MISDIRECTING MYTHS of the Warren Commission jim Garrison in the film role of chief Justice Earl Warren, reflecting a cynicism that is breathtaking in its lack of respect for the legacy of a judicial figure who was so instrumental in the advance of civil rights and the constitutional protection of the criminal accused Steven Spielberg, on the other hand, had the character of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who in the film reads from the bench the opinion that freed the amistad captives, played by then retired Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun. The casting of these roles of members of the Supreme Court in ways that deal with their legacy so differently is a powerful demonstration of the bias of these films, treating that legacy with honor in the case of Spielberg, mocking that legacy in the case of Stone While they do so in ways that deliver almost diametrically opposed messages about American institutions, each of these films presents an account of historical events that creatively distorts those events. The next section of this article examines those distortions and considers the effects of the films on the mythology of our national II. Cinematic Distortions of histo and Their Effects on Models of Citizenship A. Films and History Cinematic presentations of historical events are, as the title of a Newsweek magazine review of Oliver Stone's JFK put it,"twisted history. Even conceding that the telling of all history is necessarily The character of Garrison in the film is played by Kevin Costner in a performance that, even for him, is particularly insipid See generally ED CRAY, CHIEF JUSTICE: A BIOGRAPHY OF EARL WARREN (1997) LUCAS A. POWE, JR, THE WARREN COURT AND AMERICAN POLITICS(2000); G EDWARD WHITE, EARL WARREN: A PUBLIC LIFE(1987) 4 Kenneth Auchincloss et al., Twisted History, Newsweek, Dec 1, reprinted in OLIVER STONE ZACHARY SKLAR, JFK: THE BOOK OF THE FILM 289(1992). One commentator notes that"[films of historical recreation are different from both documentary and science fiction movies but it is not always easy to specify that
MISDIRECTING MYTHS 10 of the Warren Commission Jim Garrison42 in the film role of Chief Justice Earl Warren, reflecting a cynicism that is breathtaking in its lack of respect for the legacy of a judicial figure who was so instrumental in the advance of civil rights and the constitutional protection of the criminal accused.43 Steven Spielberg, on the other hand, had the character of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who in the film reads from the bench the opinion that freed the Amistad captives, played by then retired Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun. The casting of these roles of members of the Supreme Court in ways that deal with their legacy so differently is a powerful demonstration of the bias of these films, treating that legacy with honor in the case of Spielberg, mocking that legacy in the case of Stone. While they do so in ways that deliver almost diametrically opposed messages about American institutions, each of these films presents an account of historical events that creatively distorts those events. The next section of this Article examines those distortions, and considers the effects of the films on the mythology of our national image. II. Cinematic Distortions of History and Their Effects on Models of Citizenship. A. Films and History. Cinematic presentations of historical events are, as the title of a Newsweek magazine review of Oliver Stone’s JFK put it, “twisted history.”44 Even conceding that the telling of all history is necessarily 42 The character of Garrison in the film is played by Kevin Costner in a performance that, even for him, is particularly insipid. 43 See generally ED CRAY, CHIEF JUSTICE: A BIOGRAPHY OF EARL WARREN (1997); LUCAS A. POWE, JR., THE WARREN COURT AND AMERICAN POLITICS (2000); G. EDWARD WHITE, EARL WARREN: A PUBLIC LIFE (1987). 44 Kenneth Auchincloss et al., Twisted History, Newsweek, Dec. 23, 1991, reprinted in OLIVER STONE & ZACHARY SKLAR, JFK: THE BOOK OF THE FILM 289 (1992). One commentator notes that “[f]ilms of historical recreation are different from both documentary and science fiction movies but it is not always easy to specify that
