Jump to content
The Education Forum

Oliver Stone: His Book and New JFK film


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Untold History, and South of the Border were both good, the former was a mini series, the latter a documentary.

Both were non fiction productions which as you know have different requirements and audiences. You don't have to go pound on the door and plead to get Wheeler out of his trailer for instance. I did like Untold but have seen South yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It’s incredible that even close to 30 years later JFK is still being attacked, despite being critically acclaimed and financially successful. Goes to show how powerful the film is. 
 

A close friend had set up an undergraduate history journal, in which I hope to write a corrective to articles like these. Luckily most people in the us and across the pond see through these lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if you want to read a hit piece on Oliver Stone's film, JFK, then, out of the blue, and timed to match his memoir, the Telegraph will let you read its new article for free. And Yahoo will republish it, also for free.

However,  the Independent's take on Stone and his career in cinema is behind a paywall.

https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/culture/oliver-stone-chasing-the-light-memoir-platoon-wall-street-midnight-express-a9620221.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Has the New York Times ever recanted its official editorial stance that:

(a) Oswald was supposedly "the lone assassin" and there was no conspiracy to kill JFK.

(b) the Warren Commission report was "correct" in its conclusions.

(c) there was a "magic bullet."

2. Has the Times ever published a favorable review of a book that disputed any of the points stated in question #1?

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my understanding, in the sixties, the guy who did the book reviews--I think John Leonard-- found out he was being circumvented.

He tried to review a couple of anti Warren Commission books.  The reviews were heavily edited. He eventually quit.

They then got a stiff to do those things:Christopher Lehmann Haupt. Who was their book review editor. Obviously, he wanted to keep his job: very pro WC.

But its even worse.  They reviewed Posner positively and with extravagant praise twice: once in the paper and once in the book review section.  The first one was by Haupt.   The second one was by Geoffrey C. Ward. Why is that important?

Ward is the scriptwriter and the book adapter for Ken Burns.

Only someone who could begin a  long documentary series about Vietnam with words to the effect, American involvement there was begun in good faith by some decent people out of fateful misunderstandings--anyone who can praise Posner and write something like that about Vietnam, that guy wants to get his ticket punched.  And he does not care how he does it. Foster Dulles and Nixon were "decent people"? 🤮

https://kennedysandking.com/reviews/ken-burns-lynn-novick-the-vietnam-war-part-one

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

John Leonard

And it sounds like Leonard wasn't very sympathetic to JFK either. From his book "The Last Innocent White Man in America":

"If the president's idea of himself is that of a swashbuckler, how else does he expect the CIA to behave in Latin America and Southeast Asia?"

https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19930613&slug=1706384

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...