Hey, wait a minute, I thought the GOP and the flak over "The Reagan's" taught us that we're supposed to be compassionate with regards to our ex-presidents, especially beloved ones like JFK?
I don't know anything about this, nor do I care, but it's a fun topic.
Anyway, from whatreallyhappened (though I've never looked into whether this is the actual photo, but I suppose I could after a meeting this afternoon)...
An image supposedly taken immediately after the shooting:
Yer man, he's in the Caddy, bowling down the boulevard in Texas with the Missus, and young master Oswald, he's in a building of some description. When Jack's passed him, on his way to that grassy knoll whatever, Lee blows his ing head off. From behind right?
This was our president, during an especially difficult time to hold that office...maybe he deserves a little respect?
This was our president, during an especially difficult time to hold that office...maybe he deserves a little respect?
Didn't you get the memo? It's okay to sh*t upon JFK. Ronnie Reagan, however, is off limits because he's sick. But JFK only had his head blown off, so it's cool to disrespect.
Personally, I think all ex-presidents deserve to have their time served in the white house scrutinized, examined and debated, dead or alive, sick or not. But, hey, it's my duty to point out hypocrisy when it's sooooo f*cking blatant.
there are/were some legitimate questions about the Warren report's conclusions
"magic bullet" defying the laws of physics being one.
apparent multiple impacts (and reactive head movements) on Zapruder film.
mysterious absence of the bullet evidence (no ballistics tests) being another.
(there are conspiracy tales of how many bullets were found when in the chain of events... some claim that clear indications of multiple rounds hitting JFK were removed prior to Parkland Hospital's "official" report)
conspiracy theorists (from that time, or through the Oliver Stone filter) will bend your ear with speculative explanations, many of which are out in left field, but some of which would set a modern medical examiner on "suspicious" alert.
modern forensic technology might have helped back then, (if even to prove the dispersal pattern from jelly donuts did or didn't match the "approved version"), but there will always be those who assume evil extremists in the US plotted revenge for the Bay of Pigs, wanted military spending more than a space race, disapproved of Presidential service visits by Marilyn Monroe, or whatever.
Time Travel Tourism to witness what really happened would be ideal, and if you could get past the squeamishness over the snuff nature of the trip (assuming you could only watch, not intervene), might be popular in a macabre marketplace.
well . . . it was ok . . . *said with a downward dimenuendo*
but by no means a great movie
The Zapruder film, on the other hand . . . . no we're talkin
i think it was a great movie, interestingly shot, compelling performances, and a big reach (at facts as well, but more in terms of movie making) but fiction. i think it was to the J.F.K. assissination what lawrence of arabia was to T. E. Lawrence.
The Magic Bullet Theory is (arguably) the most glaring oddity in the Warren Report, but it's one of many. I don't think it alone could have fueled the conspiracy theories for so long.
Of course, the point can be made that if you squint at any major event like that long and hard enough you begin to see see strange things.
I've watched JFK over 5 times, it's my favorite movie, but I still don't know which side of the argument I fall on.
OK, I just verified it by looking at our film copy of the Dec 14, 1963 Saturday Evening Post. It's clearly Oswald, and the photo has not been doctored.
And check out this blurb:
Quote:
The Warren Commission "identified" the individual as Billy Lovelady, a fellow Book Depository employee. But while Lovelady identifed the person in the Altgens' photo as himself, he also stated that he'd worn a red and white vertically striped shirt on the day of the assassination The man in the doorway's shirt in not striped and is open in front, exposing the tee shirt underneath.
In color films taken from another angle, the color of the shirt worn by the man in the doorway was revealed to be orange-brown. When Oswald was arrested, he was wearing the identical shirt- an orange-brown tweed with missing buttons and tee-shirt underneath.
Other films taken on November 22, 1963 revealed that Lovelady was in fact wearing a red and blue plaid shirt.
So Oswald was in the doorway at street level across the street from the book depository at the time of the shooting, assuming nothing has been missed.
i think it was a great movie, interestingly shot, compelling performances, and a big reach (at facts as well, but more in terms of movie making) but fiction. i think it was to the J.F.K. assissination what lawrence of arabia was to T. E. Lawrence.
i think it was a great movie, interestingly shot, compelling performances, and a big reach (at facts as well, but more in terms of movie making) but fiction. i think it was to the J.F.K. assissination what lawrence of arabia was to T. E. Lawrence.
i take it you must be refering to the Zapruder film
cause there is no way that Reservoire Dogs is a 'Great Film' . . . but I guess that was your joke hunh?