MISDIRECTING MYTHS 64 and that visual media communicate differently from printed words, films about historical events are more consciously apt to compress and to conflate in order to create a compelling entertainment out of the historical facts 47 Films are (at their best) art and (at the least)entertainment Accordingly, one would expect that a filmmaker's judgments about how to depict historical events are going to be responsive to critical factors of judgment other than those of the pie telling critique of fessional historian filmmaker whose work treats historical subjects than it is of a conventional historian. In an essay that is supportive of the artistic license to engage in the distortion of actual events in historical films distinction in adequately concrete terms or reliable rules..JFK is not a documentary Stone's film. is also, in important respects, similar to films.. located in the social science fiction subgenre. Anthony Chase, Historical Reconstruction in Popular gal and Political Culture, 24 SETON HALL L REV. 1969, 2017(1994) S JOYCE APPLEBY. LYNN HUNT MARGAREt JACOB. TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT HISTORY (1994)(examining the absolutism that underlie historical truth, and proposing a new understanding of historical objectivity) 46 DAVID A. BLACK, LAW IN FILM: RESONANCE AND REPRESENTATION 39(1999)(the difference is"formal, material, graphic, even narrative. It is also a difference between the presence and absence of pleasure. The difference in effect between film and print is summarized well by robert Rosenstone, who notes that"o]n the screen, several things occur simultaneously image, sound, language, even text -elements that support and work against one another to create a realm of meaning as different from written history as it was from oral history. Robert A Rosenstone, Oliver Stone as Historian, in OLIVER STONE USA: FILM, HISTORY, AND CONTROVERSY 26, 32(Robert Brent Toplin ed, 2000) 47 As the Newsweek review of the film states it "A movie or a television show that re- creates history inevitably distorts history. It has to compress things into a short span; it has to extract clarity out of the essential messiness of life, it has to abide by certain dramatic conventions: major scenes, major characters, major speeches. Auchinclos Twisted History, supra note 44, at 290 8 See Marcus Raskin, JFK and the Culture of violence, 97 AM. HISTORICAL REVIEW 487, 487(1992)(It does no good to pick apart the rendering of an event by an artis His or her purpose is not the particular but the general. It is to take an event and see within it a series of truths, some felt, some unconsciously understood and hardly articulated, that make sense and meaning of an event, its mplications.”)
MISDIRECTING MYTHS 11 selective45 and that visual media communicate differently from printed words,46 films about historical events are more consciously apt to compress and to conflate in order to create a compelling entertainment out of the historical facts.47 Films are (at their best) art and (at the least) entertainment. Accordingly, one would expect that a filmmaker’s judgments about how to depict historical events are going to be responsive to critical factors of judgment other than those of the professional historian.48 “That’s not what really happened” can be a less telling critique of a filmmaker whose work treats historical subjects than it is of a conventional historian. In an essay that is supportive of the artistic license to engage in the distortion of actual events in historical films, distinction in adequately concrete terms or reliable rules. ... JFK is not a documentary. Stone’s film ... is also, in important respects, similar to films ... located in the social science fiction subgenre.” Anthony Chase, Historical Reconstruction in Popular Legal and Political Culture, 24 SETON HALL L. REV. 1969, 2017 (1994). 45 JOYCE APPLEBY, LYNN HUNT & MARGARET JACOB, TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT HISTORY (1994) (examining the absolutisms that underlie historical truth, and proposing a new understanding of historical objectivity). 46 DAVID A. BLACK, LAW IN FILM: RESONANCE AND REPRESENTATION 39 (1999) (the difference is “formal, material, graphic, even narrative. It is also a difference between the presence and absence of pleasure.”). The difference in effect between film and print is summarized well by Robert Rosenstone, who notes that “[o]n the screen, several things occur simultaneously – image, sound, language, even text – elements that support and work against one another to create a realm of meaning as different from written history as it was from oral history.” Robert A. Rosenstone, Oliver Stone as Historian, in OLIVER STONE’S USA: FILM, HISTORY, AND CONTROVERSY 26, 32 (Robert Brent Toplin ed., 2000). 47 As the Newsweek review of the film states it: “A movie or a television show that recreates history inevitably distorts history. It has to compress things into a short span; it has to extract clarity out of the essential messiness of life; it has to abide by certain dramatic conventions: major scenes, major characters, major speeches.” Auchincloss, Twisted History, supra note 44, at 290. 48 See Marcus Raskin, JFK and the Culture of Violence, 97 AM. HISTORICAL REVIEW 487, 487 (1992) (“It does no good to pick apart the rendering of an event by an artist. His or her purpose is not the particular but the general. It is to take an event and see within it a series of truths, some felt, some unconsciously understood and hardly articulated, that make sense and meaning of an event, its cause, and its implications.”)
