On November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy is assassinated in Dallas, Texas. When the media begins reporting on Lee Harvey Oswald’s arrest and his past history in Louisiana, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison instructs his team to dig around. When they find a potential co-conspirator, the FBI publicly deny any connection to their case. This puts a chip on Garrison’s shoulder, which he carries for the next three years. When he reads the Warren Report, the U.S. Government’s official report on the assassination, he is dumbfounded by the number of inaccuracies and general poor-investigative hygiene littered through the volumes. Garrison reopens the investigation into Oswald’s potential co-conspirators in New Orleans, leading down a dark and winding path to unravel a conspiracy that stretches from the military industrial complex to President Johnson. Along the way, he struggles to maintain the respect of his wife, members of his team, and his constituents, as well as ensure his safety. The film concludes in a trial—for the conspiracy to murder the President—the only trial every held for the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
To start with the good, “JFK” features a super-star cast and they’re each acting their assess off. I mean, seriously, this film was the “Avengers Endgame” of middle/old aged white men drama actors, and they did their thing with care. I thought the film was tense at times, and I appreciated the claustrophobic cinematography, frantic editing, and regal, at times chaotic score. I think the film was noble in its attempt to force Americans to reckon with the role this country has played in toppling governments, buying our way out of the Cold War with military spending, and the government’s attempts to subvert the will of the American people—all resonate still, today.
On the flip side, I couldn’t really get into the flick. It just happens sometimes! Just because a subject matter is compelling or mysterious doesn’t mean that it translates to a good story, or interesting characters. Costner’s Jim Garrison, as a main character, is the embodiment of the interview answer, “my weakness is that I care too much and work too hard.” He undergoes no transformation other than to become increasingly obsessive, and less disciplined as a lawyer. Early on, he criticizes the legal/detective work on the assassination, but by the end, even I could tell he didn’t really have a case by courtroom standards. And yet, despite this character arc, he is carried as the film’s hero (which is always weird when the real-life subject consults on the film—the real Garrison even cameoed as Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren). It felt like the whole purpose of the film was to stage Stone/Garrison’s narrative of the assassination in a captivating way, and button it with a monologue on the average citizen’s responsibility to challenge government and thwart the military industrial complex’s descent into fascism. I agree with this message, and I enjoyed the closing monologue (and a chilling, fourth-wall breaking moment when Costner sort of stares into the camera—because “we” are all the jury), but I didn’t find the 3+ hour runtime worthy of a hunch.