Joseph McBride

Thanks, George, I am glad you like it and my comments. Another terrific documentary by the same people is CRISIS: BEHIND A PRESIDENTIAL COMMITMENT.

A problem with the sketch is the insert of a guy who wasn't shooting doing the shooting.

And more from Fred Camper: Joseph, thank you very much. I don't believe in some "objective" concept of "objectivity," in film or anywhere else, but I don't think it's an irrelevant question either. In a way you verified that; looking for pretty young woman to edit in while they looked at Kennedy would certainly be the opposite of any reasonable idea of objective balance. The low angles, which I remember well, would be another example. There are one or two cuts in the film that might be the opposite too, such as from an uninspired Humphrey to Kennedy talking in grand terms about the free world, or something like that. I certainly remember the white gloves shot, a good inclusion in that it shows Jackie as less than perfect. I do agree with your descriptions of how the candidates and their wives come across in the film. I asked partly because I have used this film often in classes, and thought it would be great to have the testimony of a cinema expert who was also there at the time, and admired one of the film's subjects in a significant way. Some of your information will doubtless make its way into future classes. I was 12 in 1960, but very aware of politics. I certainly wanted Kennedy to win over Nixon. I remember the Wisconsin primary being considered crucial for Kennedy. Some moments of the film are going to seem obscure to most today. When Humphrey talks about the contempt of people in big cities for concerns of farmers, I assume he is really talking about keeping food prices high via government mandated price supports? That would be a way of describing the policy that might not seem so appealing to city dwellers, if they understood what was involved. Thanks again for writing. And my reply to the above: Thanks, Fred, good thoughts. I think a documentary or a book is better when it has a strong point of view. But as I tell students, in the law there is no such a thing as a right or wrong opinion; what counts is how you back it up and prove it. PRIMARY gathered its POV empirically and then was more and more shot and edited to support the POV the filmmakers discovered. Watch the series of shots of the particularly attractive young woman advancing in the line toward Kennedy flirtatiously, and seemingly intelligently, intercut as he shakes hands. I couple PRIMARY with Norman Mailer's insightful November 1960 article from Esquire about Kennedy having movie-star appeal, although in truth TR was the first move-star president, and JFK was the first TV-star presdent. But Mailer's point was that we were electing an actor in the role, which would have a profound effect on his presidency and our politics, as it did. There is a particularly abrupt jump cut you may be referring to from Humphrey on TV talking about farm issues to JFK talking about foreign policy, which conveys what I felt about Kennedy talking straight to us about the big issues. And his climactic, often-quoted speech is about the central role of the president in world affairs; Leacock later observed that it in retrospect he was declaring war in Vietnam, though that went over my head at the time. Yes, government price supports for farmers was a big issue at the time that I should have cared about more than I did, though Humphrey seems patronizing when he talks about it, and his rural listeners seem less than enthralled by his rhetoric. It's revealing when he complains about the coverage Kennedy is getting in the national media and about the Kennedy money machine.

I took a closeup photograph (too large to post here, unforunately) as JFK shook hands and signed autographs after his April 3 speech. I blew off a flashbulb in my Brownie camera three feet from his face, which is why the photo is out of focus. I was immediately embarrassed as he flinched but quickly recovered and smiled. That and my close contact with him at a small rally four days before, "Kids for Kennedy" in Wauwatosa, which my mother arranged, made me aware of his vulnerability and led me to write a short story about his assassination, "The Plot Against a Country," in October 1961 for my freshman English class at Marquette University High School.

I posted an item on Facebook about JFK's birthday (May 29; he would have been 104) and commented on the landmark documentary PRIMARY. I was an extra in that film while serving as a volunteer in JFK's 1960 Wisconsin presidential primary campaign. I mentioned the climactic rally of the campaign that I attended in Milwaukee on April 3, 1960, was the moment when politics in America irretrievably blended with show business, for better and worse. My friend and fellow film critic Fred Camper posted this: Hmm, as someone who is there and who knows cinema and the film "Primary" well, any comments on the film? Objectivity? Is Jackie seen more than Mrs. Humphrey because she was more present in the campaign, for example? In other word, to elements of the film that might read as bias simply reflect the nature of both campaigns? And I responded: I don't believe in the concept of "objectivity," and I don't think the filmmakers do either. Do you? PRIMARY clearly shows admiration for Kennedy and pity for Humphrey. Ricky Leacock and I did a q&a on the film. He said that aside from Robert Drew, who initiated the project and was a Kennedy admirer (his talking Kennedy into doing it, which made it happen), the other filmmakers tended to be on Humphrey's side at the beginning, because they were leftists or liberals and suspected Kennedy's liberal bona fides (as did Eleanor Roosevelt, for example). But as the filming progressed, the filmmakers all became enamored of Kennedy and disenchanted with Humphrey, as the film shows in many ways. This mirrors the attitude of many voters (Kennedy carried the Milwaukee and Madison city areas, though he lost many rural areas; Kennedy only won six of ten districts, which disappointed him and made him believe the primary was inconclusive). Democrats in Wisconsin had regarded HHH as our "third senator," since we had two Republican senators for a long time (including Joe McCarthy), and we would go to Humphrey next door for help. But my mother, Marian McBride, who became state vice chairman the following year, and state chairman Pat Lucey came out early for Kennedy, and Kennedy proved more dynamic and appealing in the campaign. Kennedy told Lucey after the election that he would not have become president except for his support in helping win the Wisconsin primary, which if he lost (as he says in the film) would have ruined his chances. Humphrey in the film comes off like an oldtime pol, pathetically begging for votes like Willy Loman and speaking down to the voters, while Kennedy comes off as a glamorous rock star. He had a "cool" style that seemed somewhat detached from the undignified aspects of campaigning, which appealed to me in contrast not only to Humphrey but also to Nixon and Eisenhower (Kennedy, for example, made a point of never waving his hands over head as Nixon and Ike liked to do and which Kennedy found vulgar). I also found it impressive that Kennedy talked about foreign policy while Humphrey talked about local issues more, for example. I should have been more attentive to farm issues, which Humphrey talked a lot about, but those left me cold at the time, since I was from a city. Kennedy seemed to treat the voters with more intellectual respect .I liked how Kennedy talked fast and was so intelligent; Humphrey came off as plodding. The way Kennedy is shot from low ("heroic") angles and with crowds of kids chasing him around, and with attractive women intercut smiling at him, reflects how the filmmakers saw him. Leacock told me when they cut the film in a Minneapolis hotel room, they make a point of finding shots of pretty young women to show them looking admiringly at Kennedy. Jacqueline Kennedy comes off as glamorous, though one of the best shots in the film is of her white-gloved hands nervously twisting behind her back as she speaks to the big crowd. She hated campaigning. Leacock asked her how she felt about it, and she said, "How would you like to smile a thousand times a day?" He said she would often sit in a corner, aloof, reading Proust or the memoirs of Saint-Simon in French. Muriel Humphrey could not complete with Jacqueline's glamour. The ending shot of a Model T Ford driving away with a Humphrey sign as his blaring campaign song plays is emblematic. I find the penultimate sequence of him exiting the Milwaukee Journal lobby in defeat (with the song beginning to play) quite poignant. I spent many days walking through that lobby to go visit my Dad at work after I finished school.