MISDIRECTING MYTHS historian Robert Rosenstone identified three creative techniques that might be employed by the filmmaker: " Compression(bringing together actual events that occurred in different times and places), alteration ( changing events slightly to highlight their underlying meanings), and Metaphor(using an invented image to stand for or sum up events too complex, lengthy, or difficult to depict) In spite of the recognition of the measure of creativity that is necessary in making movies of historical events, part of the controversy surrounding Oliver Stone's historical films has raised the question of whether Stone is, or perceives himself to be, an historian, a question on which Stone has sometimes appeared to give conflicting answers Rosenstone has reframed the issue by offering a definition of history that is broad enough to take any sting out of the question of whether an enterprise such as Stone's JFK is really history. History, according to Rosenstone, " is no more(and no less)than the attempt to recount explain, and interpret the past, to give meaning to events, moments, movements, people, periods of time that have vanished. Stone himself has expressed a similarly broad definition of history as quiry 7752 While a very loose conception of history may adequately deflect the objectionable quality of the mere fact that there are distortions of the historical record in a film such as JFK, a legitimate inquiry remains about the magnitude and the meaning of the distortions. Rosenstone Rosenstone, Oliver Stone as Historian, supra note 46, at 32(emphasis in origina Compare Oliver Stone, Stone on Stones Image(As Presented by Some Historians in OLIVER STONES USA (Toplin ed. ) supra note 46, at 40("let me make this as plain as I possibly can: I do not consider myself as a cinematic historian now or ever and to the best of my knowledge, have not made that claim")(emphasis in original) with Michael J. Kurtz, Oliver Stone, JFK, and History, in OLIVER STONES USA (Toplin ed.), supra note 46, at 167(Not long before he began filming JFK, Oliver Stone told the Dallas Morning News that he was cinematic historian and that the movie would be a history lesson. sI Rosenstone, Oliver Stone as Historian, supra note 46, at 28 Oliver Stone, Oliver Stone Talks Back, PREMIERE, Jan. 1992, reprinted in STonE SKLAR, JFK: THE BOOK OF THE FILM, supra note 44, at 349, 350( History, in its original Greek sense(historia), means inquiry, and in that light, my film, any film, any work of art, has the right to reexplore an event)
MISDIRECTING MYTHS 12 historian Robert Rosenstone identified three creative techniques that might be employed by the filmmaker: “Compression (bringing together actual events that occurred in different times and places), Alteration (changing events slightly to highlight their underlying meanings), and Metaphor (using an invented image to stand for or sum up events too complex, lengthy, or difficult to depict).”49 In spite of the recognition of the measure of creativity that is necessary in making movies of historical events, part of the controversy surrounding Oliver Stone’s historical films has raised the question of whether Stone is, or perceives himself to be, an historian, a question on which Stone has sometimes appeared to give conflicting answers.50 Rosenstone has reframed the issue by offering a definition of history that is broad enough to take any sting out of the question of whether an enterprise such as Stone’s JFK is really history. History, according to Rosenstone, “is no more (and no less) than the attempt to recount, explain, and interpret the past, to give meaning to events, moments, movements, people, periods of time that have vanished.”51 Stone himself has expressed a similarly broad definition of history as “inquiry.”52 While a very loose conception of history may adequately deflect the objectionable quality of the mere fact that there are distortions of the historical record in a film such as JFK, a legitimate inquiry remains about the magnitude and the meaning of the distortions. Rosenstone 49 Rosenstone, Oliver Stone as Historian, supra note 46, at 32 (emphasis in original). 