Whether or not any of Garrison's beliefs regarding the assassination is true, I have no idea. But I've always believed there's no way Oswald acted alone.
reading up on him and learning he was a total crackpot who literally had no case nor evidence and was just trying to make a name for himself in the media really ruined the movie for me, which at first watching was a mind blowing experience
I’ve been busy working on repairing my garage which is rotting away on its foundation.
God, I hate that. Why is it always garages? Is it because nobody lives in them and stuff goes too far before it's noticed? Once a garage has one little wrong thing that's noticeable it becomes an enormous time sink. It's as though biggerboat were put in charge of all the world's garages...
All good rbk. I highly respect your opinions here.
thanks brother feeling is mutual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominic
Rewatched the 3.5 hour version of JFK, mostly for the 16 minute Donald Sutherland monologue in the middle.
This is a very well-made movie, but it's gotten a little clunky in the thirty years since it was released.
Costner, while great in the closing summation scene, is terribly miscast in the rest of the movie. His southern accent is laughable and his character way too earnest.
All the scenes with his home life and Sissy Spacek should've been cut. They're not interesting.
What is interesting is remembering how revolutionary the fast-paced editing was at the time...now, it just seems normal.
The huge cast is great, but when Sutherland is on the screen, you see what this could've been. He truly was a master.
Whether or not any of Garrison's beliefs regarding the assassination is true, I have no idea. But I've always believed there's no way Oswald acted alone.
agree with pretty much all of this esp the part about needing to just get rid of all the family stuff.
I've done a TON of reading on the assassination and I'm not gonna derail this thread and turn it into a conspiracy theory tangent but there is some very interesting stuff and you can fall down a very deep rabbit hole.
good place to start is the 1976 HSCA (house select committee on assassinations) and then of course there are a million books on it, mark lane and gaeton fonzi have very interesting books on it (list is way too long to include everyone but there are def a ton of crackpots so have to really vet who you're reading).
fwiw tommy lee jones' character was revealed to indeed be a contract agent for the CIA and southerlands character was based on a former army special operations officer named L. Fletcher Prouty and opinions about him obv vary wildly.
one thing that is undebatable is the warren commission was fiction and at the very least the actions of the FBI and CIA following the assassination were incredibly suspicious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickroll
reading up on him and learning he was a total crackpot who literally had no case nor evidence and was just trying to make a name for himself in the media really ruined the movie for me, which at first watching was a mind blowing experience
back and to the left, back and to the left
you shouldn't just take as gospel everything you read.
he def had his issues but a bunch of the accusations about him were totally fictitious or extremely exaggerated and made by people with serious motives to discredit him.
at the very least like southerland says in that famous Washington meeting and what remains true to this day garrison is the only person to ever bring anyone to trial for the assassination of JFK and if it's such an obvious case of one lone gunman acting completely on his own why have all the files that were supposed to be declassified continue to be held from the public and protected so fiercely from declassification so many decades after the assassination?
on a totally different note one thing I always found interesting but apparently I'm the only one as I've never seen/read/heard anyone else even mention this but and maybe it's because my knowledge on this subject is lacking and there are tons of other examples of this but it seems to me that so often when someone is so radicalized and politically motivated to the point of carrying out an assassination of a major public figure or just a major act of political violence such as 9/11 or McVeighs OKC bombing etc when captured they don't ever protest their guilt or try and claim they didn't do it they just want to tell everyone why it had to be done and justify their actions.
but from the time oswald was arrested to the time he was so conveniently murdered he maintained his innocence quite adamantly he never once acted like most other people I can remember in history who we know to be absolutely guilty (not talking about other possible assassins who claimed to be framed and who were never conclusively found to have done it).
