The Presidential Trilogy

Soldier of Controversy

To varying degrees, the films of Oliver Stone all express a distrust of power, a distate for war, and a gleeful disregard for the mainstream interpretation of history and current events. His fearlessness of thought and action is in the best American artistic tradition, despite what more straight-laced defenders of the status quo might want you to believe. Because unlike most politically-minded artists, Stone has every right to be distrustful of the powerful political and economic forces constantly keeping the country at war. As a young soldier in Vietnam, Stone learned of the horrors of war first hand. His early body of work includes a trilogy of Vietnam films that portray the brutality of military combat with visceral accuracy. His second slew of films is considered a trilogy of political dramas which portray the senselessness of war in a broader historical sense.

Stone has pointed his lens on War, Wall Street, 911, Watergate, and of course the Kennedy Assassination

The Vietnam Trilogy

In the decades immediately following the Second World War, scores of dramas and action films set during the war honored the heroism of American Warfare. Americans went to the movies to remind themselves of their own glory and sacrifice. In the decades after the Vietnam War, Oliver Stone used the same medium of cinema to portray American soldiering in the opposite light, filled with more atrocity than glory, and more senselessness than sacrifice. Stone’s Platoon shocked audiences in 1986 with its sheer brutality and realism. He defined how films would be made about Vietnam, and changed how films would be made about war in general. With 1989’s Born on the Fourth of July Stone showed audiences that perhaps the greatest wound of war is survival. The film portrays real-life figure Ron Kovic, who sustained crippling injuries as a Marine in Vietnam. Because of his wounds, Kovic never walked again and also never  stayed silent about the futility of America’s involvement in Vietnam. Stone’s third film portraying the horrors of Vietnam shifted perspective from American soldiers to the Vietnamese people themselves. 1993’s Heaven and Earth told the story of another Vietnam War survivor, Le Ly Hayslip, a young girl who experienced brutality at the hands of both sides in the conflict but eventually escaped to freedom in the United States.

Stone gained critical and commercial success with his trilogy of films on Vietnam.

Chasing Controversy

During the 80s and 90s, Oliver Stone took on many other controversial subjects. 1987’s Wall Street indicted the greedy business culture of the 1980s, and the film’s antagonist Gordon Gecko became an icon of modern cinema. In 1994, Stone set his sights on the mainstream media’s love of violence and the prison industrial complex’s love of corruption with his ludicrously gory modern Bonnie and Clyde myth Natural Born Killers, penned by the legendary Gen X filmmaker Quentin Tarintino. The production of the Presidential films, Vietnam films, and films on other subjects overlapped throughout the years. Along the way he won and was nominated for many prestigious Oscars and other honors. Despite critical and commercial triumphs, Stone’s three Presidential films that have earned him his reputation as America’s most outspoken and brazen mainstream filmmakers.

The Presidential Trilogy

With JFK, Nixon, and Dubya, director Oliver Stone has completed a presidential trilogy of sorts—three films which amount to a wicked, incendiary, and exciting mediation on the most powerful position in the world. All have provoked controversy: JFK for blurring the line between history and conjecture, Nixon for its daring dramatic licenses, and Dubya for taking a shot at a sitting President. What some forget is that Stone is not portraying history, he is dramatizing it by injecting historical stories into familiar storytelling genres.

Oliver Stone's Presidential Trilogy is an Important Legacy of Film History

Oliver Stone’s first Presidential film 1991’s JFK is a murder mystery, set against the background of political intrigue. In this film Stone is not illuminating corners of history as much as he is using them as a playground. Over the years, so many bizarre conspiracy theories and misleading red herrings have popped up concerning the Kennedy assassination. With JFK, Stone serves them all up in one meaty dish, garnished and seasoned with the kind of gusto and grace only Hollywood can provide. Stone himself keenly refers to the film as a “counter-myth” to the Lone Gunman story, and regards his own restaging of the assassination as “speculation.”  Critics claim that Nixon‘s dramatics are akin to that of a Shakespearean tragedy, but in actuality Stone’s second presidential film is more similar to one of Shakespeare’s history plays. In these works real-life leaders such as Richard III and Henry V were either vilified or venerated for the sake of popular entertainment. Shakespeare, like Stone, took incredible dramatic license in his portrayal of historical figures. Indeed Stone uses many real-life Nixon speeches in his film, while Shakespeare’s “Now is the winter of our discontent,” and “Once more unto the breach dear friends,” were all fanciful concoctions of the writer’s imagination. The third and final film in the trilogy is Dubya, a black comedy with so little bite that it seems Stone is getting a bit more tame as the years bear on. Maybe he believes the failures of the Bush Administration speak for themselves. The film  plays hardball with Cheney and the Cabinet, but is almost reverent to Dubya himself. Yet for some, merely making a major Hollywood film about a sitting President is slander enough. Still, Stone’s first Presidential film will always be his most controversial, and probably his best.

