JFK Was Not One Brief Shining Moment– It Was Long, Boring, and Somewhat Historically Inaccurate

Are you one to question the facts that you’re told? Do you hypothesize conspiracies? Are you fascinated by major historical events?

You may enjoy the drama JFK, starring Kevin Costner, a New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison investigating John F. Kennedy’s assassination and questioning whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald worked alone. The movie uses inappropriate language and themes unsuitable and disturbing for younger audiences, making it appropriate for teens and adults. It is rated R.

The storyline and the fact that the movie is a drama sheds light on the historical context as the main character asks questions about what happened to JFK. Khrushchev and Fidel Castro’s historical relation to JFK were explored, and major events, like the Bay of Pigs, for instance, came into play, as well.

If you aren’t interested in conspiracy theories, this movie isn’t for you. The movie was plot-driven, and Garrison was used as a tool to explore the plot, which was based on Stone’s personal and unconventional beliefs. I wasn’t personally phased by the conspiracy concept.

The cast interacted well with each other and the acting was very believable. Kevin Costner in particular was a particular compelling character. I really felt like he was invested in the Kennedy assassination. He faced conflict with his family. They were struggling to understand how he would prioritize his investigation over them, and Garrison’s views presented him with pushback from his own staff as well.

The cinematography was average. I did appreciate, however, how the movie would incorporate video from the news in the 60s in the movie. It really helped to emphasize the time frame. There was one scene where I could see the boom mic in a mirror, though, and that bothered me.

The movie got famous quotes wrong and wasn’t chronological and correct in all of its aspects. In some scenes, people can be seen wearing clothes that weren’t popular until the 80s. In the Gettysburg address, Lincoln uses the phrase “of the people, by the people, for the people;” When Garrison referenced the phrase, he quoted it incorrectly, saying “of the people, for the people, by the people.” Also, a person commented on JFK’s assassination and said that Camelot was in “smithereens,” but the Camelot comparison wasn’t invented until a week after JFK’s assassination in an interview with Jackie Kennedy by Theodore White for Life Magazine. While I don’t take issue with people interpreting facts differently, I did have issues with historical inaccuracy.

Other movies where people have conducted investigations for answers, like Truth, Spotlight, and The Case for Christ have all accomplished their goals and made decent movies without dragging on for a whole 3 ½ hours. JFK was unnecessarily long, which made it boring.  

The movie wasn’t awful, but for me, it didn’t work. I’ve seen other movies done in a similar fashion that have been half as long and have been more historically accurate. I was ready for the film to be over halfway through. C+

Tweet: 

JFK Was Not One Brief Shining Moment– It Was Long, Boring, and Somewhat Historically Inaccurate. Read the full review here: http://bit.ly/2jcKzbc

Big Fish: An Exciting Whopper of a Tale

If you’re looking for a storyline that will reel you in, you’ll be a fin– uh, I mean fan– of Big Fish, directed by Tim Burton.

In this fantasy/comedy/drama based on a book by the same, Will Bloom (Billy Crudup), a journalist, and his father, Edward (Albert Finney), have a strained relationship as a result of the tall tales that Edward has told his son over the years. Will realizes he knows nothing about the life his father has lived and wants to know the truth, rather than stories.

When Edward becomes gravely ill, Will travels with his wife to visit his dying father and learn the truth behind his father’s numerous tales. Will grapples with the answers he is given and struggles to reconcile his frustration with his father and his longing for a relationship with him. The PG-13 film contains minimal swearing and brief nudity, but it is otherwise appropriate and entertaining for teens and adults alike.

Firstly, I don’t think the casting for this movie could have been any more spot on.  Since Edward’s stories show him at different points in his life, Perry Walston plays 10-year-old Edward, Ewan McGregor plays Edward as an adult, and Albert Finney plays Edward when he’s much older. What’s so great about these three actors is that all three of them seem to capture the same kind of character, just at different stages of life. The movie seems consistent in that respect. Will is played by Billy Cruddup as an adult, but viewers also get to see him as a child, played by Grayson Stone, which helps the audience to understand how, gradually, the relationship between father and son became so strained. Other quirky characters that were fun to watch on screen for their strange mannerisms that you might only see in a Burton film are played by actors such as Helena Bonham Carter, Jessica Lange, Danny DeVito, and Steve Buscemi. Even Miley Cyrus had her first film role in Big Fish. 

Costuming and sets weren’t necessarily always realistic, but neither were the wild stories that Edward told his son, so the costuming and sets went really well with what was actually going on in the film. For example, one of the locations in the movie, the small town of Spectre (see what it looks like now!), has a seemingly perfect community. Everything in the town mirrors that perfection, from the lush, green grass to the fancy white and pastel-colored clothes.