Zapruder was also a member of the Dallas Petroleum Club, which had many prominent members, including George H. W. Bush and George de Mohrenschildt. And Zapruder had employed de Mohrenschildt's wife, Jeanne LeGon, a fact not mentioned in Zapruder's granddaughter's book. Zapruder's son, Henry, worked for the Justice Department at the time of the assassination. Abraham Zapruder was a member of the Dallas Council on World Affairs. And so on. But I don't think Livingstone is a credible source, however, and the article leans heavily on his unsupported gossip and innuendos.

I saw a very good documentary about the Clinton episode. It ran in LA one night in the nineties and then vanished.

Numerous members of the DPD were up to their eyes in the plot.

Thanks, Steve. Somehow I couldn't post a similar frame enlargement.

I was referring to the other thread containing the link to the film itself. The film is AN ANSWER and shows JFK and LBJ inspecting the Atlantic Fleet at a naval installation in 1962. Gerald Ford and the Shah of Iran are also seen in the film. The title refers to military might as an answer to Kennedy's "Ask what you can do for your country" line in his inaugural address. I made the mistake of uploading the film twice and didn't know how to delete the second uploading, so I changed the message above. Sorry for any confusion.

I tried to upload frame enlargements, but they were too large. The footage is early in the film. I am sure our friend Vince Palamara will find this especially interesting.

This is a Navy-Marines film called AN ANSWER (1962), about the visit by JFK to inspect the Atlantic Fleet at the Oceana, Virginia, Naval Air Station. It is from April 13, 1962. Normally the president and VP are prohibited by Secret Service protocol from riding in the same car, but this was at a naval installation.

Vince, you need some perspective. This is an awful book. Yours are lasting and influential because they are based on solid, original, groundbreaking research into serious matters, not filled with lies and salacious sensationalism. This heavily promoted book is ephemeral, like all such books. Don't compare your good work with dreck.

I prefer witnesses such as Bill and Gayle Newman and Mary Ann Moorman, honest people who don't change their stories or speculate on things they don't know. I agree that earlier statements are usually more reliable than later ones, but Jean Hill was all over the map. I was going to challenge her on these inconsistencies, but she backed out of our interview after agreeing to it. There was a shot that struck the grass near the manhole cover not far from Hill, Moorman, and the Babushka Lady, as I am sure we all know.

Jean Hill is an unreliable source. She constantly changed and embellished on her statements.

Yes, Kenneth O'Donnell. I discuss his role in my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE.

Tracy just spreads disinformation. Who pays him?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=707 The Belmont memo on the night of November 22.

There were Baker and Charlie radio transmissions. Maybe he was changing from one to the other.

Quite obviously not G. H. W. Bush.

Paul Brancato puts it well. The alleged photo of "Bush" (someone else) in DP is a red herring used to take attention away from all the other evidence about Bush and his actual activities on November 21-22 and earlier.

The Belmont memo of the night of 11-22 is the smoking gun that destroys the Warren Report. And it matches eyewitness evidence, including from Secret Service agents and other witnesses, of a bullet striking JFK in the right temple. I found the memo in the 1980s and wrote a lengthy article about it but couldn't get it published. I write about it in detail in INTO THE NIGHTMARE.

That image of Dallas was taken on JFK's 35th birthday, the day he became eligible to be president.

The wooden ramp is often discussed as a lost option and would have worked well and have been easy to construct, barely a bump as they drove over it. But of course the Secret Service, O'Donnell, Locke, et al wanted to drive JFK down Elm Street to kill him.

Bill and Gayle Newman were baffled they weren't called to testify, despite their close view of the shooting. And for a long time Gayle was overlooked because of her gender.