Oswald's Ghost (2007)

JFK and Princess Diana-The Death of Youthful Idols Is Never Simple

"Oswald's Ghost" combines fascinating new archival footage with a different and unique approach to the JFK assassination. It makes for a very interesting documentary by director Robert Stone. It contains more of Lee Harvey Oswald's public appearance after his arrest and prior to his death than I have seen in any other documentary.

Stone, in an interview that is part of the bonus feature, explains what makes this documentary unique in substance and narrative compared to other documentaries and books about the assassination. This documentary is not about "Whodunit." It is how the assassination negatively affected public opinion about our government and its credibility long after November 22, 1963.

The JFK assassination, followed by the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King in 1968, the deviousness of LBJ in conducting the Vietnam War, and the election of Richard Nixon have all been woven into a historical narrative over time that produced a cynicism about our government that continues to thrive today in the American public at large.

Stone doesn't advocate or necessarily believe this narrative. Tom Hayden, a former SDS founder, comes closest to expressing the narrative. Stone more importantly demonstrates that perception often becomes reality, rightly or wrongly. Those reviewers who have spent time making "ad hominem" attacks on the various people interviewed are missing the point.

This an even-handed documentary featuring the some of the most recognized names associated with the JFK assassination and the subsequent radical student movement: Mark Lane, J. Edward Epstein, Norman Mailer, Tom Hayden, and Gary Hart.

Epstein, who published one of the first conspiracy books is a very interesting interview throughout. His book was overpowered by Mark Lane's "Rush to Judgment", but he is one of the most prominent JFK conspiracy buffs. Epstein does not concede that Oswald was a lone gunman but he does express an opinion that is a forceful argument for the lone gunman theory. At the end of the documentary he notes that after forty years none of the conspiracies have been proven.

Mailer's commentary borders on the poetic and reminds us of the beauty of his written prose. He provides the most eloquent vision of the whole affair and quite rightly is the person to sum up the meaning of the specter of Oswald's ghost.

As stated in the documentary, people generally have a very hard time accepting the fact that the death of a charismatic young person like JFK can die at the mundane hand of a lone, lunatic gunman. There is a natural human tendency to believe that the death of such a prominent and charismatic person must be the result of a larger conspiracy.

The death of Princess Diana and the seemingly interminable investigations and conspiracy theories regarding it is symptomatic of the same feeling that has driven the JFK conspiracy hunts for forty years. It is a feeling that
a beautiful, almost fairy-tale like princess could not have died in something as mundane as a traffic accident.

You will be missing a very interesting and significant addition to the JFK assassination history if you miss this documentary.

Note to all the conspiracy theory reviewers: I do not work for the government, I am not CIA or army intelligence. I am not part of the continuing "cover-up." I was not the one on the "grassy knoll". I have never tried to profit from JFK's assassination.



August 5, 2008

Interesting but spoilt by appalling production techniques

I am surprised that this program stirred up so much bitterness in some reviewers. I could see very little that was controversial in it - in fact little that was new information. Some of the commentaries were a little confused but the majority of the information has been known by most of the world for forty years now. It is still a mystery so no-one has the real answer. The final idea in what was a relatively balanced program is that Oswald had the ability to kill Kennedy, and acted alone. Personally, I do not believe that. However, in this program evidence from both sides was given, but, in my opinion, ignored at its conclusion. However, most programs with a point to make tend to do that. This one is just a counter to those who believe that there was a conspiracy (that is, more that one person was involved in the assassination). I tend to 'believe' more than one person was involved (in fact, I am convinced) but there is as much evidence one way or the other.
It is interesting how this topic stirs up antagonistic reactions.
Oliver Stone is in this program for less that 5 minutes and seems to have caused a reaction far exceeding his influence here.
However, the program could have been more interesting and enlightening to watch if it was not drowned in noise. The background `music' obliterated most of the dialogue and totally distracted the viewer from actually listening to the arguments posed - I had to strain to listen to the dialogue most of the time. At one stage, a scene which represented someone on a truth drug seemed to imply the producers were on it as well - such was its strangeness.
This program could have been edifying but was totally spoilt by the production and background sound effects which were appalling. Why producers seemed to think they are needed I have no idea. Perhaps American viewers have become immune to jarring and screaming noises whilst trying to concentrate. This is a pity - because, although much of the material has been known for years, a watchable revamped program on the aftermath of Kennedy's assassination would have been really beneficial. So if you can watch this more than once without wanting to shut the sound off, I congratulate you. Why do they spoil programs like this? It is the dialogue I want to hear not the special sound effects which are totally inappropriate anyway.
March 21, 2008

Visually Striking Look At The Specter Of The Kennedy Assassination

Oswald's Ghost is not, on the surface, just another documentary on the assassination of John F. Kennedy seeking to prove one theory or another. Yet while the film ostensibly is not on the whodunit but that question ahs done to us, Oswald's Ghost has a definite bias in it. But even if on disagrees with this interpretation of the facts, there is still something to be watched here.

