Manipulation of Truth in Oliver Stone's JFK
Oliver Stone is a master of manipulation. Being an expert in the art of directing, Stone is able to make an audience believe whatever he wishes. In the 1991 film JFK, Oliver Stone manipulates facts in order to convey a fictional conspiracy involving the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The Zapruder film and the magic bullet theory are two facts that Stone employs to trick the audience into believing his fabricated tale.
Stone unfolds this film through the eyes of Jim Garrison, the district attorney of New Orleans, who believes that there is more to the assassination than what has been presented in the past. Although three years have gone by since the conclusion of the trial, Garrison feels personally obligated to uncover classified information that will prove a complex government coup d'etat. Garrison's idea that the United States government is somehow related to Kennedy's assassination is first seen in the opening of the film. Stone flashes scenes from the Zapruder film (an eight millimeter live video of the shooting) where he mutes the original audio sounds and replaces them with ceremonial music, representative of the United States government. Being that the Zapruder film is a piece of documented evidence; a general audience does not question its validity. This replacement of sound is a conscious attempt to foreshadow the conclusion that Stone wants the audience to come to at the end of the film. By linking together visual images of the assassination with military music, Stone sends a subliminal message that two are somehow related. In reality, this connection is nothing more than a fictional interpretation contrived by Oliver Stone.
Where does reality end and fiction begin in Garrison's conspiracy theory? This is a question that one must ask themselves before viewing the final episode of JFK. The final element of the movie is made up of an intense and captivating courtroom scene. It is here where Garrison culminates the entirety of his speculations and presents them in front of a court of law. Are Garrison's suppositions valid, or is it the way in which he presents these conjectures that makes them appear to be true? Garrison's passionate and charismatic rhetoric makes his accusations exce...
... middle of paper ...
... righteousness in the name of their former president. Testimonies from witness present at the assassination, in reality, do not exist. Because of the emotional high being experienced, viewers do not take the time to separate what is fact in Garrison's testimony from what is fiction. Stone successfully uses his final presentation of the factual Zapruder film to coerce a majority of both audiences into believing his contrived tale.
Oliver Stone incorporates facts such as the Zapruder film and the magic bullet theory into his 1991 film, JFK. This film is not intended to be a documentary, but rater a persuasive work of art that uses facts in order to convey fiction. Being a master of manipulation, Stone is able to alter the way in which he presents these facts, causing viewers to believe that there is a conspiracy involving the Kennedy assassination. By using techniques such as replacement of sound and repetition of footage, Oliver Stone forces viewers to make false connections and experience intense emotions. Through careful manipulation of evidence in JFK, Stone successfully persuades a majority of viewers to believe an ultimately fictional conspiracy.
Some people that not account the story through the aspects of war and history may see this movie as a fiction movie due to its beliefs of people getting brainwashed or maybe a drama due to the ending. Others may see this movie as a threat to the president at that time, because one of the murder tentative was at one of the presidential candidates in the movie, which ended up to be a murder to the mother that was hypnotized her son and her elected husband. In details, Raymond (the son) was brainwashed by the Soviet Union and surprisingly his mother was also working with the Soviet Union. Indeed, the outcome finished with her assassination giving that it was an anti-communist movie from the
To conclude this analysis on the basis of the labor’s extensive history, Sloane & Witney (2010) propose, “it is entirely possible that labor’s remarkable staying power has been because of the simple fact that to many workers, from the nineteenth century to the present, there really has been no acceptable substitute for collective bargaining as a means of maintaining and improving employment conditions” (p.80). In the end, it is important to anticipate unions and employers presently work together to find solutions that will enhance collective bargaining strategies and practices to serve the interest of both parties.
Personally, I think that Oswald assisted in killing JFK. I do think that the government agencies were in on this and that the two evidence text was plotted to cause a feeling of not being positive about who killed JFK. But I also do think that the two pieces of evidence serves as a distraction. To confuse the evidence. It’s very humorous. lol
History is consistently used in films as a technique to teach the values and morals of events that occurred. But what’s the point in teaching history through films when they are terribly fictional? In films, the director finds the best scheme to intrigue their audience only by changing the actual event to satisfy their interest. This is true for Stanley Kramer when he made the history of John Scopes and his “monkey trial” into a film called Inherit the Wind. Kramer knew the exact stereotypical “Hollywood history” his audience enjoyed. The trial itself had a series of conflicts, the main one being evolution vs. religion. Yet there was also a series of tensions throughout the movie, including the argument between individual vs. society. The same themes from Inherit the Wind can also be seen from the actual “monkey trial” event in Dayton, Tennessee. It is sometimes said that truth is stranger than fiction and according to this film, truth is also stronger than fiction. Inherit the Wind ignored the true dramatic moment, which is essential to the actual trial that happened in Dayton, Tennessee. Kramer even portrayed his own opinion of this trial in this film. The truth was so distorted in the film so now the argument is not individual vs. society or evolution vs. religion but history vs. fiction. Inherit the Wind is set in the little town of Hillsboro when Bertram Cates (played by), a biology teacher, was thrown into prison for teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution. Two famous lawyers were behind this case, Henry Drummond (played by) as the defender and Mathew Harrison Brady (played by), as the prosecutor. Mathew Harrison Brady who was “voted 3 times for a presidential candidate” was sent to Hillsboro is carry out the job as a prosecutor for this trial. As for Cates, a journalist from Baltimore Herald by the name of E.K. Horrbeck willingly provided a lawyer named Henry Drummond for him. Horrbeck was interested in the Cates, expecting to make big bucks from this big “media” case. The two opposing lawyers, Drummond and Brady, were Kramer’s two main characters, both with different opinions on how humans arrived on earth. Drummond supported the evolution theory, while Brady, the creation theory. In this film, Kramer distorted the facts of the actual trial to make this film more of a drama than a history documentary.
