Vantage Point spoiler

[Pat Speer]

The end of the current Hollywood film Vantage Point, much as the subtext of the film Shooter from a year or so ago, suggests we're winning (if arguing over history can be defined as winning or losing). While the major media NEWS programs continue to push the Oswald did it scenario, the far more influential major media creative arm continues to present conspiracy as a reasonable alternative.

At the end of the film, after a Rashomon-style look at an incredibly confusing assassination plot, a newscaster tells the viewer that "Spanish and American Government sources have announced that the lone assassin has been caught and killed." This is a wink-wink nudge nudge to the audience that "We all know that our government will never admit that a widespread conspiracy is possible, because if it could, it WOULD have told us as much about the Kennedy assassination."

If you like thrillers/action films, this film is pretty good, but not great. Action buffs might dig it. I enjoyed it and particularly appreciated the ending.

[William Kelly]

The end of the current Hollywood film Vantage Point, much as the subtext of the film Shooter from a year or so ago, suggests we're winning (if arguing over history can be defined as winning or losing). While the major media NEWS programs continue to push the Oswald did it scenario, the far more influential major media creative arm continues to present conspiracy as a reasonable alternative.

At the end of the film, after a Rashomon-style look at an incredibly confusing assassination plot, a newscaster tells the viewer that "Spanish and American Government sources have announced that the lone assassin has been caught and killed." This is a wink-wink nudge nudge to the audience that "We all know that our government will never admit that a widespread conspiracy is possible, because if it could, it WOULD have told us as much about the Kennedy assassination."

If you like thrillers/action films, this film is pretty good, but not great. Action buffs might dig it. I enjoyed it and particularly appreciated the ending.

Thanks Pat,

And I thought it was the film version of LBJ's Auto Bio, also called The Vantage Point.

BK

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Pat: thanks for the overview. Was curious about this one.

This phrase interested me as an amateur media-paranoid:"the far more influential major media creative arm" You could be right, but 'influencial' in what way? On the one hand movies and fiction have been a way of getting non-fiction research of those who challenge the Mockingbird Hememony around issues like JFK and 9/11 to a wider audience.

On the other hand, it is fiction. It can be dismissed as such. Take the new novel on 9/11 by Steve Alten (sp?). It is apparently based on the research of Crossing the Rubicon, which has some great research on 9/11. It could well lead to a lot more people reading non-fiction books about 9/11.

What if there is an INTENTION to MIX GENRES, as a means of disinformation. In other words, might there be paid people deliberatly trying to get an UNMEDIATED AUDIENCE (ie no broad coverage on the networks coast to coast to create a common denominator of foundation facts for the "truth movement" ) to mix fact and fiction, so that if it ever makes it onto the nightly news, a person who is interviewed yelling something rashly on the street mixes fact and fiction. Then the calm newscaster corrects the rash yeller in suit and tie, before moving along to the weather.

Mixing fact and fiction? Both Hunt and Buckley WROTE spy fiction. The 1975 movie Three Days of the Condor involved a person who READ mystery novels on contract for the CIA. Is there something "studied" and strategic about this mixing of genres? It is probably not a coincidence that this movie and The Paralax View came out at the only time in US history that there was a somewhat real congressional oversite of the CIA.

In short, these fictional accounts may well be influencial, and informative; but are they informing for action? Is it possible that this type of genre-twister is only preserving the master narrative of Corporate Hegemony .... I mean the NYT?

Edited February 29, 2008 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

[Paul Rigby]

In short, these fictional accounts may well be influencial, and informative; but are they informing for action. Is it possible that this type of genre-twister is only preserving the master narrative of Corporate Hegemony .... I mean the NYT?

Excellent post. And the answer to your question? Yes.