I feel this way mainly because I have seen alot of films... and not just 'recent release section' stuff, have studied film production and criticism and have made films, and, based on my experience the people who tend to think that it is a good film, and especially those who think that it is 'great', have very little acquaintance with the huge variety of film styles and qualities out there . . . . and there are many many really great films that for the most part wont be seen by any of the RDogs fans . . .
most people base there opinions on experience gathered at the local video store or Mega-Mall Plex, and that is fine, however 90% of the time I hear that the person loves Reservoir Dogs they are relatively young males who haven't invested huge effort into the watching and analysis of films . . . sure RD seems a little from left field compared to the other Studio pics, but it realy isn't anything special . . . . its a young man's 'cool' flick about cool ganstas in snappy outfits with attitudes
its OK but not great . . . not great like Satan Tango by Bella Tarr or Alexander Rublev by Tarkovski or Carpov My Taxi . . . . these are GREAT (and these are just some Russian's)
its like comparing Elmore leonard to Dostoyevsky's the Brothers Karamazov . . . their both entertaining but only one is truly great
most people base there opinions on experience gathered at the local video store or Mega-Mall Plex, and that is fine, however 90% of the time I hear that the person loves Reservoir Dogs they are relatively young males who haven't invested huge effort into the watching and analysis of films . . . sure RD seems a little from left field compared to the other Studio pics, but it realy isn't anything special . . . . its a young man's 'cool' flick about cool ganstas in snappy outfits with attitudes
It's kind of interesting that the thing you don't like is exactly what I think is interesting about it. It's a smart, cinephile (with heavy theater influences) actor's version of a slick young, violent gangster film. I admit I don't know much else behind it, but it's really a fun film to watch. I really like the undercover character, especially in the last half of the film.
I totally, 100% respect your opinion that you don't like it. Hell, there are great films that just put me to sleep, even though I absolutely love them.
However, I do have to disagree that the divide is between those who have studied film and those who haven't. I certainly like films: I have a home theater with projector (10' screen, and I have owned 5 different projectors) and still watch a film a night. Just to give you an example of the films I have right in front of me right now (and not owned, most are borrowed through interlibrary loan) Bullit, The Beast, Double Indemnity, The Bicycle Thief, A Man Escaped, and Wages of Fear. There are more under the table, but you get the picture. I have kept up the film a day pattern for a couple years now, and in my life I've gone through phases of that a number of times. And I like Reservoir Dogs. Of course, I'm not claiming it's a 'good' movie,' but largely that's because I tend to have a w i d e comfort zone. The Heist, however, unbearably horrible.
Oh, and I still take film classes for fun (right now it's one on the New Wave).
Now granted, I have a special liking for his films. I feel like he's a film nerd making films. One of 'us.' If a film lover friend of mine made a shitty movie filled with fun references to other films, I would love it. I also really have a hard time disliking someone who counts Chungking Express as one of their favorite films. So I'm biased.
I guess all I'm trying to say is that I don't think the lines necessarily split between cinephiles and non-cinephiles. I, for one, have a whole list of films I wish I could see again for the first time, so I'm actually pretty jealous of anyone who hasn't yet gotten sucked into the whole lifestyle...yet.
Edit: even though I've seen so many films, have a whole section of my library devoted to film books (and I've actually read them all) and have taken a handful of film classes at a great film school, I still feel like I know absolutely nothing about film. It's the one area of culture that I am constantly in awe of and consistently confused by.
but i did say it was entertaining, and yes, it is a movie-lover's film, and as such is all about his experience . . . . but its not a great film . . . it doesn't get much further than his studied and skewed rehearsals of genre characters and scenes
Pulp Fiction is better, IMO, not as much an ironic smirck for the in-the-know-crowd, the cult-psychotronic-lovers, though it too is cynical, but it goes further into the characters and actually expands on the form rather than merely quoting it with a wink. It's shaggy dog plot pushes the form far for a major release and becomes more than the usual devices strung together . . . so I don't just dislike Tarantino . . . I just actually don't like the instant and constant praise RD seems to get
but its not a great film . . . it doesn't get much further than his studied and skewed rehearsals of genre characters and scenes
Yeah, basically all his films are these sort of genre studies. I saw him talking about Kill Bill and he was really emphasizing this for that one.
I feel bad passing value judgments, since I really like some really embarrassing films (Major Payne). So sue me, it was funny and sweet.*
Quote:
. . . and yes.... he IS a 'Geek' . . .
Just to nudge my 2000th post back on topic a little, does anyone know if there has been any solid evidence that any of the supposed groups were involved in JFK's killing.
*In my defense, I know Hiroshima mon amour inside out, and have yet to see a review that hit on half of it.
Comments
Anyway, from whatreallyhappened (though I've never looked into whether this is the actual photo, but I suppose I could after a meeting this afternoon)...
