Jump to content

JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass


Denny Zartman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Of course we did not have this problem abroad where the Warren Report is not part of the official ethos.  Therefore we got Paris Match, three national newspaper stories in Australia, Channel 9 Today Extra (the biggest TV network down under and their signature show), Izvestia, 15 positive reviews across Europe all the way up into Norway.

We had a clipping service and I saw excerpts from them.

Again, no documentary on the JFK case has ever had anywhere near the impact this has.  Not even close.

And its not over.  In about a week, the long version comes out in North America.  In late April the Book of the Film will be published, and in May the two disc DVD set comes out with commentary by me and Oliver.

When all is said and done it will have gone on for about ten months. High cotton.

 

PS The people in the UK who have seen the four hour version say, "How could you have cut that down to two hours?  And then some people in America say, I don't want to watch it until the four hour version comes out. Well in about a week, both will be available.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 807
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

What the hell! You can believe the film is a failure in that it fails to present accurate information. And you can believe the film is a failure in that it has failed to bring in massive dollars. But saying a film is a failure because the mainstream media isn't reviewing it is just bizarre, and indicative that the film has not been a failure in at least one of its objectives: stirring things up. 

The fact that Litwin and others such as yourself seem obsessed with pointing out every exaggeration or misleading statement in the film--when you would never have done as much to a minor film from a minor film-maker--is proof it isn't a flop. The film Parkland--now, that was a flop. Such a flop that few people inclined to tear it to pieces--such as myself--spent more than a few hours doing so. It came out--no one cared--and it was gone. But this film is clearly a different story.  

I mean, Case Closed and Reclaiming History were flops, financially speaking, but one can't rightly call them flops in that they made an impact in certain circles and pissed a lot of people off. 

Say what you will about the film, but it isn't. a flop. 

Pat, the film is a flop because of the following reasons.

1. Oliver Stone wanted more people to watch his film. He gripped about it soon after it was released in the U.S. that it didn't receive a big following like in Europe. Of course, there were a few favorable responses and some unfavorable, such as Tim Weiner in Rolling Stone. But the cold hard fact remains, Stone could not get a sizeable audience buzz going about his "Documentary" in this North American market. I'm sure you would agree that Stone and DiEugenio are striving to get more people to watch the film. They want everyone to see their so-called "groundbreaking" revelations. Besides safe space podcasts and social forums, nobody is talking about this film. That's a flop in my opinion.

Of course, other films like Parkland were a flop, I agree. I never saw the film (Parland) and don't plan on watching it either. 

2. The film is chock full of deceptive editing and blatant errors. If you put all the conspiratorial claims made in JFK Revisited together, you get a complete, incoherent mess. When the 4-Hour version comes out, I'm sure there will be more claims. That is a factual flop, in my opinion. 

Those are the two main reasons I'm calling this a flop. It's You-Tube bound...

So, if the intent of Filmmaker Stone was to get a wide audience talking about his film, to bring awareness that there was a conspiracy to kill the President, backed up with his "Facts", which of course he wanted, it didn't happen. That's a flop. 

Pat, do you agree or not agree, that there were some significant errors in this film?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

Pat, the film is a flop because of the following reasons.

1. Oliver Stone wanted more people to watch his film. He gripped about it soon after it was released in the U.S. that it didn't receive a big following like in Europe. Of course, there were a few favorable responses and some unfavorable, such as Tim Weiner in Rolling Stone. But the cold hard fact remains, Stone could not get a sizeable audience buzz going about his "Documentary" in this North American market. I'm sure you would agree that Stone and DiEugenio are striving to get more people to watch the film. They want everyone to see their so-called "groundbreaking" revelations. Besides safe space podcasts and social forums, nobody is talking about this film. That's a flop in my opinion.

Of course, other films like Parkland were a flop, I agree. I never saw the film (Parland) and don't plan on watching it either. 

2. The film is chock full of deceptive editing and blatant errors. If you put all the conspiratorial claims made in JFK Revisited together, you get a complete, incoherent mess. When the 4-Hour version comes out, I'm sure there will be more claims. That is a factual flop, in my opinion. 

