Jump to content

Stone/DiEugenio documentary premiere at Cannes

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I was disappointed to see that Oliver Stone opted not to use the Destiny Betrayed title.  It captures the historical essence of the Crime of the 20th Century so aptly.

Is Stone mainly trying to re-emphasize the legacy of his great film JFK?

On the bright side, at least he didn't call it JFK II... 🤪

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two versions of the film.  The two hour version which is subtitled Through the Looking Glass.

And the four hour version which is subtitled Destiny Betrayed.

I don't know where that guy got subjects like Umbrella Man and mysterious deaths.  Not in the film. Period.

Oliver was trying to tell Spike Lee that, if the fact checker goes by the HSCA and WC, then there will be some question.  Because the film, in both versions, relies largely on the disclosures of the ARRB. In my opinion, the ARRB redid the calculus of this case.  The problem was that hardly anyone read the stuff.  And the media did next to nothing to cover it.

Even worse, very few books were based on those disclosures. So, in my view, there was a blackout of their discoveries.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

JFK revisited: though the Looking Glass  ?   Wasn't Stone suppose to use Jim's title "Destiny Betrayed"? What am I missing here?



This is actually a good article promoting the film.  " it's still on the hot plate. . . winging it's way to a high profile next year".  "Cannes is a big step. . . if not in America, internationally, that's important." And more.

Shame it won't be picked up by the incompetent compromised msm.

Here's to the higher profile. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will this film (two versions) cue new attacks by the MSM

on their bête noire, Oliver Stone? I recall that when I did

some sympathetic interviews with Stone during the fallout

from JFK, I was surprised he was actually shocked by the

negative attacks. Granted, they were so extreme that their viciousness would

have shocked anybody, but I thought he hadn't fully prepared

himself for what could have been expected as an onslaught. You have

to do that with a controversial film, especially on this subject. He later

realized he should have put out the annotated script of JFK day-and-date

with the film, as he later did with NIXON, which helped preempt

some of his critics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Will this film (two versions) cue new attacks by the MSM on their bête noire, Oliver Stone?

Absolutely it will

It's already being suggested--without basis--that the film "failed fact-checking" w/ Netflix and National Geographic. Which probably consisted of some intern googling things and looking at Wikipedia rather than checking Jim's extensive endnotes/documents.

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...