Director Robert Stone seems to have done his homework. His interviews cover many proponents of both sides of the argument. He also goes a step further to present unseen or rarely seen / heard materials including news clips and the actual Dallas police recordings. Stone also chooses to employ some interesting visual techniques in the film as well. For example there is the whirlpool of Oswald and Warren Commission images at the start of the film, the (apparent) black hole of conspiracy books, and the positive / negative effect on stock footage during the playing of the recording of Perry Russo's sodium pentothal questioning. These make the film visually interesting and watch-able, even if one doesn't agree with the facts as presented.

Thus the film's fault lies in its bias. While Stone does offer the conspiracy theorists plenty of screen time to defend their views and for the most part I'll admit the film is pretty even handed. Yet in the last few minutes of the film, Stone seems convinced that the mystery is solved and has been for nearly forty-five years. The film then proceeds to essentially say that independent researchers (that is to say conspiracy theorists) have led the public on a wild goose chase of truly epic proportions. Stone takes the viewer from a fair-minded look at the how the specter of the Kennedy assassination looms over America to a biased attempt to prove Oswald acted alone in the assassination.

Would the film have been better without this bias? That's hard to say, really. I suspect that one's own opinion on the topic determines how one interprets the film. While one can argue over the factuality of the film, it is visually striking in its presentation as if to shock and awe. At times fair and at times biased, Oswald's Ghost is not for all tastes. But for anyone interested in the assassination, the film should be seen. February 20, 2008

Propaganda tastes so good

A loathsome, smug, complacent little film. Illogical, trite, arrogant, and quite mistaken.

I try not to be hostile about other people's work, but lying (and it is indeed lying, not simply a different interpretation of the facts) about a national disaster -- lying about a murder -- is not the kind of work to which I extend that respect. February 13, 2008

Of course Oswald is guilty...what did you think?

I am puzzled at the conspiracy nuts boo-hooing that this documentary didn't give the conspiracy advocates a fair forum to proclaim their views. A great number of individuals interviewed for this documentary WERE conspiracy advocates. Where was Gerald Posner, where was Vicent Bugliosi, where was Jim Moore? However Mark Lane, Josiah Thompson, Edward Epstein were all heard from again and again and again. So the conspiracy nuts should be tickled pink. But sadly their theories just hold up to the actual facts of this case. Mark Lane boastfully applauds himself now that most Americans agree that there was a conspiracy, but most Americans believe in a conspiracy NOT because of the evidence in support of any such conspiracy but because they've been told there WAS a conspiracy now for forty-five years. None of these conspiracy advocates lay out the evidence to support their claims--they have none. They simply keep repeating the same tired, groundless claims. Lane claims there were five shots, ignoring the fact that we don't have that many bullets, virtually NO ONE in Dealey Plaza agrees with the five-shot scenerio, and the bodies of Connally and Kennedy simply can't account for that many shots. But Lane marches on. Josiah Thompson is still holding on to the theory that four shots came from three different locations--TSBD, stockade fence, Dallas County Records Building, even though Connally COULDN'T have been struck from the Records building in the back since Kennedy was blocking him at the time and virtually NO Dealey Plaza witnesses agree that shots came from more than one location. Additionally, if a shot came from the stockade fence why were all bullet fragments found in FRONT of the president and none behind? The sad truth is that one can either believe in the facts or one can believe in a conspiracy. However NO ONE can believe in both. I choose to believe in the facts--that's why I believe Oswald acted alone.

While this DVD doesn't offer a great deal of new footage, it was neat to see the film footage of Stevenson getting clonked on the head with the placard in Dallas (I'd never seen that before) and it was hilarious seeing that poor Senator trying to make sense out of Jim Garrison's phone number connection between Oswald and Ruby. It was good to see a documentary point out the silly nature of the Garrison charges and refuse to give him any credence.

Generally a fun watch. But if you are a conspiracy nut, I'd stick with Robert Groden's work, you'll feel more at home in his universe. February 8, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...