Oliver Stone is a renowned filmmaker and considered one of America’s best. Like most other filmmakers, Stone attempted to capture the turbulent times of the sixties and seventies. However, unlike most filmmakers, who consistently avoiding controversial issues, Stone was determined to shine light on such issues and provide his audience with what he believes are truths. Stone openly admitted that he sometimes manipulate historical facts and footage to create an imaginative and influential film. While angering some historians with his liberal use of historical accuracy in is films, Stone claims that his goal, no matter how it is presented, is to provide the simple truths of such events and stir the consciousness of the audience. One must contemplate
…show more content…
The film showcased Jim Garrison as a Louisiana lawyer trying to solve the assassination of Kennedy. Stone did not subtly claim that the assassination of Kennedy was a conspiracy, the film consistently repeated the assassination was a conspiracy and the plot was based solely on proving the former. In doing so, Stone openly admitted to manipulating footage and information to prove this claim. However, Stone later replied that as long as it led to the truth that it did matter how the subject was portrayed. Even so, historians blame Stone for providing the less knowledgeable public with false information that some believe that the events happened exactly in the film. Stone also implied that the sole motive behind Kennedy’s death was his plans for Vietnam. In Stone’s opinion, Kennedy would withdraw America from the Vietnam War had he have lived. Many historians argue this statement, saying that one can make assumptions on what could have been and that Kennedy, due to policy and other factors, would have prolonged the war. Rosenstone, a historical critic, made the following statement concerning the value of Stone’s film. “the Hollywood historical film will always include image that are at once invented and yet may still be considered true; true in that symbolize, condense, or summarize larger amounts of data”(Toplin pg.172) Stone did not intend to rewrite history, but rather to allow his audience the means to question history and formulate their own understanding. Stone also presents Nixon in this manner, but with a darker
The film showcased Jim Garrison as a Louisiana lawyer trying to solve the assassination of Kennedy. Stone did not subtly claim that the assassination of Kennedy was a conspiracy, the film consistently repeated the assassination was a conspiracy and the plot was based solely on proving the former. In doing so, Stone openly admitted to manipulating footage and information to prove this claim. However, Stone later replied that as long as it led to the truth that it did matter how the subject was portrayed. Even so, historians blame Stone for providing the less knowledgeable public with false information that some believe that the events happened exactly in the film. Stone also implied that the sole motive behind Kennedy’s death was his plans for Vietnam. In Stone’s opinion, Kennedy would withdraw America from the Vietnam War had he have lived. Many historians argue this statement, saying that one can make assumptions on what could have been and that Kennedy, due to policy and other factors, would have prolonged the war. Rosenstone, a historical critic, made the following statement concerning the value of Stone’s film. “the Hollywood historical film will always include image that are at once invented and yet may still be considered true; true in that symbolize, condense, or summarize larger amounts of data”(Toplin pg.172) Stone did not intend to rewrite history, but rather to allow his audience the means to question history and formulate their own understanding. Stone also presents Nixon in this manner, but with a darker