Those are the two main reasons I'm calling this a flop. It's You-Tube bound...

So, if the intent of Filmmaker Stone was to get a wide audience talking about his film, to bring awareness that there was a conspiracy to kill the President, backed up with his "Facts", which of course he wanted, it didn't happen. That's a flop. 

Pat, do you agree or not agree, that there were some significant errors in this film?

I suspect there are plenty of things I disagree with in the film, and plenty of things I agree with. But I am one of those who've been waiting for the 4-hour version to come out. My TV viewing these days is restricted largely to things I can watch with my wife. She was born on 11-22 and has missed out on many a birthday dinner while I was off at a conference. And she works from home and helps take care of me. So I thought it best to spare her from my obsession for awhile...

As for your assertion the film is a flop in comparison to Stone's and DiEugenio's hopes, and even expectations, you may very well be correct. But I don't know.

So maybe Jim can tell us.

Let's be straight, Jim. What were your expectations for the film? It seems obvious you and Oliver hoped the film would make more of an impact. That's only natural. But it also seems likely you feared it would go unnoticed, both here and abroad. I'm guessing you're both disappointed the film hasn't made more of an impact, and pleased that it's made some impact. Am I right?

If I am, Steve, you can hardly call it a flop. I read an interview the other day in which Francis Ford Coppola said that even though One From the Heart bankrupted his studio, he didn't consider it a failure, or a mistake. People create things for different purposes. Oliver and Jim wanted to update JFK with some of the info released over the last 30 years. Did they accomplish this? Will people watch this film in 30 years? I suspect they will. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is so far off base its almost funny.  And it shows the dangers of conversing with a propaganda machine.

Towards the end of the editing process, Oliver called me into his office.  We were having a mild argument about something that should or should not be included in the film. He wanted to include it, I did not.

During this discussion Oliver said something like: You know this film is not going to make any noise don't you?

I didn't agree with that.  I understood that the MSM was not going to go along with the film, actually expected it.  But what I was banking on was the overseas press and the alternative media in the USA.  They would make enough of a noise so that MSM would have to notice, even if it was to attack the film. Recall the old adage: there is no such thing as bad publicity. And recall Tim Weiner did not call me for my sources on the CIA cooperation with the enemies of DeGaulle. In that sense his article  was a hatchet job.

The reason I was looking forward to that kind of reaction is that I knew the masses would immediately smell a rat.  And it would not be me and Oliver.  So what I thought would happen did happen.  Literally millions of people across the globe have been exposed to the film.  And thanks to people like Morley, Curtin and Joe Rogan-and others--we have countered the predicted MSM attack.  Both intellectually--in my replies--and with the populace. (Can you imagine Wiener not even knowing what was in his own newspaper on the subject, penned by Reston of all people? Talk about custard pie in the face.)

Plain and simple:  no film has ever brought home the discoveries of the ARRB like this one. And that was my aim.  I will even go farther, not only has it never been done before, it will never be done again.  Because no documentary will ever spend the money to get as many first rate people in front of a camera as this one did. 

As  for the four hour version, that has already played in Australia-where it created a mini sensation--and through the Sky network in the UK. (Recall, the film has been out for 8 months already.) People in the UK were wondering: "How you could you cut this down to two hours?"  One of my favorite parts is in that version: Curtis LeMay and his whereabouts on 11/22/63.  I am going to use that to nail Chomsky.

When, after thirty years, you bring Chomsky and Posner out of the woodwork, you know you accomplished something substantial. 😀👏

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim - I’m also waiting for the four hour. I want especially to see the section on LeMay’s whereabouts, something I tried to study myself when the more complete AF 1 tapes were discovered. Is it your opinion that LeMay was in on the assassination, or caught by surprise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, LeMay was a part of the pre planned cover up. 

I believe the cover up was planned with the conspiracy.

Its  difficult to explain why he lied about where he was that day, along with a couple of other things.

But the other point is, now that we know that Perry was getting threatening phone calls through the night from the autopsy doctors, that sheds new light.  IMO, Humes and Boswell would not have done that on their own, threatening  Perry to change his story. But someone like LeMay would.

