I’m about 15 years late to this party, but I’ve always planned to write a lengthy piece on my love for Oliver Stone’s JFK. My point would simply be that whatever its failings as a credible history (or even a viable alternative history), JFK excels as propaganda, and should be studied for that reason. In a 1993 essay in The Atlantic, Edward Jay Epstein does a good job explaining Stone’s methods:
“The fictional O’Keefe’s story is supported by Ferrie’s fictional confession, which is then given weight by Ferrie’s fictional murder by the fictional bald-headed Cuban introduced in O’Keefe’s story. Since … Oliver Stone’s audience is not apprised of the substitutions of fiction for fact, this cross-corroboration makes plausible … the New Orleans plot.”
The irony is that the essay is intended as a tearing apart of Stone and his film. (Beware that the Internet version of Epstein’s article is rife with typos, making infrequent sentences incomprehensible.)
