Editing JFK (film) (section)

=== Critical reaction ===
{{external media| float = right| video1 = [https://www.c-span.org/video/?23934-1/jfk-depiction-history "''JFK'' and its Depiction of History", hosted by the American University School of Communication, January 22, 1992], [[C-SPAN]]}}

On review aggregator [[Rotten Tomatoes]], ''JFK'' holds an approval rating of 84% based on 70 reviews and an average rating of 7.7/10. The site's critics consensus reads, "As history, Oliver Stone's ''JFK'' is dubious, but as filmmaking it's electric, cramming a ton of information and excitement into its three-hour runtime and making great use of its outstanding cast."<ref>{{cite web |title= JFK (1991) |url= https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1037756_jfk |website= [[Rotten Tomatoes]] |access-date= June 12, 2023 |archive-date= September 15, 2018 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20180915073054/https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1037756_jfk |url-status= live }}</ref>  On [[Metacritic]], the film has a [[weighted average]] of 72 out of 100 based on 29 reviews, indicating "generally favorable" reviews.<ref>{{cite web |title= JFK Reviews |url= https://www.metacritic.com/movie/jfk |website= [[Metacritic]] |access-date= August 19, 2020 |archive-date= September 26, 2020 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20200926084056/https://www.metacritic.com/movie/jfk |url-status= live }}</ref> Audiences polled by [[CinemaScore]] gave the film an average grade of "A" on an A+ to F scale.<ref>{{Cite web|date=December 20, 2018|title=Cinemascore :: Movie Title Search|url=https://www.cinemascore.com/publicsearch/index/title/|access-date=July 28, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181220122629/https://www.cinemascore.com/publicsearch/index/title/|archive-date=December 20, 2018}}</ref>

====Pre-release====
The film's production and release were subject to intense scrutiny and criticism. A few weeks after shooting had begun, on May 14, 1991, Jon Margolis wrote in the ''[[Chicago Tribune]]'' that ''JFK'' was "an insult to the intelligence".<ref name= "Petras, James">{{cite news | last = Petras | first = James | title = The Discrediting of the Fifth Estate: The Press Attacks on ''JFK'' | work = [[Cineaste (magazine)|Cineaste]] | pages = 15 | date = May 1992}}</ref> Five days later, ''[[The Washington Post]]'' ran a scathing article by national security correspondent George Lardner titled, "On the Set: Dallas in Wonderland" that used the first draft of the ''JFK'' screenplay to blast it for "the absurdities and palpable untruths in Garrison's book and Stone's rendition of it."<ref name="Lardner">{{cite news|last=Lardner |first=George |title=On the Set: Dallas in Wonderland |newspaper=[[Washington Post]] |date=May 19, 1991 |url=http://luna.cc.lehigh.edu/STONE:16:FRAME:X:41 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20000517172459/http://luna.cc.lehigh.edu/STONE:16:FRAME:X:41 |url-status=dead |archive-date=May 17, 2000 |access-date=August 1, 2007 }}</ref> The article pointed out that Garrison lost his case against Clay Shaw and that he inflated his case by trying to use Shaw's homosexual relationships to prove [[guilt by association]].<ref name="Lardner"/> Stone responded to Lardner's article by hiring a public relations firm that specialized in political issues. Anthony Lewis in ''The New York Times'' stated the film "tells us that our government cannot be trusted to give an honest account of a Presidential assassination."<ref name="Petras, James"/> ''Washington Post'' columnist [[George Will]] called Stone "a man of technical skill, scant education and negligible conscience."<ref name="Petras, James"/>

''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' ran its own critique of the film-in-progress on June 10, 1991, and alleged Stone was trying to suppress a rival JFK assassination film based on [[Don DeLillo]]'s 1988 novel ''[[Libra (novel)|Libra]]''. Stone rebutted these claims in a letter to the magazine.<ref name="Riordan, James20">Riordan 1996, p. 386.</ref>

Stone split his time making the film, responding to criticism, and conducting a publicity campaign that saw him "omnipresent, from ''[[CBS Evening News]]'', to ''[[The Oprah Winfrey Show|Oprah]]''."<ref name="Salewicz, Chris7"/> The Lardner ''Post'' piece was reputed to have hit Stone the most because Lardner had a copy of the script. Stone recalls, "He had the first draft, and I went through probably six or seven drafts."<ref name="Riordan, James20"/>