The Credit Sequence “Documentary”

JFK starts out as in the style of pure documentary. As the credits roll, historical footage is edited together to provide the audience with the cultural and political context of the film, as well as introduce us to the vitality and humanity that made John Fitzgerald Kennedy such a popular public figure. The sequence is ably narrated by legendary actor Martin Sheen, who himself received a Golden Globe a Golden Globe nod for his portrayal of JFK in the 1983 miniseries Kennedy. Sheen gives the sequence great majesty and gravitas.

Allied Commander Turned US President Dwight Eisenhower

The real President Dwight D. “Ike” Eisenhower is the first figure to appear on camera. Ike starts out the show with highlights from his farewell White House speech, an important oration where the World War II Allied Commander turned United States Presidential peacemaker informed everyday citizens about the “Military Industrial Complex” that was necessarily established during the Second World War but unnecessarily remained after our victory in that conflict. It is a startling moment for modern viewers to see a legendary Republican Warrior such as Eisenhower espouse a theory that has been so embraced by what is left of the American left. The rise and reign of this complex Eisenhower so eloquently admonished us to thwart is the fundamental subject of Oliver Stone’s Presidential trilogy. The screen goes black, and the story of a new era in American history is told.

Composer John Williams dreamily patriotic score crescendoes heroically as the camera reveals the striking figure of Jack Kennedy. We learn that Kennedy was narrowly elected over Vice President Nixon in the election of 1960. We learn of the political problems Kennedy inherited in the battle against communism in Southeast Asia and South America. Most importantly, we are informed that President Kennedy was dedicated to keeping combat troops out of Vietnam, a counter-narrative to mainstream history that becomes increasingly convincing as the years go on. “In the final analysis, it’s their war,” Kennedy tells newsman Walter Cronkite of the conflict in Vietnam.

The JFK credit sequence effectively blends black and white newsreel footage of President Kennedy with heartwarming color home movies of his home life. We see JFK laugh and joke with his wife and children, and in the process  the audience falls in love with John Fitzgerald Kennedy the same way the world did during his short but historic life. And then we lose him all over again.

Sewings the Seams Between Film and Reality

Sheen’s narration fades and the footage starts to show JFK’s fatal motorcade through Dallas on November 22nd 1963. Almost imperceptibly, the documentary footage begins to be intercut with footage shot by Stone. Although much of the film’s narrative is shot in modern 35mm widescreen color film stock, Stone often recreates events in the same black and white film stocks commonly used by the news and home movie cameras of the time. The new footage is skillfully edited with the old to great dramatic effect. This technique had been used in historical films before and since, but rarely is it been performed by a filmmaker as skilled as Oliver Stone. Consequently, when the film was first released, ordinary audience members were often unable to sort out which shots was historical and which were conceived by Stone. From the first moment that the film cuts between a real shot of Kennedy feeding his horse to a staged shot of assassination prophet Rose Charamie being thrown out of a car, Stone has skillfully stitched the seams of reality to the world of his film. By the time Kennedy’s motorcade makes it to Dealey Plaza, Stone’s film seems as real as reality, only more so. Amazingly, he manages to maintain the effect for over three hours of screen time.

John William’s score descends into a low growl as shots ring out from somewhere in the Plaza. Birds flutter as a few flames of the Zapruder film flicker in the darkness of the movie theater. But Stone doesn’t show the fatal head shot. Unlike many other films on the subject, Stone saves that brutal centerpiece of the story—and Zapruder’s infamous film—for maximum emotional impact.

