Nick-Davis.com: 100 Favorite Films
|
|
#60: JFK and Nixon
(USA, 1991; dir. Oliver Stone; cin. Robert Richardson; with Kevin Costner, Sissy Spacek, Gary Oldman,
Tommy Lee Jones, Joe Pesci, Michael Rooker, Jay O. Sanders, Laurie Metcalf, Donald Sutherland, Kevin Bacon, John Candy, Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau,
Ed Asner, Beata Pozniak, Sally Kirkland, Anthony Ramirez, Wayne Knight, Vincent D'Onofrio, Pruitt Taylor Vince, Dale Dye, Jim Garrison)
IMDb // My Page
(USA, 1995; dir. Oliver Stone; cin. Robert Richardson with Anthony Hopkins, Joan Allen, James Woods,
J.T. Walsh, Paul Sorvino, David Hyde Pierce, Powers Boothe, Ed Harris, E.G. Marshall, Madeline Kahn, David Paymer, Bob Hoskins,
Larry Hagman, Mary Steenburgen, Tom Bower, Annabeth Gish, Marley Shelton, Corey Carrier, David Barry Gray, Tony Goldwyn,
Joanna Going, Peter Carlin, Edward Herrmann, Brian Bedford, Fyvush Finkel, George Plimpton, Tony Plana, Kevin Dunn,
Tony Lo Bianco, Dan Hedaya, Bridgette Wilson, Michael Chiklis, Saul Rubinek, John Diehl, Ric Young, Boris Sichkin)
IMDb // My Full Review
People often ask me when my addiction to movies began, and I think I'd have to trace it to the years 1990-92, when I was
growing up on an Army base in Hanau, Germany, where one of the most reliable and accessible entertainments for people my age
was the single-screen movie theater. Movies arrived from America on a 3-6 month time delay, which at the time only added to
their mysterious allure, since hype built for so long and under such different, more relaxed, and more reliable word-of-mouth conditions from the hypermediated
onslaught of today's advertising. Living in a foreign country with only one English-speaking TV station (commercial-free to boot)
further slowed the faucets of standard PR. These were also the years when my family bought our first VCR, so I could finally
see both old and new movies of my own choosing, and with relatively little cultural noise dictating my opinions about what I was
seeing. The only impediment on the theatrical side of thingsa huge consideration then, though it seems now like another
lifewas having to finagle admission into R-rated movies. The fellow who worked the ticket counter didn't
give me too much trouble despite disliking me, growling once that "you sure seem to have a lot of aunts and uncles" (read:
strangers in line who agreed to shepherd me inside). The only two times I really had a problem hurdling over the R-rating,
when the sleepy theater on cobblestoned Pioneer Kaserne suddenly sprang into high alert, were for Madonna: Truth or Dare,
which outraged my ardent fandom and confirmed the evident social panic about uninhibited women, and for
Oliver Stone's JFK. The censorious, highly disapproving vigilance that swirled around this movie was an altogether
weirder case to me. American talking heads only ever supply "sex and violence" as the Scylla and Charybdis waiting
to assail wayward youth, but neither appeared to be at issue in JFK. Granted, the theater staff did attempt to couch their quivering stinginess about
Stone's images in terms of gore, of all things: no teenager, ostensibly, could possibly handle those wrenching replays
and closeups of the Zapruder film, even though the predatory flayings in The Silence of the Lambs and the cheek-biting,
family-stalking, capsizing menace of Max Cady in Cape Fear had just come and gone without similar caveats. Synthesizing
the bizarrely fraught atmosphere at Pioneer with the cyclone of debate echoing from American media, I was perplexed as
to what particular candy, laced with exactly what barbiturate or perverting element, JFK was offering to its endangered, corruptible audiences.
