Oliver Stone's JFK Assassination

On November 22, 1963 the President of the United States, John F. Kennedy was assassinated and killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Oliver Stone’s JFK portrays New Orleans District Attorney, Jim Garrison, and his quest to find the truth behind the assassination of JFK. Along the way, Garrison is shown finding substantial evidence that he believes changes the entire conclusion of the Warren Commision thus disproving that Oswald was the sole killer. The film goes on to “prove” that the entire assassination was a plot created by military branches in the government in order to increase the budget for military purposes. The conspiracy links the assassination to even higher forms of the United States Government. All because Kennedy sought a peaceful end to

the Cold War and wished to pull troops out of Vietnam and Cuba, thus angering the CIA, FBI, and the Military Complex. However, no matter how convincing the movie is there are a substantial amount of flaws located in the point that the movie is trying to make. Leading to the conclusion that JFK was a very innacurate movie because, many of the characters are over exaggerated or in some cases fake, evidence provided in the Warren Commission is ignored, and many events are also dramatized.
A major reason why JFK was an inaccurate movie is because of the exaggerated portrayal of certain characters.

One example of an exaggerated character would be Oliver Stone’s portrayal of New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw. In the movie, Garrison talks about Shaw having connections with the CIA which is very suspicious in his opinion, and since he was involved with the CIA, he had more reason and ability to assist in the assassination. In reality, the Cia did release statements that Shaw was involved in CIA functions, but not as described in the movie. Since Shaw was a businessman he often traveled to areas of the world that were under communist control. So in conclusion, he was brought in merely as a consultant for the CIA.The movie continues to falsify Shaw’s personal life by continuously stating that he is a very active homosexual which in the 1930’s was a very shameful and in some cases illegal lifestyle to lead. Shaw’s sexuality has never been proved to be homosexual or non-homosexual therefore not giving the movie evidence enough to prove that he was homosexual. Another important fact about Shaws’s overall character is that he was a highly decorated War Hero as a result of his service in World War II. Oliver Stone’s JFK depicts Shaw as a monster who is obsessed with sexual deviances as well as the murder of President Kennedy when in reality he was very active in his community and helped the local economy of New Orleans. Another example of how JFK is an inaccurate movie is the portrayal of “Mr. X” or more commonly know as Leroy Fletcher Prouty. In the movie “Mr. X” is portrayed as being an all knowing character who knows the true motive of JFK’s assassination and how the government at the highest levels was involved. This portrayal of Prouty is very inaccurate in the sense that Prouty was crazy to some extent. Prouty believed very firmly in the fact that the holocaust was not real as well as the fact that L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, had magic

healing powers that the government ignored in their assessment of his military service. Prouty makes up the backbone of Stone’s argument that Kennedy’s assassination has to do with a conspiracy when in fact, the man believed against historical fact and more into myth or speculation. Another example of the poor depiction of characters would be Willie O’ Keefe. Stone depicts O'Keefe as a homosexual male prostitute, in the movie he makes the connection between Shaw and David Ferrie. This connection becomes the basis of the argument that Shaw is homosexual and that he is associated with the likes of Ferrie and Oswald who was once a student in one of Ferries air force classes. In reality, O’Keefe is a fictional character composed of multiple case files or in other words an amalgamation. O’Keefe is a false character that “provides” evidence of Shaw's connection to the likes of Oswald. Since he is not a factual character, a major flaw is revealed in Stone’s conclusion of Shaw’s guiltiness.
Furthermore, JFK was inaccurate because it ignored evidence that was provided in the Warren Commission. The movie talks about three homeless men that were found outside of where Kennedy was assassinated, they were described as “tramps”. In JFK Stone speculates greatly to show that they were dressed to nice to be “Tramps” and that they clearly had something to do with the assassination as either helpers or killers themselves. In addition to this being stated in the movie, the Warren Commission talks about the tramps and describes them as being dressed just a homeless person or “Tramp” would have been. Furthermore Jean Hills, a spectator, is shown in the film claiming that she identifies Jack Ruby in the crowd in a pickup truck seemingly waiting for someone. In reality, her story changes several times and no decision is decidedly accurate until photographs prove that the man was just a spectator. Another example of the movie ignoring facts was Beverly Oliver’s further claims. She first claimed that she worked for Jack Ruby who introduce her to Shaw, Oswald, and David Ferrie. She then goes on to claim that she is the lady in pictures that is shown wearing a scarf and taking pictures of the parade. The movie includes and dramatizes her first claim of meeting with Ruby, Shaw, Oswald, and Ferrie yet, Stone did not mention that she also made alleged claims to being a mystery woman.
Stone’s last major flaw in creating an inaccurate movie would be the amount of dramatization that is poured into otherwise non-fictional events. An example of this would be going back to Jean Hills’ testimony. In the movie she claims that mysterious take her away and harass her when questioning her. She makes claims that she is handled difficulty and that her claims of the man she identifies are ignored and she is being convinced that she is wrong. However, evidence from the Warren Commission shows her talking about how she was escorted from the premises in a calm manner and she is treated quite nicely. When JFK came out it caused a great deal of controversy. The New York Times weighs in with their opinion when they say when Tom Wicker writes“The controversy arose over fears that the film would develop a web of speculation and fiction around a tragic event of major historic significance. And indeed, it does treat matters that are wholly speculative as fact and truth, in effect rewriting history.” This is part of an article talking about the amount of controversy that was caused by Oliver Stone’s JFK. This goes to show that the movie takes advantage of historical facts and exaggerates them to the point of speculation.
Oliver Stone’s JFK contains many historical accuracies and facts that support its claim. However, when reflecting on the movie after having finishing the viewer can come to the conclusion that the movie was based on more speculation than Historical Fact. Overall JFK was a historically inaccurate movie due to its lack of important evidence and the over dramatization of characters and events.