
first time.
Speaker 1 (43:27):
I mean, Grey.
Speaker 5 (43:27):
Gardens is fantastic. I don't know if you can pick
a better choice than that, but I really came to
admire the Natalie Portman take on Jackie because I never
quite vibed with Natalie Portman often as an actress, But
when you cast her in a role where she's playing
somebody incredibly aware of what her image is in trying
to keep it together for everyone else's sake and doing
(43:49):
a bad job, that's the lane that I love Natalie
Portman in. And I felt like that movie. Even if
I don't necessarily think it's a proper synergy of either
one of those women individually, her or Jackie O, I
do think it captures a venn diagram of them really well.
Speaker 1 (44:06):
Well, thank you so much for joining us today. This
was so fun. Oh my pleasure always down to get
conspiratorial with y'all. Thank you so much, Amie. So that's
it for this week's episode.
Speaker 3 (44:17):
Next week, we're diving into the life of Rosemary Kennedy
with historian Kate Clifford Larsen, author of the biography.
Speaker 1 (44:24):
Rosemary, the hidden Kennedy daughter. So subscribe and follow United
States
Speaker 4 (44:28):
Of Kennedy for all things Kennedy every week,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!