An image supposedly taken immediately after the shooting:
Oswald being arrested:
From this photo:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RA.../ALT_ANNOT.jpg
And more info here:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RA...ostphotos.html
Originally posted by Harald
Yer man, he's in the Caddy, bowling down the boulevard in Texas with the Missus, and young master Oswald, he's in a building of some description. When Jack's passed him, on his way to that grassy knoll whatever, Lee blows his
This was our president, during an especially difficult time to hold that office...maybe he deserves a little respect?
over-rated trendy violent crap
JFK?
hmm?!?!
Originally posted by Dale Sorel
This was our president, during an especially difficult time to hold that office...maybe he deserves a little respect?
Didn't you get the memo? It's okay to sh*t upon JFK. Ronnie Reagan, however, is off limits because he's sick. But JFK only had his head blown off, so it's cool to disrespect.
Personally, I think all ex-presidents deserve to have their time served in the white house scrutinized, examined and debated, dead or alive, sick or not. But, hey, it's my duty to point out hypocrisy when it's sooooo f*cking blatant.
Originally posted by pfflam
Reservoire Dogs is a movie you could have lived easily without seeing!!
over-rated trendy violent crap
JFK?
hmm?!?!
this means it's not a good movie?
well . . . it was ok . . . *said with a downward dimenuendo*
but by no means a great movie
The Zapruder film, on the other hand . . . . no we're talkin
"magic bullet" defying the laws of physics being one.
apparent multiple impacts (and reactive head movements) on Zapruder film.
mysterious absence of the bullet evidence (no ballistics tests) being another.
(there are conspiracy tales of how many bullets were found when in the chain of events... some claim that clear indications of multiple rounds hitting JFK were removed prior to Parkland Hospital's "official" report)
conspiracy theorists (from that time, or through the Oliver Stone filter) will bend your ear with speculative explanations, many of which are out in left field, but some of which would set a modern medical examiner on "suspicious" alert.
modern forensic technology might have helped back then, (if even to prove the dispersal pattern from jelly donuts did or didn't match the "approved version"), but there will always be those who assume evil extremists in the US plotted revenge for the Bay of Pigs, wanted military spending more than a space race, disapproved of Presidential service visits by Marilyn Monroe, or whatever.
Time Travel Tourism to witness what really happened would be ideal, and if you could get past the squeamishness over the snuff nature of the trip (assuming you could only watch, not intervene), might be popular in a macabre marketplace.
Originally posted by pfflam
ies . . . not a good movie
well . . . it was ok . . . *said with a downward dimenuendo*
but by no means a great movie
The Zapruder film, on the other hand . . . . no we're talkin
i think it was a great movie, interestingly shot, compelling performances, and a big reach (at facts as well, but more in terms of movie making) but fiction. i think it was to the J.F.K. assissination what lawrence of arabia was to T. E. Lawrence.
Of course, the point can be made that if you squint at any major event like that long and hard enough you begin to see see strange things.
I've watched JFK over 5 times, it's my favorite movie, but I still don't know which side of the argument I fall on.
Jeff
Originally posted by giant
Photos of Oswald in doorway at time of shooting
OK, I just verified it by looking at our film copy of the Dec 14, 1963 Saturday Evening Post. It's clearly Oswald, and the photo has not been doctored.
And check out this blurb:
The Warren Commission "identified" the individual as Billy Lovelady, a fellow Book Depository employee. But while Lovelady identifed the person in the Altgens' photo as himself, he also stated that he'd worn a red and white vertically striped shirt on the day of the assassination The man in the doorway's shirt in not striped and is open in front, exposing the tee shirt underneath.
In color films taken from another angle, the color of the shirt worn by the man in the doorway was revealed to be orange-brown. When Oswald was arrested, he was wearing the identical shirt- an orange-brown tweed with missing buttons and tee-shirt underneath.
Other films taken on November 22, 1963 revealed that Lovelady was in fact wearing a red and blue plaid shirt.
So Oswald was in the doorway at street level across the street from the book depository at the time of the shooting, assuming nothing has been missed.
I'll go look to see if I can disprove this...
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
i think it was a great movie, interestingly shot, compelling performances, and a big reach (at facts as well, but more in terms of movie making) but fiction. i think it was to the J.F.K. assissination what lawrence of arabia was to T. E. Lawrence.
I second that.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oswald_doorway.htm
BTW: check out this whole site: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
i think it was a great movie, interestingly shot, compelling performances, and a big reach (at facts as well, but more in terms of movie making) but fiction. i think it was to the J.F.K. assissination what lawrence of arabia was to T. E. Lawrence.
i take it you must be refering to the Zapruder film
cause there is no way that Reservoire Dogs is a 'Great Film' . . . but I guess that was your joke hunh?