As the motorcade rattles onto the Stemmons freeway in haunting silence, the audience is yanked out of the world of documentary into a more traditional movie experience. We are introduced to Kevin Costner as New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison in beautiful 35mm. The scenic designer, costumer, and property master took great pains to recreate a stunningly accurate recreation of 1963. The first film to tackle the assassination, 1973’s Executive Desicion and the various television programs about the subject were noble efforts, but they reek of the periods they were in—the 70s and 80s. By contrast,  Stone’s film is a veritable time machine to the 1960s, which has not dated itself in the past 20 years the way other the other films did over that same amount of time.

Television Through Big Jim’s Eyes

We will see the rest of the story through the eager and inquisitive eyes of “Big” Jim Garrison, a man whose dedication to unraveling the mystery of the Kennedy assassination would become as legendary as the mistakes and sabotages he experienced pursuing what he thought was the truth. We move from television to television with Garrison as the shocking events following Kennedy’s death unfold over four days in November. We are glued to the TV screen with Garrison,  his friends, family and co-workers just as America was glued to the TV screen during that actual weekend. Over that long, torturous weekend  America saw the man accused of murdering the President paraded to the press around the Dallas Police Department and then led to his own mysterious death. The footage of Lee Harvey Oswald talking to the press, and then being murdered by Jack Ruby in the station is faithfully recreated in black and white with the brilliant Gary Oldman taking on the role of the alleged assassin, and Bill Murray’s brother Bryan Doyle Murray taking on that of Ruby. Unless one is familiar with the actual footage of these events, it is almost impossible to see the seams in Stone’s masterful mixture of documentary and reenacted footage.

Stone captured the madness of Oswald's incarceration.

Stone even uses Oldman to recreate the photos of Oswald that were presented to the American people, including the infamous “Backyard Photos” of Oswald holding the alleged murder weapons. When presented those photos, Oswald himself said that someone matted his head onto someone else’s body. Stone gleefully does just that, matting Gary Oldman’s face over Lee Oswald’s. In doing so, Stone gives us the simple thrill of visual historical accuracy, while also demonstrating how one could modify the photos as Oswald accused somebody of doing.

We watch Walter Cronkite’s emotional proclamation of the President’s murder with Garrison at the local bar Napoleons. Reality blurs with the film as the man who inspired Kevin Bacon’s character in the film rises from the bar and applauds JFK’s death. Layers upon layers of fact and illusion begin piling up in the audience’s subconscious. The film has become a dream, a nightmare, a flashback, an inspired hallucination.

We are introduced to Oswald while watching television with Jim Garrison and his family. Oldman is yanked down the police hallway insisting he’s “just a patsy.” Garrison’s wife Liz calls Oswald a “creep” who gives her “the willies,” portraying how easily people bought into the idea that a disgusting little urchin could be capable of an assassination. Throughout the rest of the film, Liz’s character will come to represent the status quo of American thought.

We learn more about the case against Lee Oswald at Garrison’s office the next day, as Big Jim”and his staff watch the evidence pile up against the accused on TV. They learn about the rifle, ordered to Oswald’s alias and see the Backyard photos. When Jim learns that Oswald had been causing trouble in his town the summer before the assassination, he orders his staff to bring in the spooky suspect David Ferrie.

Stone hauntingly recreates Oswald's assassination

Before they can talk to Ferrie, Jim and the office staff watch as Oldman as Oswald is murdered by Jack Ruby in the basement of the Dallas jail on live TV. The emotional effect of the scene is staggering—the audience feels like they are watching that tragedy unfold once again—the first televised murder in American history. This sequence will doubtlessly be shown in film classes for generations to come alongside the masterworks of Eisenstein, Hitchcock, Coppolla, and Burton

