4.2 John F. Kennedy – In movie and in real life
“Thirteen Days” is a fictional dramatized movie, which follows the events during the Cuban Missile Crisis chronologically. The movie follows the presidential advisor Kenny O’Donnell and the Kennedy brothers as well as the meetings with the ExCom members.
When Kennedy was elected president in 1960 and began his presidency in 1961, he was a popular man. Being the youngest president he had a certain charisma, which people loved. When Kennedy married Jackie the press was invited. The hype about the young couple was some kind of things you see with celebrities. Kennedy was a young good-looking man who was a ladies man during his teenage years and in his twenties. This idolising of Kennedy is portrayed …show more content…
The fact that the movie focuses on a historical event, which happened in real life, there are two possible ways of reviewing this movie. First there is the entertainment part, which plays a big role because it is a movie with actors and the intention is to make the story dramatic. Second there is the historical part. How does this movie add up to the events, which happened in real life? These are the two aspects, which can be discussed.
A review from the newspaper “The Guardian” is grading the movie in historical and entertainment aspect. The review starts focusing on the people in the movie. Kenny O’ Donnell the main character was a member of ExCom but he did not play a big role. “The Guardian” finds it conspicuously weird that he is placed in the centre of the events. At some point he is set to have a greater role than the secretary of state, Dean Rusk, or the national security advisor, McGeorge Bundy. In the real life, almost everybody of the ExCom was more important than Kennedy O’ Donnell. “The Guardian” focuses on the casting as well from the entertainment point of view. They presume that the role of Kenny O’ Donnell was the only role Kevin Costner could play without wrecking the movie. Kevin Costner, however, does his best to ruin the movie anyway. With his “lah-di-dah” Boston accent, he is the only one who does not act well in the movie. Look-a-like characters are handling …show more content…
One of the main things Michael Nelson points out correlates with the review from “The Guardian”, is that the role of Kenny O’ Donnell is portrayed in a wrong way. He states that no one had ever argued the role of Kenny O’ Donnell played an important factor during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Ted Sorensen who was important in the Cuban Missile Crisis said that Kenny O’ Donnell had nothing to do with the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Michael Nelson uses a phenomenon called the West Wing syndrome. It is used when it inflates the role of the White House political staff members and portrays the military brass as cartoonish hawks. He accuses the movie for portraying the military like idiots. The way McNamara is portrayed is clownish, is one of the things he states. McNamara is portrayed with a little bit of his real life intelligence and mostly portrayed with a
“Thirteen Days” is a fictional dramatized movie, which follows the events during the Cuban Missile Crisis chronologically. The movie follows the presidential advisor Kenny O’Donnell and the Kennedy brothers as well as the meetings with the ExCom members.
When Kennedy was elected president in 1960 and began his presidency in 1961, he was a popular man. Being the youngest president he had a certain charisma, which people loved. When Kennedy married Jackie the press was invited. The hype about the young couple was some kind of things you see with celebrities. Kennedy was a young good-looking man who was a ladies man during his teenage years and in his twenties. This idolising of Kennedy is portrayed …show more content…
The fact that the movie focuses on a historical event, which happened in real life, there are two possible ways of reviewing this movie. First there is the entertainment part, which plays a big role because it is a movie with actors and the intention is to make the story dramatic. Second there is the historical part. How does this movie add up to the events, which happened in real life? These are the two aspects, which can be discussed.
A review from the newspaper “The Guardian” is grading the movie in historical and entertainment aspect. The review starts focusing on the people in the movie. Kenny O’ Donnell the main character was a member of ExCom but he did not play a big role. “The Guardian” finds it conspicuously weird that he is placed in the centre of the events. At some point he is set to have a greater role than the secretary of state, Dean Rusk, or the national security advisor, McGeorge Bundy. In the real life, almost everybody of the ExCom was more important than Kennedy O’ Donnell. “The Guardian” focuses on the casting as well from the entertainment point of view. They presume that the role of Kenny O’ Donnell was the only role Kevin Costner could play without wrecking the movie. Kevin Costner, however, does his best to ruin the movie anyway. With his “lah-di-dah” Boston accent, he is the only one who does not act well in the movie. Look-a-like characters are handling …show more content…
One of the main things Michael Nelson points out correlates with the review from “The Guardian”, is that the role of Kenny O’ Donnell is portrayed in a wrong way. He states that no one had ever argued the role of Kenny O’ Donnell played an important factor during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Ted Sorensen who was important in the Cuban Missile Crisis said that Kenny O’ Donnell had nothing to do with the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Michael Nelson uses a phenomenon called the West Wing syndrome. It is used when it inflates the role of the White House political staff members and portrays the military brass as cartoonish hawks. He accuses the movie for portraying the military like idiots. The way McNamara is portrayed is clownish, is one of the things he states. McNamara is portrayed with a little bit of his real life intelligence and mostly portrayed with a