I can't remember now if my parents were unavailable or just uninterested in JFK, but my brother (good man!), hooked
me up on the underground railroad with his high-school government teacher, and I was in. The movie totally blew my mind, as
the phrase goes, but without just circumventing or opiating it. JFK's unimpeachable technical brio and its breathless dicing
together of what feel like millions of film-fragments are enormous achievements in themselves. I can see where, as rhetorical
devices, and even more as historicizing methods, they would leave much to be desired, but to cite an axiom that somehow
always needs defending, JFK is not a legal brief but a movieadmittedly a movie with bullish designs on levering open
the locked and sealed government case files, but also, quite patently, a "movie-movie" whose
self-conscious flourishes of sound, music, montage, visual embellishment, changes in film stock, exaggerated characters, a
highly caffeinated supporting cast, and pivotal arias of exposition and deduction (Laurie Metcalf's, Donald Sutherland's,
and finally Kevin Costner's) all flagrantly announce the artifice and constructedness of what Stone has assembled. He and
his crack team of collaborating artists devise stunning visual and audio analogues not just of paranoia but of outraged collective justice and of the massive, wormy coral reef of history, with its
infinite chambers and pores, many of which never see the sunlight. Yes, it's a flawed film: Costner is too lightweight,
Sissy Spacek's perspective as the lonely and agitated wife is almost nothing when it could have been something, and every time
the film comes within a hundred feet of homosexuality, the performances, dialogue, and filmmaking all start stinking like
wilted Southern verbena. Still, in a strange way, the lapses of JFK have always corroborated what is artful and almost
frighteningly earnest about it: Stone works so fearlessly from the gut, with such unembarrassed fidelity to his sensibility,
that the warts-and-all pursuit of ugly truths feels truly impassioned in this film. Not for Stone the decorous boilerplates
of most courtroom dramas or tasteful liberal-historical tableaux, and almost single-handedly, JFK eliminated any need to
make excuses for detritus like Ghosts of Mississippi, half-efforts like Mississippi Burning, or even decoy denunciations
of invented crises, like the decidedly minor Guantánamo crisis in A Few Good Men. Stone already knows that
both literally and figurally, we can't handle the truthwe can't touch it, and we can't accept what we can't touchbut
he's able to use far more than foot-stomping speeches to register the point and its implications. In fact,
conjoined with JFK's scalpel-edged critique of mainstream historical record is an equally sharp dismantling of our most
naïve habits of image-reception. Not only does Stone recombine fresh and archival footage with the fervor of a mad geneticist, but
he gamely stages illustrated versions of Jim Garrison's conjectures as well as the Warren Commission's, and of several gradations
in between. Even when the script is one-sided, the film never is. JFK drives so many nails into the comortable
conflation of filmed imagery with reality, is it any wonder that the film was so willfully misunderstood?
As with the Minghella duo a few rungs down on this list, JFK stimulated new
appetites and ideas in my filmgoing which were even better rewarded by a subsequent effort from the same creative
team. I've already posted a full review of Nixon, but if you've got seven
hours free to watch the two films back to back, they remain fascinating companions. Whereas the coin of the realm in JFK
is its vertiginous scrim of lightning-historical collage, asserted as an inherently greater force than the individuals scurrying
around with their treacheries and truth crusades, Nixon
remembers that history is still shaped by people, and that the unease and extremes of history cycle backward as the groundwater
in our psyches and our private biographies. Again, some of Stone's touches are just too much: summits in China and in Texas and at J. Edgar
Hoover's poolside still feel like trips to the fruitstand. Still, the broad, stentorian strokes in the dialogue and the visuals
are plausibly illustrative of Nixon's mostly unsubtle grasp of his own life, and of what he was doing with everyone else's life.
The ensemble of actors feel more like a united organism, rather than a series of showy walk-ons, and by allowing us
more time and a slower pace to absorb the film's structure and its ironies, Nixon achieves what film biographies almost
never do: it proposes a complex, counter-intuitive, and intricate new idea about an extremely well-known figure, portrayed
against a detailed canvas of his intimates and his era. Nixon is almost certainly my favorite film about American politics,
but it's also my favorite film of a Shakespearean tragedy. That Shakespeare didn't happen to write it is the result only of
his living at the wrong timea 400-year historical accident, though of course, in Stone's world, there are no historical
accidents.
|
|