One last point.  In The Parkland Doctors, toward the end, one of the doctors said that when Perry was leaving the press conference, a well dressed man touched his arm and said words to the effect: Don't ever say that again.

Recall, JFK is pronounced dead at 1 PM.  That press conference started at 2:15.  When I saw this, I turned to Tanenbaum and told him those time limits.  He said, "Jim, they knew within the hour."

In my opinion, that evidence indicates that there was some kind of, at least an understanding, between the people in Dallas and those in Bethesda. Perry was a liability to the plot and he had to be shut up. At once.

PS I thought Dr. Donald Miller came off quite effectively in the film.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For info on how to get both the 2 hour, for sale or rent, and the 4 hour, only for sale, here you go.

https://www.shoutfactory.com/blog/shout-studios-announces-four-part-documentary-series-jfk-destiny-betrayed-from-award-winning-filmmaker-oliver-stone/

The 2 hour one will be available over seven platforms: Google Play, Apple TV, Amazon, You Tube, Red Box DIgital, Vudu and Microsoft.

The 4 hour one is for sale over six platforms. All the ones above except Red Box.

If you really think about it, the film has had, as of now, an almost eight month worldwide window.  And its still not over yet. That will not come until the DVD version is out in May. Which will mean that it will have had, through various worldwide platforms, a ten month staged release. 

That is pretty much comparable, actually longer than, most feature films. (Its usually six months.  And the film has played in theaters e.g. Rome,UK)  Thank God for the Cannes Film Festival and that  ovation Oliver got in the main ampitheater. Which seats 2,300. That is what got us the cover of Paris Match and that was the beginning of the worldwide wave.

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

As for your assertion the film is a flop in comparison to Stone's and DiEugenio's hopes, and even expectations, you may very well be correct. But I don't know.

I recall Jim predicting -- before the documentary was released -- that the American MSM would ignore it. He fully expected it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Thanks Sandy.

When the director calls you into his office and tells you what I just revealed, then I think you know you are not going to be on the cover of New York Times Magazine and Sixty Minutes is not sending out a camera crew to film you.

Although  I must say, Fox was fair to us I thought, although Oliver did not.  They let me show a couple of declassified documents about Vietnam and Mexico City and they let us talk about Adams/Styles/Garner.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Minor correction: At 16:23 of Destiny Betrayed part 2, the narrator says that the only photographs we have of the Harper Fragment were those taken in Dallas. Not true - the FBI made photographs in their lab when it came to them.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSGpVzqAvDl6byYcTQ4Okv

harper-fragment-a-piece-of-jfks-cranium-

Also, the viewer really should be made aware that believing in an occipital blowout directly implies the x-ray record would need to be somehow faked or altered.

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

Yes, it's a big flop. Stone admits it, DiEugenio won't of course. All DiEugenio gives us is "how many views". Naturally someone clicks it on for a few seconds and leaves, that's counted as a view. 

All we need now is for DiEugenio to gives us the view count in Sri Lanka.

Like the film, it's just another phony carnival barker show. 

Fortunately I actually know what I'm talking about and you have time to edit this stupid comment that will show how ignorant you are. YouTube doesn't count "clicks for a few seconds" as a view and almost any grade schooler knows that even if you don't. I'm embarrassed someone ten years from now may see your post and decide immediately whatever you say is fortified by that level of incomprehension and dismiss it out of hand.

The near ten percent likes to view ratio is stellar and ratio of likes to dislikes beyond that. 863 comments is excellent engagement by any metric.

Talk about phony? You haven't a clue about what you're talking about. "Naturally" you should take up something you don't have to ask your grandson about to get informed. Sorry.

Edited by Bob Ness
Needed a good synonym for ignorant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Micah:

Can you give me a source for that FBI photo?

I think I have barely enough time to put the correction in the Book of the Film.

I got it from Google images. Maybe it's a screenshot from a David Mantik presentation or a documentary. Maybe Mantik has higher quality versions of the harper fbi photos, his presentations always have

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...