Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

I finally had the time and the stomach to watch "Parkland" (plus it was free with Amazon Prime).  

I found it to be a tragi-comedic farce by the producers who are pretending to deliver 'just the facts, m'am" while doing their level best to stay away from inconvenient facts that might get the viewer to question the official story.  Or they included facts that clearly show a conspiracy that they likely didn't mean to.

A few incongruities that jumped out to me were:

  • You call a movie "Parkland" but you don't include reporter Seth Kantor's run-in with Ruby there?  That's as close to an indisputable fact in this case there is, no matter that the WC chose to ignore the veteran reporter's account and go with the "over-emotional, patriotic nut."
  • Jackie's character hands a nurse the part of Jack's head that she had retrieved from the back of the limo.  The nurse's response was - "It's from the base of the head."  Well, yes, it was.  And how does that fit in with a shooter situated high and behind the POTUS?
  • They choose not to mention what EVERY surgeon and nurse who saw the president before the tracheotomy saw - an entrance wound in the front of his neck.
  • They choose not to include what several surgeons and nurses saw - a clear blowout in the back of the head.
  • Robert Oswald's immediate acceptance that his brother is guilty and guilty alone.  He's agreeing with his co-workers that Lee is the apparent shooter when he's just been picked up on a different charge.
  • With what we know today, I was amazed how prescient both Lee and his 'crazy' mother were.  When Lee tells his brother "don't believe the so-called evidence" that was before anyone even knew about the "magic bullet" much less the rifle with no prints and a bad scope.  Marguerite claims he's a spy for the government before we ever knew how the CIA - the day of the assassination onward - decided to cover-up the fact Lee had gained publicity in NO through the secretly funded DRE.  And the close trailing of Oswald weeks before the assassination, and the agency's own internal lies about LHO to the Mexico City station.  And Lee's requested hour-long meeting with the FBI in NO.  Sure looks like a government agent to me!
  • They included the 'baby shoes for June' line that Lee actually told Marina, not Robert.  But they leave out the part where Robert looks into Lee's eyes and Lee tells him, "you won't find anything there, brother."  That could mean two different things, e.g. I'm an empty soul OR I didn't do it so there's not guilt to be found.
  • Half the movie focuses on Zapruder and you don't include Dan Rather seeing the assassination film and then LYING directly to the American public about what he saw on national TV?
  • What was the point of the juxtaposition of Hosty burning historic evidence while JFK's eternal flame is lit?  

This movie shows what happens when you attempt to build a credible a story around the WC fiction.  It just falls apart.  Completely.

One note:  I know Zapruder was going through a lot and maybe didn't have his wits about him but the better option than selling his movie to LIFE magazine would have been to provide copies to the top forensics labs and law schools in the country, allowing only approved law enforcement and legal professionals to view it.  That way the truth of the 'back and to the left' would've come out without the public necessarily having to view it.  Especially once the WC decided to not include a true descriptions of the film.  At that point Zapruder must've known the WC was lying and should've made sure the American public knew that as well.

I also recently watched media coverage in the immediate aftermath of the assassination and have come to one conclusion:  the JFK case is a mess because people in high places who should've known better and that the American public trusted LOST THEIR NERVE.  Cronkite, Bradley, the NY Times, etc., etc.

The irony is that most were 'fans' of JFK's courage, imagination and service to country.  And those 'friends' all disappeared and shirked their duty just when JFK and their country needed them most.

 

 

Edited by Michaleen Kilroy
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Great points, @Michaleen Kilroy ! Thanks for sharing your observations. I have a copy of Parkland on DVD but haven't watched it in quite a while. I'll have to give it a spin soon.

And you're right, the government's manipulation of the media in the name of national security was profound and significant. I don't think there was anything Zapruder could have done to keep the film out of the wrong hands, though. I'm pretty sure it would have been intercepted no matter where he put it or who he gave it to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:
  • Half the movie focuses on Zapruder and you don't include Dan Rather seeing the assassination film and then LYING directly to the American public about what he saw on national TV?

 

Michaleen,

You've touched on a significant event in this whole assassination mess.  To hopefully set the record straight, once and for all:

On which day and at what location did Rather's Zapruder film viewing take place?

Ken

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ken Rheberg said:

 

 

Michaleen,

You've touched on a significant event in this whole assassination mess.  To hopefully set the record straight, once and for all:

On which day and at what location did Rather's Zapruder film viewing take place?

Ken

 

I'm not sure so I'll let the Dan the Man tell his story:  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ken Rheberg said:

On which day and at what location did Rather's Zapruder film viewing take place? 

It occurred on Monday, November 25th (the day of JFK's funeral). Dan Rather twice talks about viewing the Zapruder Film in the 11/25/63 video below --- at 15:30 and again at 29:12....