Paul

[Pat Speer]

My girlfriend was just watching a comedy show called "The Whitest Kids you Know," and it had a long sketch on the assassination. Oswald was in the window, preparing to shoot Kennedy, when some guy in a suit came up behind him and started nagging him about the wind conditions etc, telling him he picked the wrong building blah blah. Meanwhile, Jackie is in the limo complaining to JFK about the cold, and asking if she can put the top up. He tells her no, that he needs to be close to his fans. She warns him that he shouldn't come crying to her when he freezes the back of his head off, and asks Greer to turn up the radio. JFK and Oswald then start singing a duet about some day, some way--I think it was a real song from a known musical, but I didn't know it. They then cut to Oswald, as a shot rings out. He looks down from the sniper's nest. He blurts out the punchline..."Somebody else shot him!", stands up and starts running.

Yes, it's come to this. The Kennedy assassination can now be safely parodied on skit shows.

More telling, however, is that for the audience to get the joke, they have to assume there was more than one assassin. The young and hip, raised in an error of 9/11 and terror, accepts as self-evident that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. It is the operating thesis of the young until they watch Discovery or History or HBO, and get bamboozled by the fraudulent animation included in their "news" programs.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

My girlfriend was just watching a comedy show called "The Whitest Kids you Know," and it had a long sketch on the assassination. Oswald was in the window, preparing to shoot Kennedy, when some guy in a suit came up behind him and started nagging him about the wind conditions etc, telling him he picked the wrong building blah blah. Meanwhile, Jackie is in the limo complaining to JFK about the cold, and asking if she can put the top up. He tells her no, that he needs to be close to his fans. She warns him that he shouldn't come crying to her when he freezes the back of his head off, and asks Greer to turn up the radio. JFK and Oswald then start singing a duet about some day, some way--I think it was a real song from a known musical, but I didn't know it. They then cut to Oswald, as a shot rings out. He looks down from the sniper's nest. He blurts out the punchline..."Somebody else shot him!", stands up and starts running.

Yes, it's come to this. The Kennedy assassination can now be safely parodied on skit shows.

More telling, however, is that for the audience to get the joke, they have to assume there was more than one assassin. The young and hip, raised in an error of 9/11 and terror, accepts as self-evident that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. It is the operating thesis of the young until they watch Discovery or History or HBO, and get bamboozled by the fraudulent animation included in their "news" programs.

---------------------

Not with a bang OR a whimper: Adult Swim!

Pat, your post reminded me of a tendency I have noticed among this crop of youngsters say post 9/11 raised on cable-comedy. Hipness, because of cable audience fragment only. It is an entirely depoliticized 'hipness', more of a stance of ironic detatchment. It seems as if this crew is watching A MUCH MUCH higher percentage of satirical comedy than previous generations. Does it inform? Possibly, but again is it actionable intelligence, or does it serve only to dismiss the imporatnace of the assassination and cut the very real ties to today's current events? Parody: its seems to be the only thing with a stock higher than oil right now. Perhaps it is a function of the much higher rents and much scarier employment opportunities that these youngsters face compared to previous generations who felt they could afford the risk of a more passionate engagement.

But what is the political effect of this parody? You may well be righ in the end; perhaps more total knowledge will be capable of the genre-jump from parody to history. But, to me at least, it seems highly problematic that this new info will be taken seriously. Parody at this rate seems more likely to lead to cable-niche-fascism. And yes I think the f word is appropriate, although it is very different from the 1933ish kind.

[Pat Speer]

I think I know what you're getting at. It seems we've reached a point where it is "cool" to know a little about our history--and to doubt our government--and to ASSUME the worst about our government's intentions--but it is not yet "cool" to get off the internet, turn off your alternate-reality computer game, and do something about it. We have a new generation of smart-mouthed observers from the sidelines. I recall a study finding that, for kids of high-school age, it was far more important to know the latest buzz about culture--the hippest bands, the hippest videos on Youtube, the craziest computer games, the latest gossip on Britney, etc, than it was to participate in team sports, etc. It's a consumer culture. Obey Giant.

Hopefully, the record turn-outs of the young at Obama rallies and primaries signify the beginning of the end of this cultural trend.

Edited February 29, 2008 by Pat Speer