Pesci as Ferrie

Big Jim decides to bring in Ferrie, even though Oswald died shortly after the Ruby shooting. No other character has captured the mystery and madness of the Kennedy assassination better than Pesci as Ferrie, as Hollywood legend Joe Pesci brings the quirky figure to life in all his glory in a way other historical films should be jealous of. The real Ferrie was a mildly perverted, admittedly brilliant, and severely tortured figure whose aspirations as a pilot, adventurer, and brother of the cloth were severely subverted by his sexual and intellectual idiosyncrasies. Ferrie was one of the many authority figures who floated in and out of the troubled life of Lee Harvey Oswald. He had been young Oswald’s commander in the Civil Air Patrol, Oswald’s first taste of service. Did Oswald spurn Ferrie’s authority as he’s been reported to have done with his superiors in the Marines, or did Lee remain loyal to the legendary Ferrie the rest of his short life? If so, what Ferrie tell him in New Orleans the summer before the assassination? And why was Dave  so anxious about the trip to Texas he had taken the day of the assassination? Jim was determined to find out. His determination will become the narrative thrust of the film. Garrison arrests Ferrie for further questioning, but the FBI lets him loose and scolds Big Jim. Garrison shrugs his shoulders and decides to go on with his life. The narrative drowsily drifts three years down the road as the television tells the viewer and Jim Garrison one more report. “President Johnson has announced the creation of a blue ribbon commission to probe the events in Dallas.”

“That Dog Don’t Hunt!”

Stone brings in screen legend Walter Matthau to recreate an important part of assassination lore, the famed Long/Garrison conversation while cruising through the Washington skies. In this famed conversation, Senator Russell Long introduced District Attorney Jim Garrison to a theory fundamental to many conspiracy theories: Lee Oswald couldn’t have done the shooting The Warren Report said he did. This 1966 meeting apparently inspired Garrison to re-open his investigation, but some researchers know Garrison already had files open on the case, and postulate this story was a cover for an investigation he may have already started in private. Still, the conversation works as a perfect narrative device to move the story forward, and get our hero back into the case.

The Garrison Investigation

Jim Garrison dives head first into the Warren Commission’s 26 Volumes of Testimony and Exhibits related to the Kennedy assassination. In this sequence, Stone masterfully re-enacts the various witness testimony as Jim pours over the volumes of statements, documents and photographs. Finding enough inconsistencies in the report to warrant reasonable doubt, Garrison decides to use his staff of investigators, lawyers, and assistant D.A.s to figure out what happened that summer in New Orleans, and that Fall in Dallas.

The Garrison investigation is used as a clever device to introduce the audience to the various problems with the government’s official version of the story that various researchers have come up with over the years, and creating what he considered a a “Countermyth” to the myth of the Warren Commission. Prominent Warren Commission Critics like HSCA Photographic Expert Robert Groden, Dallas Reporter Jim Marrs, and even the ailing Big Jim himself were brought in for consultation or cameos.

The film points out how Garrison’s investigation was sabotaged by Washington insiders, the mainstream media, as well as the various law enforcement and intelligence agencies, but also brings light to some of the greater mistakes he has made. The most prominent  blunders were his trusting of people who proved to be traitors to his cause, and his failure to protect the only man he might have been able to convict, Dave Ferrie. Instead of giving up, Big Jim decided to scapegoat a prominent businessman, playwright and philanthropist he believes cavorted with Ferrie under a homosexual alias. The re-enactments of Clay Shaw’s alleged conspiratorial actions in the film might convince viewers that the real Shaw was complicit in the assassination, but the film’s ambiguous ending might make more critical viewers question Stone’s portrayal of Shaw.

The Autopsy Recreation

Some of the most important information about the Kennedy assassination that came out of the Clay Shaw trials were the testimonies of the various doctors who attended and investigated President Kennedy’s wounds. For years the autopsy photographs were suppressed, and some say altered, before finally making their way to the public. Using an agonizingly realistic recreation of Kennedy’s corpse, Stone uses the photographs and testimony to meticulously recreate the President’s autopsy with almost nauseating accuracy. Stone briefly edits in the real autopsy photos with his footage. Only if you have already see the photos, or with repeat viewings of the film, can the typical audience member notice the brief substitution. Stone’s seam between reality and cinema is holding tight.

Oliver Stoned

Stocked, pilloried, and stoned, a brilliant filmmaker has become the “patsy” of the conspiracy theory community. Was his prowess behind the camera hindered by the follies of his reason, or did they fuel the passion that makes his works so compelling? Whatever your opinions of his personal beliefs, Stone is certainly an unsung hero in the enduring conspiracy debate. The momentum of his controversial counter-myth was the driving force behind the declassification of many important documents previously unavailable to the public by the Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992. The study of these documents has moved the conspiracy debate into a new, broader, and more enlightened era, beyond the red herrings and hearsay and into a legitimate historical discussion.