I feel this way mainly because I have seen alot of films... and not just 'recent release section' stuff, have studied film production and criticism and have made films, and, based on my experience the people who tend to think that it is a good film, and especially those who think that it is 'great', have very little acquaintance with the huge variety of film styles and qualities out there . . . . and there are many many really great films that for the most part wont be seen by any of the RDogs fans . . .
most people base there opinions on experience gathered at the local video store or Mega-Mall Plex, and that is fine, however 90% of the time I hear that the person loves Reservoir Dogs they are relatively young males who haven't invested huge effort into the watching and analysis of films . . . sure RD seems a little from left field compared to the other Studio pics, but it realy isn't anything special . . . . its a young man's 'cool' flick about cool ganstas in snappy outfits with attitudes
its OK but not great . . . not great like Satan Tango by Bella Tarr or Alexander Rublev by Tarkovski or Carpov My Taxi . . . . these are GREAT (and these are just some Russian's)
its like comparing Elmore leonard to Dostoyevsky's the Brothers Karamazov . . . their both entertaining but only one is truly great
Originally posted by pfflam
most people base there opinions on experience gathered at the local video store or Mega-Mall Plex, and that is fine, however 90% of the time I hear that the person loves Reservoir Dogs they are relatively young males who haven't invested huge effort into the watching and analysis of films . . . sure RD seems a little from left field compared to the other Studio pics, but it realy isn't anything special . . . . its a young man's 'cool' flick about cool ganstas in snappy outfits with attitudes
It's kind of interesting that the thing you don't like is exactly what I think is interesting about it. It's a smart, cinephile (with heavy theater influences) actor's version of a slick young, violent gangster film. I admit I don't know much else behind it, but it's really a fun film to watch. I really like the undercover character, especially in the last half of the film.
I totally, 100% respect your opinion that you don't like it. Hell, there are great films that just put me to sleep, even though I absolutely love them.
However, I do have to disagree that the divide is between those who have studied film and those who haven't. I certainly like films: I have a home theater with projector (10' screen, and I have owned 5 different projectors) and still watch a film a night. Just to give you an example of the films I have right in front of me right now (and not owned, most are borrowed through interlibrary loan) Bullit, The Beast, Double Indemnity, The Bicycle Thief, A Man Escaped, and Wages of Fear. There are more under the table, but you get the picture. I have kept up the film a day pattern for a couple years now, and in my life I've gone through phases of that a number of times. And I like Reservoir Dogs. Of course, I'm not claiming it's a 'good' movie,' but largely that's because I tend to have a w i d e comfort zone. The Heist, however, unbearably horrible.
Oh, and I still take film classes for fun (right now it's one on the New Wave).
Now granted, I have a special liking for his films. I feel like he's a film nerd making films. One of 'us.' If a film lover friend of mine made a shitty movie filled with fun references to other films, I would love it. I also really have a hard time disliking someone who counts Chungking Express as one of their favorite films. So I'm biased.
I guess all I'm trying to say is that I don't think the lines necessarily split between cinephiles and non-cinephiles. I, for one, have a whole list of films I wish I could see again for the first time, so I'm actually pretty jealous of anyone who hasn't yet gotten sucked into the whole lifestyle...yet.
Edit: even though I've seen so many films, have a whole section of my library devoted to film books (and I've actually read them all) and have taken a handful of film classes at a great film school, I still feel like I know absolutely nothing about film. It's the one area of culture that I am constantly in awe of and consistently confused by.
but i did say it was entertaining, and yes, it is a movie-lover's film, and as such is all about his experience . . . . but its not a great film . . . it doesn't get much further than his studied and skewed rehearsals of genre characters and scenes
Pulp Fiction is better, IMO, not as much an ironic smirck for the in-the-know-crowd, the cult-psychotronic-lovers, though it too is cynical, but it goes further into the characters and actually expands on the form rather than merely quoting it with a wink. It's shaggy dog plot pushes the form far for a major release and becomes more than the usual devices strung together . . . so I don't just dislike Tarantino . . . I just actually don't like the instant and constant praise RD seems to get
. . . and yes.... he IS a 'Geek' . . .
Originally posted by pfflam
but its not a great film . . . it doesn't get much further than his studied and skewed rehearsals of genre characters and scenes
Yeah, basically all his films are these sort of genre studies. I saw him talking about Kill Bill and he was really emphasizing this for that one.
I feel bad passing value judgments, since I really like some really embarrassing films (Major Payne). So sue me, it was funny and sweet.*
. . . and yes.... he IS a 'Geek' . . .
Just to nudge my 2000th post back on topic a little, does anyone know if there has been any solid evidence that any of the supposed groups were involved in JFK's killing.
*In my defense, I know Hiroshima mon amour inside out, and have yet to see a review that hit on half of it.