I'm guessing I must be wrong on this subject otherwise someone else would have brought it up but just seems like all of the debate about the assassination focused on physical evidence (and rightly so) and would have been interesting to get more into his mindset and motives (there has been some very cursory discussions nothing to the level I've seen for other suspected terrorists).
sorry for the wall of text this is a subject that really fascinates me and somehow I still haven't been completely convinced of anything other than there is very little likelihood that oswald acted alone (HSCA came to same conclusion) and at the very least the FBI and CIA acted aggressively after the assassination to hinder the investigation and keep a ton of facts from the public.
lol and all the "RBK is a looney dingbat" faction, you're welcome!
RBK, I don't think you're part of the faction. Years ago, NOVA did a great show on the physics of the assassination, the stuff about Oswald not being able to get off three shots, the gun sounds of a coming from different directions, etc, etc. Nothing to do with conspiracy theories.
A scientist who studied the limo for metals did a presentation in RI a number of years ago. He said there were only the metal from Oswald's but people kept asking the "what about?" Kinds of questions. He had no thoughts on a conspiracy.
If you haven't read it, Don DeLillo's novel Libra is terrific.
Regarding Duck Soup, I can't be sure if it's comedy or satire or both. The article linked below talks about both. I see it more as an absurdist comedy rather than satire, but I do find the article makes some good points.
I used to watch it with my dad on TV as a kid and it was clearly absurdist comedy.
The first time I saw it in a theater was on a college campus ~1970, and it was obviously anti-war political satire.
Now I'm back to watching it on TV again, and not only is it absurdist comedy, it's the pinnacle of absurdist comedy. So we can only assume that Groucho is all things to all men, and we all know where that line of thinking leads us.
Spoiler:
Second Coming ftw!!!
But still I have to ask the question that I have always asked: How do they get away this ****.
RBK, I don't think you're part of the faction. Years ago, NOVA did a great show on the physics of the assassination, the stuff about Oswald not being able to get off three shots, the gun sounds of a coming from different directions, etc, etc. Nothing to do with conspiracy theories.
A scientist who studied the limo for metals did a presentation in RI a number of years ago. He said there were only the metal from Oswald's but people kept asking the "what about?" Kinds of questions. He had no thoughts on a conspiracy.
If you haven't read it, Don DeLillo's novel Libra is terrific.
Sent from my Pixel 7a using Tapatalk
ya actually libra is one of my best friends favorite books I have it on audiobook just haven't made it there quite yet but may just bump it to the top of the queue.
Woody Allen uses it in Hannah and Her Sisters, saying that life is worth living because Duck Soup exists.
Preston Sturges ( he also subverted the censors) has a similar scene in Sullivan's Travels. Sullivan, a director who seeks to make a film with social importance, instead of the light comedies he had been making. He is arrested in put in prison near the end of the film. The men in the prison look worn and beaten down. However, on film night, the men watch a cartoon and laugh hysterically. Sullivan realizes the importance of comedy.
Certainly, Duck Soup is anarchic, but it's also damn funny. I have used his line, Don't leave in a huff, leave in a minute in a huff, a few times. I know a number of people who are too damn serious. They need a dose of comedy in their lives. For me, anyway, I need laughter and value friends who make me laugh. Maybe it's the Irish in me. Groucho's wordplay has been compared to James Joyce's. It's a valid comparison.
finally watched the unbearable weight of massive talent
trailers made me think it'd be the greatest film ever made
massively let down but was expecting to be
still good and enjoyed, but feel like it was so close to hitting the player/swimming with sharks/being john malkovich/adaptation kind of breakthrough overly meta film within a film kind of thing and just fell flat
saw it was a team who were had lots of writing experience but never before in film which made sense - looking forward to seeing their future stuff
7/10 - enjoyable, has some incredible moments, but just falls flat
Oppenheimer hit Amazon Prime and I watched it lst night.
Uhg! I hated very second of it and thats 3+ hours worth of seconds. Typically I turn crap like this off but I felt obligated to watch due to all of the accolades. To sum it up a very long, very boring, non linear mess.
I love the story of the bomb but this aint it. Fat Man and Little Boy was great, the TV show Manhattan was great, this wasn't any of that. Not sure what this was but for my tastes it certainly wasn't worth the 3 hours I will never get back.