Stone has therefore done what any great political artist should do: keep the dialogue open.

8 Comments Add yours

  1. John Judge says:

    While Oliver Stone used some poetic license in the film JFK, it was not, as the press tried to assert and you repeat, a “mix of fact and fiction” or “blurring the lines of history and conjecture”. Stone accurately and meticulously portrayed New Orleans’ District Attorney Jim Garrisons 1968 case for conspiracy against Clay Shaw, who was acquitted but hardly innocent. Garrison was actively opposed and blocked by the CIA, the FBI and other elements of the government and media in making his case, denied access to records and to witnesses, and pilloried in the press for his courageous stand. Both Garrison and Stone have been borne out in their analysis by the release of over 6.5 million pages of classified records from the Warren Commission and House Select Committee on Assassinations investigations as well as other agencies here and abroad. That process continues to release records until 2017 when all postponements end. At least two books, Destiny Betrayed by Jim DiEugenio and Let Justice Fall by William Davey have gathered the new evidence on Shaw and other aspects of Garrison’s claims that prove him right. The release of State Department files on Southeast Asia in the 1990s confirmed the work of Peter Dale Scott and other critics regarding JFK’s clear intent to withdraw from Vietnam in 1964, another theme in Stone’s film. Garrison was assisted by many of the early critics and researchers in his case, including Mae Brussell, Maggie Fields, Lillian Castellano. A government orchestrated campaign against his character and case turned some critics against him at the time, sadly. His office was bugged and penetrated to compromise his prosecution and conclusions. Joan Mellon’s recent books on Garrison go deeper into the new files and what they tell us about his case. History has absolved Garrison, and by extension Oliver Stone. While Garrison never went to Washington to meet “Mr. X” (a character based on Fletcher Prouty), everything he is told was in correspondence to Garrison from Prouty at the time. This is dramatization but not distortion. I suggest you find a copy of JFK: The Book of the Film, which has the entire script along with exhaustive footnotes showing that almost every line was based on a documented statement by the people portrayed. When the media said Stone mixed “fact with fiction” my response was that unlike most Hollywood films which are propaganda fictions especially regarding key historical events, Stone had the audacity to make a film about the fact with very little fiction, portraying real historical events as they happened and their implications. All the best evidence points to a military coup d’etat by the Joint Chiefs of Staff on November 23 and the implementation of Operation Northwoods, a plan proposed by the Joint Chiefs that was rejected by Kennedy to create a traumatic incident that could plausibly be blamed on Fidel Castro to get public support for a military invasion of Cuba. Army troops were loaded onto transport planes on November 22, 1963 in anticipation of the invasion, and Navy Seals were sent offshore awaiting orders to assassinate Castro. Oswald had been “doubled” in Mexico City weeks before trying to get a pass into Cuba through the Soviet and Cuban embassies. It was only Oswald, who realized he was being set up as the patsy in a crime he tried to report on and prevent, and who then acted to prevent being killed during his arrest, who presented the problem of a talking head instead of a dead Red, who stopped the plan from being implemented. In his excellent analysis in History Will Not Absolve Us, Martin Schotz reprints Castro’s statement three days after the assassination of JFK making clear that he understood he was being set up to take the blame by US intelligence agencies. History will eventually absolve Garrison, the critics and Oliver Stone, who recently gave a copy of Jim Douglass’s JFK and the Unspeakable to Bill Maher on his show, recommending it, as do I for anyone seriously interested in ending their agnosticism or doubt about who killed JFK and why.

  2. author337 says:

    Hey John,

    I do indeed have a well-worn copy of the JFK documented screenplay, which has a place of honor in my collection of assassination books and films—the “Presidential Library” as I like to call it. The structure and substance of that volume is a testament to to Oliver Stone’s daring as an artist, and integrity as a creative force. Did you get a chance to pick up the wonderful new DVD box set? My girlfriend was indulgent enough to buy it for me for my birthday, and I found all the additional literature and photographs to be quite compelling, though the “Emerald Kings” documentary seemed like a tacked-on afterthought. Eventually I plan on expanding this segment of the site from a discussion of Stone’s films to a broader discussion of all the films related to the assassination—from chilling prophecies of the assassination like The Manchurian Candidate, to hard hitting responses to it such as JFK and Executive Action.

