A Filmmaker's Guide to 'JFK' (1991) Pt. 2

(In order to get the most out of this article, it is recommended that you watch the film JFK (1991) by Oliver Stone at least once or twice over. I know it's long, but it'll help in your understanding of the film and this article).

Oliver Stone is a director who isn't afraid to make his film look epic, but he also isn't a director to cut corners. Every single thing in this film is a piece of symbolism, which we will cover in another part to this series on the film JFK, for now, we are going to work with Part 2 and what I've put in the subtitle for this article. Now, let's clear up these strange words for those of you who do not know them.

Characterisation: In this, we are looking at how certain "things" or certain aspects of the film represent parts of a character and how. We will not cover every character because that will take too long. But for those of you who have already seen the film a few times, I think you know where we are at with our analysis and have probably worked out which character it is. We'll be looking at speech, things, development and everything else that lets us know about the character and the way in which this is given to us. Is it of much use, or does the director want to mess with our heads without showing us what is really important? That is the real question.

Use of Non-Diegetic Sound: Sound which is non-diegetic is sound which does not have a source on-screen. For example: a soundtrack playing in the background of a scene. If your sound is diegetic then it probably comes from a (e.g) record player on-screen and your characters can hear it too.

Cinematography and Editing: Please refer to Part 1 if you would like to learn more about this because it is covered in that article as well. This is all about how the shots in certain scenes can make scenes look a certain way and reflect a certain atmosphere. Last time, we covered colour palettes as well and we even had another section for the creation of atmosphere. In this, we'll be covering cinematography, editing, and atmosphere together so as to compress this article slightly.

Sorry for the lack of pictures, I'm going to try harder this time to make it slightly more... picturesque.

Characterisation 1: Dave Ferrie

The characterisation of Dave Ferrie is pretty sketchy for most of the first half of the film, not because there's a lack of information but because there's a lack of knowledge about his character. The way in which we find out about his character is when he finally needs "protecting" by Garrison and his team when he almost loses his mind. This all starts with the story about him getting into the newspaper; he phones Garrison's team to try to clear up what's happening and the characterisation opens up.

Example: The Death of Dave Ferrie

Dave Ferrie dies near the start of the second half of the film and, well, it's the first time we really get to see his character. What we'll be doing is comparing what he says in the scene where he has a rant to Garrison's team, to the scene where he mysteriously is found dead. They are only a scene or two apart in the film and for good reason. The rant that Ferrie has is still fresh in the audience's mind and, when he dies, there are various symbols and meanings behind certain things he had said that now become clear.

The first thing he states is that he has cancer. Oliver Stone purposefully puts Ferrie's medication in full view when the death scene happens. The medication is well-lit compared to the rest of the room, but this isn't to tell us he had cancer. It is to tell us that there was other medications there because none of them were cancer medications. Ferrie doesn't have any of the other things that the other medications are for, neither did he mention them at all to Garrison.

The next thing he says is that he wanted to be a Catholic Priest and live in a monastery. The symbolism upon entering the house is pretty obvious because of the picture and the cross. But then he states he has a one weakness, we never actually get to know what this is - whether it is drugs or not, we can only guess. We get a very clear view of the room in which Dave Ferrie dies and all this shows us the religious imagery that he was talking about when he said he wanted to be a Catholic Priest. This is perfectly clear and probably there to distract us from other things. For instance, how dark the room is even though Ferrie was in his room at the time. This means that someone probably switched the main lights off. This is one of the things the movie does not want you to notice until the flashback.

After this he states (which is the main thing) that people are going to kill him. This is supported in the death scene by the two suicide notes even though he died of "other causes" (aneurysm, haemorrhage etc.). Initially, his death is ruled as "natural causes" which is weird because why would a man, a day before his death, pen two suicide notes when he's going to die of natural causes? This is the same analysis Garrison makes in the film, though he hedges around it and does not speak in clear dialogue out of fear of being heard by the men investigating the death.

The death of Dave Ferrie is a mystery and is presented as one through what he says about his own death because it is such a short time before he dies. What we don't get to know is why he is really killed and what threat to people he really is. We also get these weird flashbacks to his actual death when Garrison and his team finally get to see Ferrie's body lying in his house. This is a case for dramatic irony as now the audience know how Ferrie died, but the characters are still unaware. To Garrison and his team, Ferrie is simply dead and now cannot be used in the trial, to the men investigating Ferrie's death—it was a clear suicide. The audience would know that both of them are wrong.

Characterisation Part 2: 'X'

We've got various things that happen at the beginning or just before Garrison meets 'X.' These all suggest that the character 'X' has some importance to the USA intelligence circles. What we have at the beginning of this meeting is a crane up at the Washington Monument, the fact that Garrison went all the way to Washington to see 'X' means he must be of some importance. Also, because we have these epic shots of places near the Washington monument means that there is some validity to the conversation and also, they're about to talk about the government's operations when it came to the assassination.

