JFK (1991) MOVIE REVIEW

“JFK” is a three (3) hour American conspiracy-thriller film directed by Oliver Stone that
was released in December of year 1991. This fictional movie is typically based on the historic
attacked and assassination of the late U.S President John F. Kennedy and in which I find the
movie educational and informative. Though I must say it is quite overwhelming that such movie
might led to an opposite realization and somehow take the wrong idea far away from the real
truth or it might as well be the real thing. Either way, the movie really focuses on the main
character Jim Garrison who is a New Orleans District Attorney in the search to reveal the culprit
and the theory behind the plot.
The whole movie opens with some footages of the outgoing President Dwight D.
Eisenhower and after which some footages of John F. Kennedy’s years as president, including his
achievements and the event that shows his assassination. The movie then shifted its sequence to
Atty. Jim Garrison which later on acquires some potential links and evidence to the assassination.
Garrison strongly believes that the murder of JFK was not the work of one man. At that time, Lee
Harvey Oswald was the only suspect presented to have killed JFK. This does not convince
Garrison. He finds Warren’s report impossible to believe, because of the physical evidence that
it is impossible of a one man with one rifle could physically have cause that history event
occurred on November 22, 1963, in Dallas. Because of that impossibility, it leads to his
conclusion that it must have been done by two or more culprit. Therefor, there was a conspiracy.
Garrison was not able to sleep very well not until three (3) years after, that he form a team and
reopened the case. His team gathers several witnesses and information to the assassination of
JFK and those others who are likely connected to Oswald, Ruby, and Ferrie. A name Willie
O’Keefe as one of their witness, who is a prisoner, reveals that he have witnessed Ferrie
discussing a coup d’etat and sworn that he have met Oswald and was romantically involved with
Clay Shaw. Garrison and his team also have gathered witnesses who have witnessed the shot
from different angle and in which they have discovered that some witnesses were threatened by
some secret service to alter there testimony. As they encounter hardships as they search deeper to
the case, Garrison meets a high-profile informant who want to be identify as “X”. In the movie,
X gave his informational background about his works and what he have personally gained
through the years in which he is now bound to reveal the same. He have told Garrison that he
believes that a conspiracy was made at the highest level of government, the CIA, Mafia, the
secret service, FBI and the vice president and the latter President (Johnson) as either co-
conspirators or as having motives to cover up the truth of the assassination. X further explain the
reason behind the conspiracy and encourage Garisson to investigate deeper and prosecute the
alleged involvement of the businessman Clay Shaw. Garrison open-mindedly accept the advice
and without delay interrogate Shaw. Ofcourse, Shaw denies all allegations that he have met
Ferrie, O’Keefe or Oswald. Garrison without fail charge the businessman with conspiracy in and
its involvement in killing JFK.
As the days goes by, as Garrison and his team face problems and threats, the team begun
to crumble and injected doubts in Garrison’s motives and disagree with his methods and while
the others decides to quit the team. Garrison’s marriage was also put to test. Thereafter, Garrison
selfishly attacks Shaw saying that he is a homosexual. The media was heated and launched
attacks to Garrison, through papers and television, about his character and criticize him as
insane. Some of the witnesses' that Garrison and the team have gathered become scared and later
on refuse to testify, while the others were suspiciously killed.
Not for to long, the trial of Clay Shaw took place where in Garrison presented to the court
all the collected evidence and convince the court that there are multiple killers behind the
assassination of JFK. Garrison also explained the “single bullet theory” by proposing the
scenario in the open court with video recorded tape presented and deliberate the possibility that
there were four total shots made behind the assassination. But in the end, the jury find Shaw not
guilty.

ISSUES
 In the few part clips of the movie, i’ve seen some irregularities in their judicial system
and which tend to raise a good point of issue like whether or not Oswald had a good legal
representation? Did Garrison acted in good moral, as a lawyer, while searching for the truth?
and Lastly, did the Jury’s final decision of acquitting Shaw is just?

In the movie, it was only shown that after the assassination of JFK, only Lee Harvey
Oswald was the primary suspect of the case. The movie, shows some clips of photos of the arrest
of Oswald and few media clips in which Oswald denies the allegation that he killed JFK. Their
are no formal transcript or record wast kept of statements made by the alleged killer. It was also
said that no tape recordings and many notes taken of his statements and remarks were totally
destroyed. But how did such thing happened, when such recordings are important especially in a
case like this that people wants to see and hear. Also the very moment he was arrested, few clips
showed that he was interrogated without a lawyer and was deprived of proper counsel. Every
moment he appeared before the reporters, he cries about of not having a counsel on his behalf.
Let us not forget that a defendant have rights given by the constitution. One of the rights, is the
right of counsel and a right to be assisted by a lawyer in all criminal proceedings. If the
defendant cannot afford a lawyer, the government is required to appoint a lawyer and pay
defendant’s legal expenses on his behalf. I truly believe their is suspicious truth underlying the
assassination of JFK.
I critically say that the movie was intelligently made and was able to deliver a story that
most likely to change history. I’d say that the main character (Garrison) was made to be a
symbol, an iconic symbol, who is the only person who is strong enough to bring himself to the
court and is confident enough to accuse high profile individuals and groups to involve in the
murder of late U.S President John F. Kennedy. The plot of the story, the editing, scenery, music
and the whole movie itself is a masterpiece. Though there are ambiguous part of the movie,
especially on the presentation of evidence and Garrison’s investigation, that leads to the link of
Shaw and Oswald, seems a little bit messed up. I also find Garrison’s character to leave an
impression that he is irresponsible, foolish and impulsive to attack Shaw and destroy him in a
way that it would affect Shaw’s innocency by claiming that Shaw is gay. Definitely, this kind of
attack is irrelevant to convict the defendant and is most likely prejudice the reputation of Shaw.
It is important to remember that one of the lawyer’s duty is that a lawyer must abstain from all
offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor and reputation of a party or
witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charge. But I really admire
the zeal of Garrison in not giving up the case despite all negative controversies thrown at him.
He continue to stand firm of his belief and ideals in revealing the truth.

The Jury’s conclusion to the trial is only just. Though Garrison’s evidence was strongly
presented and was able to somehow clear the questionable events of the case, still Garrison had
not in fact proven that there was really a conspiracy to kill the late President JFK and that he had
not adequately linked such conspiracy to Shaw or proven any motive thereof. I believe every
juror has its own opinion regarding the conclusion they’ve made in the trial. I must personally
say, if I am one of the Juror, I’d send a verdict of the same. Conspiracy needs to be proven
beyond reasonable doubt and the testimonies presented did’t even prove anything at all. I am also
doubtful to the testimony of Russo in which he claims that the conspiracy occurred in a party.
What if it was just a crap, talking non-sense like drank people always do. There should be atleast
evidence presented that like an agreement or plan was made and they shall altogether commit
the crime. But unfortunately , the evidence presented by Garrison could not be given probable
value to convict Shaw. Though in later part of the movie, it was shown that indeed Shaw is
connected with the CIA, but it was too late now to use it as evidence.
I believe that the movie is not about Garrison’s Theory, whether it is right or wrong, but
the movie envision that somehow and someday the truth will emerge, and someone might be
strong enough to continue finding the truth behind the historical assassination of John F.
Kennedy. The case might be old but it continues to inspire interest to young ones from various
speculations and bizarre conspiracy theories as knowledge expands thru time. That is why let’s
us not make justice be silent to the dead. The dead cannot cry out for justice. It is the duty of the
living to do so for them. A sin may be forgiven but it shall not be forgotten and that is why
justice should be given regardless of time.

Reviewed by: Shenilyn S. Mendoza