JFK

am i tagging this pride month 2026? yeah… and what are you going to do about it? my place on this website is just being the biggest oliver stone and oz perkins defender and i'm okay with that. something that endlessly frustrates me about the conversation around this movie is how it always falls into the 'how accurate is it' rabbit hole. ignoring that it is shockingly factual, the accuracy isn't the point. all of these things were happening but stone's entire thesis isn't to tell you who killed jfk but how the lies of the government corrupt america and the subsequent paranoia of being lied to by the institutions that control your life. when i saw oliver stone presenting jfk, he didn't praise garrison as some american hero but was incredibly critical of him and how he presented his case. it wasn't strong but because oliver stone doesn't do his best william castle at the start of the film, critical thinking goes right out the window. i think so many reviewers get so hung up on everything not in the movie that it has to be some intentionally malevolent choice. sometimes you have to work with what is thematically relevant instead of having a 10 minute scene where kevin costner is doing research on memory. also, it does endlessly tickle me seeing how people call this conspiracy fodder but the government literally did this shit to martin luther king jr (and let's be real probably malcolm x too).