Jump to content
The Education Forum

PARKLAND movie already out for rental

Recommended Posts

Obviously no one went to see the movie and it had limited release. I am posting here to start a discussion on any merits to the movie and ALL of its deficiencies with the truth.

I will say that the authentic 1963 props, movie scenes and cinematography (sp.?) were very good except for the fact that Marilyn Sitzman wasn't standing with Zapruder on the concrete block. I assume that no one wanted to place her there because "they" wanted to censor out the truth that she spoke about seeing the Black couple run to the back of the wooden fence immediately after the shooting trying to get the assassins in the parking lot and also to invalidate her as a witness who saw EXACTLY what Zapruder had seen and filmed making his testimony the only definitive record to the infamous Z film! I am posting my pros and cons regarding the film on my blog at http://www.jfkthefrontshot.blogspot.com/

I'll join in the discussion here after I blog which will hopefully be an extensive debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched it the other night as well. I've created a blog tracking the media's response to the 50th, and discuss it there. While I mention a few of its suspicious mistakes, I didn't make a list of the purely sloppy ones, of which there are many.

Here is the post:

November 6: I rent Parkland through Amazon, and watch it on my TV. Oh my God! I was prepared for it to push the Oswald did it position, but was totally unprepared for it to be so...shoddy. While the film is purportedly based on the first part of Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, entitled Four Days in November, it really isn't. While Bugliosi got plenty of facts wrong, he didn't get even the basic facts wrong. The short list of the film's shoddiest elements follow.

The actual shooting of Kennedy is seen through the eyes of Abraham Zapruder. This means no re-enactment is necessary. It shows Zapruder holding his camera, and bang...bang...bang. Yep, that's right. The shots are heard about 2 1/2 seconds apart. And this even though Zapruder could swear to hearing but two shots. And this even though Bugliosi held that the last two shots were 5 seconds apart.

The emergency room scene is even worse. It has Dr. Charles Carrico perform heart massage on Kennedy, when it was actually Dr. Malcolm Perry who performed the heart massage. It has Dr. William Kemp Clark declare Kennedy dead...without his even inspecting the head wound. It has Dr. Perry wrap Kennedy's head up in gauze after his death. It leaves Dr. Robert McClelland out of the story altogether. In short, it totally avoids the one thing most JFK researchers think of when they hear the word Parkland--that the witnesses there thought the fatal head wound was on the back of Kennedy's head. This can hardly be a coincidence.

In fact, it seems clear the film-makers attempted to avoid controversy while making a film about one of the most controversial events in history. This is not remotely true to Bugliosi's book, which reveled in the controversy. It is bad as history, and bad as drama. In fact, in order to sidestep the controversy, the film employs a device which is transparent and insulting. It almost totally ignores Marina Oswald, Oswald's Russian wife who went back and forth over his guilt, before eventually deciding he was indeed a patsy. Instead it focuses on Oswald's brother, Robert, and his mother, Marguerite. Robert is cool-headed and introspective. He knows that his brother is guilty of killing the president the moment he hears of his arrest...even though his brother had been arrested for suspicion of killing a policeman. The film contrasts this with Marguerite. Marguerite, from the outset, insists her son is a secret agent working for the government. At one point she blurts out that her son should be buried at Arlington National Cemetery, together with President Kennedy. Well, the clear intent of the film-makers was to align single-assassin theorists with Robert (cool-headed and introspective), and conspiracy theorists with the irrational and abrasive Marguerite.

While the film doesn't show Oswald pulling the trigger, and doesn't tell us with whom we are supposed to align, its propping up of Marguerite as a metaphor for conspiracy theorists is a deep insult. Alas, I already scored this one for the Lone-nuts. I was correct to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
  • Create New...