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.
Kennedy assassination. The single-bullet theory was introduced by the Warren Commission in its investigation of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy to explain what happened to the bullet that struck Kennedy in the back and exited through his throat. The Warren Commission that investigated the Kennedy assassination established that the reactions of Kennedy and Connally happened too close together for two single shots, even from the same gun, to have been accountable for their injuries. In an interview with Piers Morgan Stone said, the single-shooter theory and the "magic bullet" theory "fall apart, if anybody in their right mind looks at it." "It angers me sometimes, to think of the degree of stupidity about Oswald and the Mannlicher-Carcano (rifle) on the sixth floor making these shots. It's almost as if we don't believe what we see with our own eyes in the Zapruder film," Stone
Sarah Vowell’s Assassination Vacation is a humorous exposé on the sites of murdered presidents and how they are used commercially instead of historically. Vowell takes a series of trips to the murder related sites of presidents Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley, pointing out the lack of historical context in each of these areas. The use of history and her personal experiences captivate the audience in an emotional level, creating a platform for her argument. She opens the reader to the true history of these events and adds to it in her own humorous way. Arguably, her modernized language and sarcastic style of writing is the strong point that expresses the dissatisfaction these sites bring to a true appreciator of history. By the use of her historical knowledge, the first hand accounts of her trips, and tone Vowell’s argument induces change in the information found in United States landmarks.
How can two people, who have countless differences, still have similarities? This is true of two characters, Dally Winston and Johnny Cade, in the novel The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton. Johnny and Dally are similar because they both have neglectful parents and place little value on their own lives. In contrast, Johnny is the most law-abiding and Dally is the least. Also, Dally likes to fight, but Johnny does not. Therefore, Dally and Johnny have different personalities, but similar problems.
How can two different people be so much alike? How can one man who lives in a poor environment and neighborhood have so much in common with a man that lives in a rich neighborhood? But, in S.E. Hintons novel The Outsiders, these two characters do indeed exist. Dally Winston and Johnny Cade are very similar because they each have abusive and neglectful parents and they both care about each other. Besides the similarities, Dally and Johnny have much different advice for they friend Ponyboy Curtis and they each die with a different story, Johnny dying a hero and Dally dying a hoodlum. In addition to Dally Winston and Johnny Cade having huge differences they also have some important similarities that
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).
JFK's Death On November 22, 1963, one of the most controversial assassinations happened to one of the greatest leaders in America, by Jack Ruby's mafia, with the assistance of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that committed the act of treason, in the murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK). There is hard evidence supporting the cover up and scandal involved with his assassination. Due to the confiscation of films and evidence, the citizens of the United States must only know what they are told by the government. The CIA was associated with the mafia and arranged the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
November 22, 1963 indicates the day that has ruined many of the American people’s trust in the government. It is also one of the biggest conspiracies that have never been solved by conspiracy theorists. Our 35th president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy was killed that day. Numerous amounts of Americans say Lee Harvey Oswald was the culprit but I think Oswald never even touched the trigger. He was an easy suspect to be used for the crime, which may have been set up by the CIA who he was considered to be a member of. Since I was little, I would always wonder why our government would lie about JFK’s death because it didn’t make any sense to me and it still doesn’t. The only reason I could think is that the government is trying to hide one of the greatest conspiracies ever in American history, which seems logical. Ever since then, the government has become very secretive and scarier in my opinion. They are trying to hide the truth from the Americans and to keep them in a mist of not knowing anything. Ever since the JFK Assassination, the Government has become very secretive and scary in my opinion because we do not know who murdered JFK, Witnesses being abused and killed for speaking, and having the CIA shielding the citizens from the truth. I am a very curious person and if I hear about a conspiracy, I want to research deep into it to find out the truth. Just like other conspiracies such as the 9/11 attack and Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, I want to know what is going on with the planet we are living on and I want to know the truth which comes to the conclusion of the question I want an answer to: Was John Fitzgerald Kennedy killed as the result of a conspiracy?