 

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

It occurred on Monday, November 25th (the day of JFK's funeral). Dan Rather twice talks about viewing the Zapruder Film in the 11/25/63 video below --- at 15:30 and again at 29:12....

 

 

Dan Rather really gave three CBS-TV reports on the Zapruder film the Monday after the assassination.

The first broadcast began at 4:18:00 p.m. (EST).

The second broadcast began at 4:31:40 p.m. (EST).

The third broadcast began at 8:26 p.m. (EST).

He also described the film for CBS radio that same day.

So where did he actually view the film before broadcasting what he saw?

Ken

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

    I watched Parkland on DVD awhile ago, and I wondered why the film was ever made.

    As I recall, they also omitted the important story about LBJ calling the surgeon at Parkland to find out if Oswald had spilled any beans before dying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I followed the media's reaction to the 50th anniversary of the assassination in real time, and discussed films and TV specials as they were released and broadcast in two articles on my website, The Onslaught Parts 1 and 2. 

Here is what I had to say about Parkland...

November 6: I rent the feature film 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 post
Share on other sites

As I try to explain in my book, what happened is that Hanks and his producing partner Gary G had made a mistake.  They bought a bloated door stop that neither one had read, based upon the late Bill Paxton's recommendation.  Paxton had been influenced by the late Gary Mack, just as Steven King was.  Mack sold King by telling him it had to be Oswald, since it was his rifle.

 

LOL, ROTF 🤧

Geez and  while Steven KIng was writing his 1000 page bloated mediocrity, he never even noticed that hey, it is the wrong rifle.  And the WC knew it and never said so!  And Gary never told me that.

Well, as I write in my book, Bugliosi does the same thing. And apparently Paxton never noticed.  Paxton also talked to Mack at the 6th Floor.  (Paxton was a weird case on this subject, but I really don't want to got into that right now.)

Anyway, he sold his two buddies on this 2,600 page pile of sludge.  But something happened to Hanks and Gary G. As I note in my book, Hanks' miniseries projects grew progressively more expensive as they were broadcast. This culminated with The Pacific and that might have been the most expensive mini series ever made.  But it did not get the numbers that the first two did, that is From the Earth to the Moon and Band of Brothers. As I note, the reported cost of The Pacific was 217 million. (The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, p. 416)  Which means each one hour installment was about 20 million. That is actually comparable to what a feature film costs.  But the ratings for The Pacific were about half of Band of Brothers.  What executive on earth would want to pay anywhere near that amount for a rerun of the WC?

As I note in my book, from the sources I had inside the industry, the idea that Hanks and Goetzman had--to do a very expensive long form series on Bugliosi's book--that concept was never given the green light the term for a go project in Hollywood.  (ibid)

So what happened is that Hanks and Gary G decided to salvage the investment by doing a feature film and sharing the costs with other producing entities.  But the costs were kept down, almost as if everyone knew they had a bomb on their hands. The film is cheaply produced, and it was Peter Landesman's first project and incredibly he was writer and director.  Therefore his price for this was not much. The other way Playtone tried to salvage their investment was that godawful documentary with a not long for this earth Vince Bugliosi which played on CNN at the fiftieth anniversary.

In other words, the whole Paxton/Bugliosi endeavor was a financial and artistic debacle, .

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had posted a few years ago recounting my experience and thoughts viewing Parkland at one of our local theaters when it came out.

I tried to find that older thread and repost it but couldn't.

I remember some of my earlier post.

I had to talk my wife into going to see the film with me as she is very movie review savvy and she had read that this film was totally panned.

We went to the afternoon showing and we were two of only three viewers.

The other audience member was an extremely heavy set, hairy and bearded person wearing a soiled and ill fitting T-shirt.

Within twenty minutes of Parkland's beginning he had fallen asleep and snored loudly the rest of the film.

I do still remember my wife sighing many times and struggling to stay watching which she only did for me. She had nothing to say about the film afterwards which is not like her.  She also has no interest in the JFK assassination event.

Box office Mojo listed the movie tickets sales of Parkland as one of the lowest in decades for a major release film.

Parkland disappeared from our local theaters the next day after our viewing.

I think Hanks knew he had a record breaking bomb, and for some reason let it go through production and distribution.

Maybe this had something to do with giving his son Colin some added exposure as an actor?

Not too many years ago there was a JFK related film project titled "Black Bird" that had been green lighted and then after a year of publicizing this it was dropped.

This JFK assassination intrigue film "Black Bird" was to star Kate Blanchette with a script written by David Mamet.

Too bad this film disappeared and Parkland got made.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
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...