====Post-release====
Upon theatrical release, ''The New York Times'' ran an article by [[Bernard Weinraub]] that called for intervention by the studio: "At what point does a studio exercise its leverage and blunt the highly charged message of a film maker like Oliver Stone?"<ref name="Petras, James"/> The newspaper ran a review of the film by [[Vincent Canby]] who wrote, "Mr. Stone's hyperbolic style of film making is familiar: lots of short, often hysterical scenes tumbling one after another, backed by a soundtrack that is layered, strudel-like, with noises, dialogue, music, more noises, more dialogue."<ref>{{cite news | last = Canby | first = Vincent | title = Review/Film: ''J.F.K.''; When Everything Amounts to Nothing | newspaper = [[The New York Times]] | date = December 20, 1991 | url = https://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9D0CE5DC1230F933A15751C1A967958260 | access-date = November 7, 2016 | archive-date = February 12, 2017 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170212130726/http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9D0CE5DC1230F933A15751C1A967958260 | url-status = live }}</ref> Pat Dowell, film critic for ''[[The Washingtonian (magazine)|The Washingtonian]]'', had her 34-word capsule review for the January issue rejected by her editor [[Jack Limpert]] on the grounds he did not want the magazine to give a positive review to a film he felt was "preposterous".<ref name="Petras, James"/> Dowell resigned in protest.<ref name="Petras, James"/>

[[Richard Corliss]], ''Time''{{'}}s film critic, wrote:
<blockquote>
Whatever one's suspicions about its use or abuse of the evidence, ''JFK'' is a knockout. Part history book, part comic book, the movie rushes toward judgment for three breathless hours, lassoing facts and factoids by the thousands, then bundling them together into an incendiary device that would frag any viewer's complacency. Stone's picture is, in both meanings of the word, sensational: it's tip-top tabloid journalism. In its bravura and breadth, ''JFK'' is seditiously enthralling; in its craft, wondrously complex.<ref>{{cite magazine | first=Richard | last=Corliss | title=Oliver Stone: Who Killed J.F.K.? | url=https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,974523-1,00.html | magazine=TIME | date=December 23, 1991 | access-date=February 17, 2017 | archive-date=March 5, 2016 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305200813/http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,974523-1,00.html | url-status=live }}</ref></blockquote>

The ''[[Miami Herald]]'' said, "the focus on the trivialities of personality conveniently prevents us from having to confront the tough questions [Stone's] film raises."<ref name="Riordan, James21">Riordan 1996, p. 416.</ref> [[Gene Siskel]] and [[Roger Ebert]] both gave the film positive reviews on their television show.<ref name="SiskelEbert">{{cite AV media|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUxy3_gBMbk| archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211107/xUxy3_gBMbk| archive-date=November 7, 2021 | url-status=live|title=Siskel & Ebert - "JFK"|date=December 28, 2012|access-date=March 6, 2021|via=YouTube}}{{cbignore}}</ref> Writing for the ''[[Chicago Tribune]]'', Siskel called the film "thoroughly compelling" and suggested that while it contained "gross alterations of fact", Stone had "the right to speculate on American history".<ref name="Siskel">{{cite news | last = Siskel| first = Gene | title = Oliver Stone's 'JFK' Is Remarkable Moviemaking | newspaper = [[Chicago Tribune]] |date= December 20, 1991 }}</ref> Ebert praised the film in his review for the ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'', saying,
{{blockquote|The achievement of the film is not that it answers the mystery of the Kennedy assassination, because it does not, or even that it vindicates Garrison, who is seen here as a man often whistling in the dark. Its achievement is that it tries to marshal the anger which ever since 1963 has been gnawing away on some dark shelf of the national psyche.<ref>{{cite news | last = Ebert | first = Roger | title = ''JFK'' | newspaper = [[Chicago Sun-Times]] | date = 1991-12-20 | url = http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19911220/REVIEWS/112200304/1023 | access-date = 2007-03-28 | archive-date = February 14, 2007 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070214085529/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F19911220%2FREVIEWS%2F112200304%2F1023 | url-status = live }}</ref>}} Rita Kempley in ''[[The Washington Post]]'' wrote, "Quoting everyone from [[William Shakespeare|Shakespeare]] to [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] to bolster their arguments, Stone and Sklar present a gripping alternative to the Warren Commission's conclusion. A marvelously paranoid thriller featuring a closetful of spies, moles, pro-commies and Cuban freedom-fighters, the whole thing might have been thought up by [[Robert Ludlum]]."<ref>{{cite news |last = Kempley |first = Rita |title = ''JFK'' |newspaper = [[The Washington Post]] |date = 1991-12-20 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/jfkrkempley_a0a288.htm |access-date = 2007-03-28 |archive-date = November 7, 2012 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20121107211421/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/jfkrkempley_a0a288.htm |url-status = live }}</ref>