50 Compare Oliver Stone, Stone on Stone’s Image (As Presented by Some Historians), in OLIVER STONE’S USA (Toplin ed.), supra note 46, at 40 (“let me make this as plain as I possibly can: I do not consider myself as a cinematic historian now or ever and, to the best of my knowledge, have not made that claim”) (emphasis in original) with Michael J. Kurtz, Oliver Stone, JFK, and History, in OLIVER STONE’S USA (Toplin ed.), supra note 46, at 167 (“Not long before he began filming JFK, Oliver Stone told the Dallas Morning News that he was a ‘cinematic historian’ and that the movie would be a ‘history lesson’.”). 51 Rosenstone, Oliver Stone as Historian, supra note 46, at 28. 52 Oliver Stone, Oliver Stone Talks Back, PREMIERE, Jan. 1992, reprinted in STONE & SKLAR, JFK: THE BOOK OF THE FILM, supra note 44, at 349, 350 (“ ‘History,’ in its original Greek sense (historia), means ‘inquiry,’ and in that light, my film, any film, any work of art, has the right to reexplore an event”)
MISDIRECTING MYTHS has constructed a helpful standard by which to judge historical films, not on the level of detail but at the level of argument, metaphor, symbol. 3 Even so, the filmmaker is constrained to some extent."A historical film, "Rosenberg writes, " does not indulge in capricious invention and does not ignore the findings and assertions of what we already know. Acting responsibly within that constraint, the filmmaker can exercise creativity and"make the past meaningful in three different ways . [ to] Vision, Contest, and Revision histor To Vision history is to put flesh and blood on the past.. to give us the experier ence of the past To Contest history is to provide interpretations that run against traditional wisdom or generally accepted views Revision history is to show us the past new and unexpected ways, to utilize realistic ways of telling the past, that does not follow a normal dramatic structure that mixes genres and modes All three of these ways of making the past meaningful are employed to great effect in StoneS JFK The dramatic impact of the message of Stone's film is tr largely to the often seamless blending of fact and fiction in creating an account of the Kennedy assassination that visions that historical event The cinematographic virtuosity of JFK lies in the interweaving of the filmmaker's own imagined scenes with the photographic record of the events, creating the impression of "watching an informative S3 Rosenstone, Oliver Stone as Historian, supra note 46, at 34 sSId. at 35(emphasis S6 Id at 34-35(emphasis in original)
MISDIRECTING MYTHS 13 has constructed a helpful standard by which to judge historical films, “not on the level of detail but at the level of argument, metaphor, symbol.”53 Even so, the filmmaker is constrained to some extent. “A historical film,” Rosenberg writes, “does not indulge in capricious invention and does not ignore the findings and assertions of what we already know.”54 Acting responsibly within that constraint, the filmmaker can exercise creativity and “make the past meaningful in three different ways … [to] Vision, Contest, and Revision history.”55 To Vision history is to put flesh and blood on the past . . . to give us the experience of the past. . . . . . . To Contest history is to provide interpretations that run against traditional wisdom or generally accepted views. . . . . . . To Revision history is to show us the past in new and unexpected ways, to utilize an aesthetic that violates the traditional, realistic ways of telling the past, that does not follow a normal dramatic structure, or that mixes genres and modes.56 All three of these ways of making the past meaningful are employed to great effect in Stone’s JFK. The dramatic impact of the message of Stone’s film is traceable largely to the often seamless blending of fact and fiction in creating an account of the Kennedy assassination that visions that historical event. The cinematographic virtuosity of JFK lies in the interweaving of the filmmaker’s own imagined scenes with the photographic record of the events, creating the impression of “watching an informative 53 Rosenstone, Oliver Stone as Historian, supra note 46, at 34. 54 Id. 55 Id. at 35 (emphasis in original). 56 Id. at 34-35 (emphasis in original)