The cinematography was pleasant and reflected the moods in each scene.

*spoiler alerts*

In the scene when Edward is dying, for instance, the lighting becomes duller and the coloring is cooler and bluer, adding to the sad and dismal tone. When Will is telling a story to his father on his deathbed about how Edward would die, his happier story has bright lighting and colors.

*end spoiler alerts*

The coloring and lighting changes were subtle enough that they weren’t distracting but noticeable enough that they added to the tones of each scene.

Any person who has grown up hearing stories from a parent, whether they’re bedtime stories, tales about Santa sneaking down the chimney, or even funny explanations for why things are the way they are will get a kick out of Big Fish. Anyone who has ever had a conflict with another person that they desperately wanted to resolve could enjoy this film. If you have a sense of humor, you’ll probably get a kick out of this movie. Big Fish is a movie about truth, family, love, and imagination that everyone should watch. I give this movie an A!

10/18/17

Jenna Shackelford

Rear Window: A Review

What does it mean to be a neighbor?

This question permeated Rear Window, a 1954 Alfred Hitchcock film about photographer L.B. Jeffries, played by James Stewart, is both a modern hero and an incomplete hero,  confined to a wheelchair, with nothing to do until his cast is removed except for looking out the rear window of his apartment building, observing the neighbors daily lives. He is worried that his girlfriend, Lisa Freemont, played by Grace Kelly, wouldn’t be a suitable wife, since she is accustomed to a high-society lifestyle she wouldn’t be able to maintain if she traveled with him for work. When Jeffries thinks a crime took place in a neighbor’s apartment, he tries to bring justice to the situation with his binoculars, photography equipment, and the help of whoever will listen. Rated PG, the film is suspenseful but not violent; it would be appropriate for pre-teens and up, but may be disturbing for younger viewers.

*spoiler alert*

The inciting incident in the film is when Jeffries is observing his neighbors, and sees Thornwall, a salesman who often quarreled with his bedridden, sick wife, leave and return to his apartment several times with his sample case at 3 A.M. When his wife is not in the apartment the next day, Jeffries believes that Thornwall murdered her.

*end spoiler alert*

This “monster-in-the-house” thriller finds Jeffries and Lisa thrusting themselves into inner turmoil and danger as they attempt to bring the crime they believe to have been committed to light; they are scared that their neighbor will figure out they are watching him, their search for answers will be ruined, or both. The film is primarily plot-driven, although the characters still play a large role in driving the story. The climax of the film is when Lisa becomes more invested in the mystery, as does Stella, played by Thelma Ritter, a woman who is helping care for Jeffries while he recovers; consequently, they put themselves in harm’s way to find incriminating evidence against the neighbor.

The voyeuristic storyline, which leads the audience to peer into the lives of the neighbors with Jeffries, is intriguing. The characters in each surrounding apartment were interesting, and they developed throughout the film. Unfortunately, after the climax, the film slowed down immensely. The resolution and denouement were mediocre because they felt rushed. There was so much build-up to get to the resolution that it fell flat.  The story question of whether or not the criminal would be caught was resolved, but the resolution seemed like a last-minute idea– like it was slapped on just to end the movie.

Part of what made the film interesting was the questions it made me ask. There were times when Jeffries and his girlfriend were so consumed by the crime that they wanted to prove that they seemed completely uninterested in other important things going on in their neighbor’s lives.

*spoiler alert*

Some of these things include seeing a neighbor nearly kill herself with a handful of pills and abusive behavior within apartments.

*end spoiler alert*

The movie made me ask what it meant to be a neighbor as well as when one should be a neighbor and at what cost, and whether or not a person should pick and choose when he acts like a neighbor.  

Jeffries and Lisa faced conflict against another character that they barely spoke to. The conflict between Jeffries and Lisa in their romantic relationship was fascinating because they cared for each other deeply, but were still facing challenges. These conflicts cause the characters to both develop into round characters.

The acting was decent in the film all the way around, but Grace Kelly, in particular, stood out. Her witty remarks in the film seemed entirely natural, and when she felt pain as a character, it seemed genuine. While all of the acting seemed good, Grace Kelly’s character seemed most authentic and dynamic.

The film seemed real. I could see myself in each of the main characters, and a little of people I know in each character. I could even see myself in some of the characters– the neighbors– that you don’t even hear speak. I appreciated that the story focused on characters behind closed doors, but with open windows. Never once did the cameras venture out of the apartments and courtyard and into workplaces or public settings.  The egregious slowness during part of the film and the so-so resolution and denouement affected how I viewed it overall, but the relatability and the humanity in the film set it apart from mediocre, run-of-the-mill thrillers.  B+.

Jenna Shackelford

9/20/17