    I have great respect for Jim DiEugenio’s work, along with Bill Davey’s. They have done a great service in countering all the anti-Garrison slander which the mainstream media has been slinging for over forty years. I believe neither Oliver Stone nor Jim Garrison need the absolution you mention. Whatever flaws their myriad critics have identified in their work, the integrity of their mission can never be discredited. As DiEugenio points out, Garrison could have become Governor of Louisiana, or a powerful banker with the snap of a finger, but his dedication to finding the truth was paramount. The Helms admission that Clay Shaw did indeed have connections to the CIA demonstrates that there was more to Shaw than he was willing to let on. He may have even known Oswald, as we now know Dave Ferrie clearly did, but that does not necessarily put Kennedy’s blood on Shaw’s hands. The Russo testimony is intriguing, but I remain characteristically agnostic concerning its validity.

    Mr. DiEugenio visited my page the other day, and like yourself, challenged my agnostic stance. I acknowledge that my position is unconventional, but because the essential truth of the assassination was either buried with Oswald or long ago covered up by whatever conspirators are complicit in the assassination, I believe an open-minded agnosticism is the only logical position I can maintain. I assure you my stance is borne neither from cynicism nor indifference, but from a willingness to hear the opinions of all reputable parties, yourself included. To close myself off from all possibilities would be disservice to my own inquisitiveness. I hope to one day be convinced of who is truly responsible for the death of President Kennedy, but until then I must maintain an open mind. I found the thesis and research of Jim Douglass to be rather intriguing, but I still maintain that the answer to the mystery of the JFK assassination is yet to be uncovered.

    Thanks again for taking the time to visit my site and lending your expertise. Please encourage your friends and colleagues to do the same. All opinions are welcome here at Assassination Agnostic!

    Respectfully Yours,
    Lee Sanger Goldin

  3. jim feemster says:


    ” THEY ” killed JFK and ” THEY ” are still among us!

    Jim Feemster

  4. The problem is the people loves fiction more than the truth. We’d rather need documentaries than Hollywood movies about what really had happened and how conspirators really conspire. Nice tries of Oliver Stone, who at least does not fake like other Hollywood artists, but he is still Hollywood and Hollywood pastes the truth and keeps the people in a world of illusions. The same illusions Platon drew in his cave analogy.

  5. steve says:

    i STRONGLY URGE YOU TO REVIEW THE VIDEOS ABOUT Roger Craigs story from the time the first shot was fired…with Deputy Crag running to where he encountered Lee Oswald exiting the rear of the Book depository Building..and getting inside the rambler station wagon with a driver later identified as very possibly one david morales a spook and hit man for the mob called CIA..He would later reappear in the Ambassador Hotel where Bobby Kennedy was awaiting his death sentence..the first rifle qwas identified by a group of dallas Detctives in whicjh Craig and all who found the Mauser..and signedoff on it ..only to later on ..have a change of mind and re do their i.d. of said weapon as the Italian piece of junk that no self respecting hitman would dare have as his main weapon..It was just a poor snipers weapon ..and in spite of Roger being hounded from his testimony until his “suicide’ in ’75..He was proven to be accurate and a good police officer that would not bend when told the other detectives had changed their mind about the Rifle ..and signed off on it n being a carcano..Why would he do himself s badly that the rest of his life was one incident after another of his being either shot at at tO running his car off the a spook sounding bomb in his ride that detonated at the wrong time saving his short life ..was cRAIG AN HONEST COP WHO WOULD NOT BEND TO OBVIOUS LIES..OR WAS HE A STUPID MAN WJHO GAINED NOTHIONG FINANCIALLY…NOTJHING BUT TROUBLE AND LOSS WHEN HE WOULD NOT BACK OFF HIS ACCUSATIONS..OR ..WORSE?

  6. Anyway I’m adding this RSS to my e-mail and could look out for much more of your respective fascinating content. Ensure that you update this again very soon..

  7. Thank you for some other informative site. The place else may just I am getting that type of info written in such an ideal method?

    I’ve a venture that I’m just now working on, and I’ve been at the glance out for such information.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s