''New York Newsday'' published two articles on Boxing Day: "The Blurred Vision of ''JFK''" and "The Many Theories of a Jolly Green Giant". A few days later, the ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'' followed suit with "Stone's Film Trashes Facts, Dishonors J.F.K." [[Jack Valenti]], then president and chief executive of the [[Motion Picture Association of America]], denounced Stone's film in a seven-page statement. He wrote: "In much the same way, young German boys and girls in 1941 were mesmerized by [[Leni Riefenstahl]]'s ''[[Triumph of the Will]]'', in which Adolf Hitler was depicted as a newborn God. Both ''JFK'' and ''Triumph of the Will'' are equally a propaganda masterpiece and equally a hoax. Mr. Stone and Leni Riefenstahl have another genetic linkage: neither of them carried a disclaimer on their film that its contents were mostly pure fiction."<ref>{{cite news | last = Weinraub | first = Bernard | title = Valenti Calls ''J.F.K.'' 'Hoax' and 'Smear' | newspaper = [[The New York Times]] |date= April 2, 1992 }}</ref> Stone recalls in an interview, "I can't even remember all the threats, there were so many of them."<ref name="Riordan, James22">Riordan 1996, pp. 405–406.</ref>

''TIME'' magazine ranked it the fourth best film of 1991,<ref>{{cite magazine | title=Best of 1991 | magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] | date=January 6, 1992 | url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,974592,00.html | access-date=September 17, 2008 | archive-date=August 12, 2010 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100812181047/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,974592,00.html | url-status=dead }}</ref> while also including it in "Top 10 Historically Misleading Films" in 2011.<ref>{{cite magazine | first=Josh | last=Sanburn | title=Top 10 Historically Misleading Films | url=https://entertainment.time.com/2011/01/26/top-10-historically-misleading-films/slide/jfk-1991/ | magazine=TIME | date=January 25, 2011 | access-date=February 17, 2017 | archive-date=April 28, 2017 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170428150112/http://entertainment.time.com/2011/01/26/top-10-historically-misleading-films/slide/jfk-1991/ | url-status=live }}</ref>

Ebert named Stone's film as the year's best and one of the top ten films of the decade<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://siskelebert.org/?p=7515|title=Ebert & Scorsese: Best Films of the 1990s – Siskel and Ebert Movie Reviews|website=siskelebert.org}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last1=Ebert |first1=Chaz |last2=Fagerholm |first2=Matt |date=April 21, 2022 |title=Roger's Top Ten Lists: Best Films of the 1990s |url=https://www.rogerebert.com/chazs-blog/rogers-top-ten-lists-best-films-of-the-1990s |website=[[RogerEbert.com]]}}</ref> as well as one of [[The Great Movies]].<ref name="Ebert">{{Cite web |last=Ebert |first=Roger |date=April 29, 2002 |title=JFK movie review & film summary |url=https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-jfk-1991 |access-date=2023-11-24 |website=[[RogerEbert.com]]}}</ref> Gene Siskel ranked it the seventh best film of the year.<ref name="SiskelBestOf1991">{{cite news | author = www.refstar.com/s&e | title = TOP TEN MOVIES: 1969-1998 | newspaper = [[Chicago Tribune]] |date= October 15, 1999 }}</ref> The ''[[Sydney Morning Herald]]'' named ''JFK'' as the best film of 1991.<ref>{{cite news |title = Top Ten |work = [[Sydney Morning Herald]] |date = March 5, 1992 }}</ref> ''[[Entertainment Weekly]]'' ranked it the 5th Most Controversial Movie Ever.<ref name= "EW25">{{cite magazine | title = 25 Most Controversial Movies Ever | magazine = [[Entertainment Weekly]] | date = August 27, 2008 | url = http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20221484_20,00.html | access-date = August 27, 2008 | archive-date = August 29, 2008 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080829203234/http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20221484_20,00.html | url-status = dead }}</ref>