Imagine a life where danger lurks in every corner, and there is no hope for a shooting star to appear. This is how Dally and Johnny,two characters from S.E Hinton’s, The Outsiders, live everyday. One welcomes this trouble while the other cowers away. Dally Winston and Johnny Cade are two characters who although very different, have very similar characteristics.
Can some people so different be so a like? Can some people so alike be so different? Dally and Johnny are those two who are so different, but yet they are similar. In the book S.E. Hinton writes The Outsiders, Johnny Cade and Dally Winston come from two completely different backgrounds, and have completely different scruples. Yet, at the same time they are alike. Dally and Johnny’s parents both repudiate them, making Johnny and Dally mentally tough, and the boys do not value their lives. At the same time though they are different, Dally is stronger than Johnny. Though, Johnny has a soft heart and Dally would not even pay any attention if someone is dying right next to him.
Released on July 31, 1992, the two-year film production was meticulously researched, yet laid out simply and forcefully the case against the US government story, and won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature as a result. Made all the more timely by the recent war on terrorism (or errorism, as I like to call it), the “Panama Deception” shows how the U.S. killed between 3,000 to 4,000 people over the course of an invasion that the rest of the world was against (a theme duplicated in the War on Iraq and others prior to then Panama invasion).
In researching this and many other conspiracy theories, one can see many uses of sensationalism, mainly by the media. This media- the news (local and national), magazines, tabloids, television shows, movies, and so on- has a huge e...
Despite the testimony of the witnesses, perhaps the clearest evidence of Oswald's guilt comes from footage of the assassination and the official government report. The Zapruder Film is the only known footage of the assassination. Using a camera with a speed of 18 frames a second, the assassination became re-playable. The film was slowed down, and the exact moments of the bullets impacts were found. From the angle at which the President was hit, the shots had to be fired from an elevated level in the rear.
The chief organization of law governing collective bargaining is the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This entity unequivocally awards employees the privilege to collectively bargain and enter trade unions. The NLRA was initially sanctioned by Congress in 1935 under its authority to police interstate commerce. It pertains to most private non-agricultural laborers and employers involved in some facet of interstate...
The process of collective bargaining is where the labor union and the organization’s management negotiate their workplace differences in order to promote a positive working relationship ( Holley, Wolters & Ross, 2012). Both side have to go into the negotiations with the goal of having a positive and productive outcome of the bargaining process. If this is always goals then when future issues come up that have to be decided both side have a positive attitude and not on the defensive if there is a new labor dispute. The NLRA makes it a requirement for an employee to participate in the collective bargaining process with the labor union (McManemin, 1962). Both parties in the negotiation process have a duty negotiate employee salaries, work hours
The New Deal Era (1930’s) pushed for the legalization of collective bargaining among several other labor laws, which resulted in the formation of unions. When looking back, the result of collective bargaining can be seen around the world. Countries worldwide have unions to protect both employees and companies, and even governments. China, for example, maintains labor unions to pacify angry workers and aid in keeping governmental control. Without collective bargaining statutes how could unions exist? Employees would not have the protection, the negotiation capabilities, or the assistance in finding new work. The Wagner Act also provid...
Throughout American history, labor unions have served to facilitate mediation between workers and employers. Workers seek to negotiate with employers for more control over their labor and its fruits. “A labor union can best be defined as an organization that exists for the purpose of representing its members to their employers regarding wages and terms and conditions of employment” (Hunter). Labor unions’ principal objectives are to increase wages, shorten work days, achieve greater benefits, and improve working conditions. Despite these goals, the early years of union formation were characterized by difficulties (Hunter).
Mandatory subject of bargaining, are the subjects or potential points that are normally specific to all collective bargaining such as wages, benefits, working conditions and length of contract. Based on these very important subjects it is clear why they are considered a “Mandatory Subject” as points of the bargaining unit. In the article, “The Mandatory - Permissive Distinction and Collective Bargaining Outcomes” the author explains how collective bargaining can involve some very essential points to be effective and without these standard subjects to be bargained over the bargaining process will not be effective. “An analysis of the potential impact of the distinction in a controlled setting indicates that unions negotiate less favorable nonwage
Attachment behavior in adults towards the child includes responding sensitively and appropriately to the child’s needs. Such behavior appears universal across cultures. Attachment theory explains how the primary caregiver and child relationship influences development between the two.