Example: 'X' Discussing the Death of the President with Garrison

'X' is a character who doesn't speak if there are too many people around and so what we see in the cinematography side of presenting character is that long shot of the pathway in the park. It shows there aren't many people around at all and so, the things that 'X' is saying are safe to say there.

We also have these random flashbacks and in them, there's shots of the Pentagon from above and craned down, so that we can see the whole thing. What we have is this long shot and what looks like a 45 degree downwards crane, it's also to make the Pentagon look like a pentagon because how else would you see the shape? It characterises 'X' as someone who was directly involved with this group as in black and white, we are seeing his own flashbacks.

We get another sense of dramatic irony, something that is not known to Garrison and partially unknown to 'X' - but this something is still playing in black and white in the flashbacks. What this is about is the people who are expressing their dislike for the President and planning to have him reverse the stuff he signed on Cuba and Vietnam. 'X' knows most, but not all the details and the fact that he is talking about it makes the flashback seem ever more uncomfortable to the viewer since this is the first step taken to kill President Kennedy.

The aspect of 'X's speech that I probably find the best is the way it is timed. The timing upon when he says certain things plus when certain scenes play in black and white in the background of his speech is quite perfect for symbolism. For example: the absolute best example for this is when 'X' says the words "that is a coup d'etat" a clip of Lyndon B. Johnson begins to play on screen as he's signing something. We also get, immediately after this, a close up of the Vietnam War document that shows the war is going ahead though Kennedy reversed it. The fact that we get the words "coup d'etat" and the clip of LBJ playing together suggests to the audience that LBJ had something to do with the coup d'etat of President Kennedy. This is only suggestion since 'X' actually says nothing of a sort.

Just listen to the strings in the background of this scene. It is used so cleverly to enhance the mood. What we've got is the strings initially telling us that 'X' is discussing something fairly uncomfortable or tense with Garrison and that the information being handed over, in the wrong hands, could be dangerous. The other thing it tells us is that this information is not only dangerous, but it involves some very shady facts about the government. The way this tense atmosphere is creating in the first part of this scene is by having that low volume minor-key string slightly build in. They become part of the atmosphere that 'X' is trying to convey to Garrison.

In the second part of this scene, we get the build up and the climactic section of the strings and this is when the beginning of the Zapruder film starts the play, yet we still have the narration from 'X' about not letting the care slow down to 10mph. This is because 'X' is now explaining what really went wrong and that the whole thing wasn't really an accident if you take apart all the facts. The strings aren't just more intense but they're louder and there's more of them. This is directly representative of the atmosphere that Oliver Stone is trying to create. One of unease and one of something that has gone horribly wrong because of villainy.

In the third part of this scene we get the gothic choir music, really low, playing in the background as Lyndon B Johnson is seen taking the oath on the plane and 'X' is explaining the lone gunman news that went to LBJ after the assassination and how it got there. This is switched from the strings to intensify the dark nature of what the conversation has turned into. It is now less of an assassination investigation and more of a pre-meditated assassination that could've been going on for years.

Here we have narration, but we also have these strings playing over the flashbacks in black and white. The strings are there to present another type of atmosphere - this one is uncertain but it tells us something is about to go wrong because of the slow way in which the strings build.

The strings actually stop when the flashback scene upon the men sitting in a room discussing Kennedy's decision to stop the war begins. This is to let the audience really hear what they're going to say about Kennedy and why they're saying it. The strings start again halfway through the scene when it starts to get more and more uncomfortable, thus making the audience feel the feeling that 'X' is trying to explain to Garrison.

Ah yes, this is also the scene where we have that gothic choir music playing really quietly again. We've already established the purpose for this but it's important to also remember that we require to hear this part of the narration really clearly as it deals with what 'X' thinks of Lyndon B Johnson as well. This is, in fact, the section where the clip of LBJ plays whilst 'X' is saying "that is a coup d'etat." This isn't done by chance, this is done on purpose.

The strings start again for the final part of the scene in which LBJ is discussing getting elected for signing the Vietnamese War document - building up and getting slightly quicker in tempo. This is most obviously done to create tensions as 'X' has already made clear that LBJ wanted to reverse Kennedy's withdrawal policy. But, the music final stops when 'X' says "in that document lay the Vietnam War" and that is done because the audience really need to hear what LBJ has just done. Also, it is done for the utmost dramatic effect. Use it too much and it can come off as cheesy, but it's done perfectly in this scene—Oliver Stone knows what he is doing.

