Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass


Denny Zartman
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 777
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

52 minutes in, Sibert's marked diagram of a skull for the ARRB is shown, to support the theory of a blowout in the occiput. But, Sibert has made conflicting statements describing the size of the head wound and the size of the brain. In a body alteration scenario, maybe Sibert wouldn't have seen the wound before the brain was removed, and maybe he overcompensated for this by drawing a smaller-looking head wound on the diagram. What was presented as copper could be gold.

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the great things about the film is the cinematography by Bob Richardson.

I have seen a lot of documentaries.  I have never seen one with the quality of photography this one has.

Richardson has won three Oscars and you can tell that from his work here.

When you add in Kurt Matilia's editing, which is also remarkable, this is pretty much hands down the best made JFK documentary ever. To think that Kurt culled something like 46 hours, 23 interviewees, into 120 minutes of really fast flowing, beautifully shot, exquisitely photographed cinema, that is really something.

When I first saw the film on Showtime, I sent a note to Bob congratulating him on his superb work.  And also Oliver for requesting him.  If this was a different subject, both men would get Emmy awards.  To think that my script got  shot and edited by these two guys, pretty heady stuff.

And BTW, that is not just me.  There have been about five people in the film business who have contacted me and said they were stunned by how great the film looked.  And calling it the best in the field.   

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

One last point about the photography.

It was not shot on film.

Even though it looks like it was, with that glossy, high resolution, vibrant color.

Digital cameras are quite the way to go these days... 4K-8K imagery, and you can edit a final in your closet if necessary. Look forward to seeing it, Jim.

--David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, David G. Healy said:

Digital cameras are quite the way to go these days... 4K-8K imagery, and you can edit a final in your closet if necessary. Look forward to seeing it, Jim.

--David

If you got an old 90's camcorder that uses tape, anybody can make a film under the "analogwave" aesthetic. Just make your film look like it was taped off the history channel for a homework project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Dave.  As you probably know, Bob used a Red Digital Camera, which I think about 25 percent of the industry uses now on feature films. (But recall this is a documentary.) 

The resolution and frame speed on those is just amazing.

They are really state of the art.

You will  like the film.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Melbourne cinematographer friend of mine, David Richardson (no relation at all to Bob Richardson) watched the documentary this week. He thought it was stunning, and looked stunning. “Amazing - best doco on the subject by a mile.” He and I are both looking forward to the book and to the extended cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

One of the great things about the film is the cinematography by Bob Richardson.

I have seen a lot of documentaries.  I have never seen one with the quality of photography this one has.

Richardson has won three Oscars and you can tell that from his work here.

When you add in Kurt Matilia's editing, which is also remarkable, this is pretty much hands down the best made JFK documentary ever. To think that Kurt culled something like 46 hours, 23 interviewees, into 120 minutes of really fast flowing, beautifully shot, exquisitely photographed cinema, that is really something.

When I first saw the film on Showtime, I sent a note to Bob congratulating him on his superb work.  And also Oliver for requesting him.  If this was a different subject, both men would get Emmy awards.  To think that my script got  shot and edited by these two guys, pretty heady stuff.

And BTW, that is not just me.  There have been about five people in the film business who have contacted me and said they were stunned by how great the film looked.  And calling it the best in the field.   

 

As great a feature film ‘JFK’ was, this is as great a documentary.

Just wondering if it will have a similar aftershock as ‘JFK’ did. I think the word of mouth will move more slowly but might even have greater impact over time.

The MSM is just acknowledging Hoover’s role in the Malcolm X assassination. Anything’s possible I guess.

 

Edited by Michaleen Kilroy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Anthony.  That is the kind of reaction people in the business are giving the film.

Its that well done.

 

And thanks Mike also.  I am doing a national TV hook up in Australia next week. Oliver has an Op Ed coming out I think tomorrow.  So yes its getting some attention, without any real advertising budget.

 

Please note, I corrected an error I made about the camera Bob used above.  That camera is pictured below, the whole package, with all accessories is 65 K.

https://www.sharegrid.com/miami/l/87860?type=buy

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is visually outstanding. I think the accuracy that digital provides is a plus here, as many of these clips look clearer than I've ever seen them, by quite a bit.

1991 JFK also looked amazing; the brilliant blending of film types. I personally think that its cinematography, along with the script, performances and subsequent societal impact, is why it qualifies as one of the greatest films ever made.

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...