How can two people who are very different share similarities? Dally and Johnny, two greasers from S. E. Hinton’s novel The Outsiders, have distinct differences as well as similarities. They are similar because they both know what it is like to have abusive and neglectful parents. Also, they both care about each other in similar ways. Dally and Johnny are completely different when it comes to the law. Dally is the least law abiding in the gang, where as Johnny is the most. Dally and Johnny are dissimilar when they die. Dally dies a hoodlum, which is vast difference from how Johnny dies a hero. Therefor, Dally and Johnny have a lot in common, but also have great differences.
Moore insists that all his facts are correct and even hired an old fact checker for the New Yorker to make sure. But this, of course, doesn't come to grips with the fact that much of the Bush statements he objects to are also, strictly speaking, factually correct. The truth about facts is not self evident, as he knows; the significance of facts can be manipulated by those with just a camera just as easily as by those in power. In an era of mass-media politics-a far cry from the original political debates in Athens-"Fahrenheit 9/11" is an uneasy compromise between populism and propaganda. The things it has to say are relevant and important and should be heard - but hopefully, they are just part of a larger, more even-handed discussion. Perhaps, the success of this movie is a recognition of the fact that the way this discussion gets carried out in the modern age is by turning it into a form of entertainment.
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.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (R and G…) by Tom Stoppard is a transformation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet that has been greatly influenced due to an external contextual shift. The sixteenth century Elizabethan historical and social context, accentuating a time of questioning had specific values which are transformed and altered in Stoppard’s Existential, post two-world wars twentieth century historical and social context. The processes of transformation that are evident allow the shifts in ideas, values and external contexts to be clearly depicted. This demonstrates the significance of the transformation allowing new interpretations and ideas about reality as opposed to appearance, death and the afterlife and life’s purpose to be displayed, enabling further insight and understanding of both texts.
Traditional literature in the field of labor relations has focused immensely on its benefit towards the employer and in the process equating it to working rules. This has been so despite the field being expected to cover the process of, labor management, union formation, and collective bargain; all which are anticipated to create a positive employer-employee relationship. This relationship is said to be positive if there exist a balance between employment functions and the rights of the laborer. Also important to note, is that this relation is equally important to the public sector as it is to the private one. Therefore, to ensure a mutually conducive labor environment exists, effective labor management process and inclusive negotiation program should be adopted (Mulve 2006; Walton, 2008).
Collective bargaining may happen in several kinds of fields, ranging politics to sports. It allows appropriate settlement of disputes and issues that benefit both parties involved, producing a result that is not one-sided. Collective bargaining is “the negotiation of wages and other conditions of employment by an organized body of employees” (Beal, Wickersham, & Kienast 5). Four issues that are probable components of a collective bargaining agreement are:
A collective bargaining agreement collectively sets the terms on which an employer offers individual work contracts to each of its employees in the bargaining unit. A bargaining agreement, also herein referred to as a labour agreement, is a legally enforceable written commitment, which states the rights and duties of all parties involved. The labour agreement should be made in good faith and is intended to be observed and not violated. The National Labour Relations Act obligates employers and unions to bargain in good faith concerning terms and conditions of employment, including hours and wages. Like any normal contract, competent parties must enter into a labour agreement. However, a labour agreement is unique from other legal contracts in that there is no consideration involved and nothing tangible is exchanged. Many, but not all, unions require formal ratification of a new labour contract by a majority membership acceptance, which is determined through vote by the members. Until majority approval of those voting in a ratification election is received, the proposed labour contract is not final. While each labour agreement is unique to the needs of an organization and its employees, most agreements include five issues: (1) Management Rights, (2) Union Security, (3) Wages and Benefits, (4) Individual Security (Seniority) Rights, and (5) Dispute Resolution. Management Rights “Management” is the process of working with people and resources to accomplish organizational goals by making the best possible use of money, time, materials and people. The management process, when properly executed, involves a wide variety of activities including planning, organizing, directing and controlling. It is management’s role to perform all of these functions in order to maximize results.