Cinematography Part 1: The Use of Close-Ups

A Close-Up: A head and shoulders view of a character or a close view of an object for the effect of either showing symbolism, emotion/expression and/or movements in close view.

Example 1: Dave Ferrie with Garrison's team shortly before his death.

The close-ups we get here are the ones we've seen many times throughout the movie already. This happens when Dave is talking about the fact that people are now looking to kill him because of the story in the newspaper. What we get is a close-up on to the expressions of each member of Garrison's team in the room at the time.

This happens more than once in this scene and it's for the effect of seeing who is really taking Ferrie seriously. We can see that Bill probably isn't, but is listening anyway and Garrison is definitely taking him seriously - there's a certain amount of discomfort in this scene. It also slightly foreshadows the deflection of Bill in the latter part of the film before the court scene.

Example 2: 'X's Flashbacks and Documentation

In the flashbacks, during the scene with Garrison and 'X' there are many close-ups that we can see on people's expressions. But this isn't what we're going to look at. What we're looking at is the close-ups that happen otherwise. The other close-ups are the ones regarding documentation.

There is a number of reasons for this. The first reason is the authenticity of the film as a biographical/historical drama. The fact that there's documentation and there's a close up of how the documentation is working in the film means that there is some truth behind who assassinated Kennedy and what 'X' is saying.

The second reason is for dramatic effect. The fact that we have a close-up on the documentation that helps in the investigation means that there is evidence in the movie for the requirement to assassinate Kennedy and therefore, Garrison is correct. As audience members, we then anticipate the victory of Garrison in the court case. (Spoiler alert: he only half-wins).

The third reason is for the detail of the flashback. If we just heard that there was a document to do with the assassination or the war in the flashback, we probably would not have picked up on it as much. We see it and it sticks in the memory slightly more than it would if we just heard it or that it existed. Especially regarding the Vietnam War document. We get that weird cut back to 'X' and Garrison with a strange swiping sound that stops the music when 'X' states "in that document was the Vietnam War." It is trying to make that document stick in our memory for the rest of the film by doing all of these things. But it really begins with that close-up/extreme close-up and ends with the cut back to 'X.'

Cinematography Part 2: The Use of News Reports

Medium Frame: in which there would normally be objects and characters visible. It is one of the most common framing devices in cinema

Medium Close-Up: Between a "medium frame" and a "close-up."

News Reports are normally shown in medium close-ups or just medium frame. This gives the effect of them being not only authentic but also suggests they are being watched by a character because someone had to turn on the television. This is better than just having a news report on the screen, filling up the frame. This is purely because the audience is being brought into the film as well, watching the television report along with the characters. The use of cinematography really gives away the role that the audience play in the mass-audience of the JFK investigation, looking especially at how the media tried to manipulate them.

Example 1: The News Report about Garrison

The news report about Jim Garrison arrives on television at nighttime and states some very negative things about Garrison's investigation into the assassination of JFK, even to the point of not being patriotic. The fact that this is on television also means that the audience can get the feeling that others in the film would be watching the same show as well. Not only that, but the audience also get to make their own mind up seeing as they have seen things that haven't been displayed on the television.

The effect of using the television here is to have a concentration on how the media is trying to manipulate the public and destroy Garrison's reputation. That is really what it's showing us.

Example 2: The Assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

The assassination of Dr. King isn't seen on the television as much as it is heard. This is because it is completely unexpected. The fact that we aren't really shown what's on the television emphasises the fact that it's a spontaneous event that nobody could believe. It also allows us to have a look at Garrison's expression as well, which shows again that the event was completely out of the blue. This is when Garrison begins to link the death of Dr. King to that of JFK and still, we have this feeling of disbelief underlying the entire scene. This makes for an excellent effect on cinematography—when something is a random act then keep it at a completely realistic reaction.

Example 3: The Assassination of Robert Kennedy

This is one of the best scenes in the whole film because we know he's watching television because we see the television in medium close-up, but we see the assassination as if we're watching the assassination and not the film. The assassination frames make the sides of the television disappear and we're shown it in close-up. We then get that quick splicing scene between Bobby Kennedy collapsing on to the floor and the iconic scene with the boy holding Bobby Kennedy, trying to stop the bleeding and Garrison's reaction. This scene is one of the most well-done in the film and well, you definitely need to see it if you want to study how to create that hyper-dramatic atmosphere.

Conclusion

I hope you enjoyed the second part to our series on JFK. There is another part to this series already planned and I should be getting that out within the week. It is a brilliant movie with lots of symbolism and a ton of things to analyse, so our next part will concentrate on yet another aspect of Oliver Stone's brilliant 1991 Best Picture nominee. I hope you return for the next part and decide to use some of this stuff in your own biographical/historical drama projects.