MISDIRECTING MYTHS documentary on the assassination. In what has been described as manipulation of evidence, " JFK blends "enacted scenes in grainy black-and-white footage creating the appearance of actual documentary information... with real imagery created in 1963 The resulting visual experience can be so compelling that one true evidence from stage d evidence >559 o commentator believed that"viewers could not intelligently distinguish Stone's contesting of history in JFK is the central the film, which leads up to a long closing argument by District Attorney Garrison to the jury in the Clay Shaw conspiracy trial serving as the culmination of the film's unmasking of the lies and cover-up in the official history of the assassination and its causes. The Garrison scenario presented in the film's recounting of the trial testimony and the closing argument effectively points to all the holes in the lone gunman"explanation of the Kennedy assassination reached by the Warren Commission, but does little to establish the criminal liability of the alleged conspirator Clay Shaw, resulting, in the film as in the actual trial, in the jury's quick return of a verdict of acquittal of Shaw The revisioning of history that Stone constructs in JFK has both positive and negative dimensions. The film is in part an elegy for the lost hope of the Kennedy presidency, which Stone endows with a anacean future. That sense of loss, however, is accompanied by a Robert Brent Toplin, Introduction, in OLIVER STONE'S USA (Toplin ed. ) supra note 46. at 3.10 6o The screenplay of the closing argument is in STONE SKLAR, JFK: THE BOOK OF THE FILM, supra note 44, at 176-179. The argument actually delivered by garrison in he trial is also printed in the Stone sklar book, at 545-549 Id. at 151-176 6Z ROBERT ALAN GOLDBERG. ENEMIES WITHIN: THE CULTURE OF CONSPIRACY IN MODERN AMERICA 125-126 (2001)("Here was a vision of Camelot, prompted by the promise of change. If touched by romanticism, conspiracy thinking as counterhistory was a contest for authority with those who offered America less noble direction)
MISDIRECTING MYTHS 14 documentary on the assassination.”57 In what has been described as a “manipulation of evidence,” JFK blends “enacted scenes in grainy black-and-white footage . . . [creating] the appearance of actual documentary information . . . with real imagery created in 1963.”58 The resulting visual experience can be so compelling that one commentator believed that “viewers could not intelligently distinguish true evidence from staged evidence.”59 Stone’s contesting of history in JFK is the central message of the film, which leads up to a long closing argument by District Attorney Garrison to the jury in the Clay Shaw conspiracy trial,60 serving as the culmination of the film’s unmasking of the lies and cover-up in the official history of the assassination and its causes. The Garrison scenario presented in the film’s recounting of the trial testimony and the closing argument effectively points to all the holes in the “lone gunman” explanation of the Kennedy assassination reached by the Warren Commission,61 but does little to establish the criminal liability of the alleged conspirator Clay Shaw, resulting, in the film as in the actual trial, in the jury’s quick return of a verdict of acquittal of Shaw. The revisioning of history that Stone constructs in JFK has both positive and negative dimensions. The film is in part an elegy for the lost hope of the Kennedy Presidency, which Stone endows with a panacean future.62 That sense of loss, however, is accompanied by a 57 Robert Brent Toplin, Introduction, in OLIVER STONE’S USA (Toplin ed.), supra note 46, at 3, 10. 58 Id. at 13. 59 Id. 60 The screenplay of the closing argument is in STONE & SKLAR, JFK: THE BOOK OF THE FILM, supra note 44, at 176-179. The argument actually delivered by Garrison in the trial is also printed in the Stone & Sklar book, at 545-549. 61 Id. at 151-176. 62 ROBERT ALAN GOLDBERG, ENEMIES WITHIN: THE CULTURE OF CONSPIRACY IN MODERN AMERICA 125-126 (2001) (“Here was a vision of Camelot, prompted by the promise of change. If touched by romanticism, conspiracy thinking as counterhistory was a contest for authority with those who offered America less noble direction”)