Ebert's future colleague [[Richard Roeper]] was less complimentary: "One can admire Stone's filmmaking skills and the performances here while denouncing the utter crapola presented as 'evidence' of a conspiracy to murder."<ref name="Roeper">{{cite book |last=Roeper |first=Richard |author-link=Richard Roeper |year=2008 |chapter=Of Soylent Green and Men in Black: The Best and Worst Conspiracy Movies Ever Made |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rEJp00sYu7AC&pg=PA229 |title=Debunked!: Conspiracy Theories, Urban Legends, and Evil Plots of the 21st Century |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rEJp00sYu7AC |location=Chicago |publisher=Chicago Review Press |pages=229–230 |isbn=978-1-55652-970-2 |access-date=August 9, 2015 |archive-date=February 15, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170215080018/https://books.google.com/books?id=rEJp00sYu7AC |url-status=live }}</ref> Roeper applauded the film's "dazzling array of filmmaking techniques and a stellar roster of actors" but criticized Stone's narrative: "As a work of fantastical fiction, ''JFK'' is an interesting if overblown vision of a parallel universe. As a dramatic interpretation of events, it's journalistically bankrupt nonsense."<ref name="Roeper"/>

[[Harry Connick Sr.]], the New Orleans district attorney who defeated Garrison in 1973, criticized Stone's view of the assassination: "Stone was either unaware of the details and particulars of the Clay Shaw investigation and trial or, if he was aware, that didn't get in his way of what he perceived to be the way the case should have been."<ref name="Los Angeles Times; October 22, 1992">{{cite news |last=Folkart |first=Burt A. |date=October 22, 1992 |title=Jim Garrison; D.A. Challenged JFK Assassination Report |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-10-22-mn-954-story.html |newspaper=Los Angeles Times |access-date=October 23, 2015 |archive-date=October 16, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151016152402/http://articles.latimes.com/1992-10-22/news/mn-954_1_jim-garrison |url-status=live }}</ref> In his book ''[[Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy]]'', a history of the assassination published 16 years after the film's release, [[Vincent Bugliosi]] devoted an entire chapter to Garrison's prosecution of Shaw and Stone's subsequent film.<ref>Bugliosi, Vincent.  ''Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy''.  2007, W.W. Norton and Company, {{ISBN|978-0-393-04525-3}}, p. 1347–1446</ref> Bugliosi lists thirty-two separate "lies and fabrications"<ref>Bugliosi, pp. 1360–1431</ref> in Stone's film and describes the film as "one continuous lie in which Stone couldn't find any level of deception and invention beyond which he was unwilling to go."<ref>Bugliosi, p. 1431</ref> [[David R. Wrone]] stated that "80 percent of the film is in factual error" and rejected the premise of a conspiracy involving the CIA and the so-called military-industrial complex as "irrational".<ref name=Lovell>{{cite news|last=Lovell|first=Glenn|title=Shedding light on movies about a dark day in Dallas|url=http://archive.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2003/11/21/shedding_light_on_movies_about_a_dark_day_in_dallas/|access-date=June 12, 2023|newspaper=The Boston Globe|date=November 21, 2003|agency=Knight Ridder|location=Boston|archive-date=May 10, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190510181658/http://archive.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2003/11/21/shedding_light_on_movies_about_a_dark_day_in_dallas/|url-status=live}}</ref> Warren Commission investigator [[David Belin]] called the film "a big lie that would make Adolf Hitler proud".<ref name="Belin">{{cite news |last=Munns |first=Roger |date=December 15, 1991 |title=Warren panel's counsel: Stone's 'JFK' film a 'big lie' |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1243&dat=19911215&id=O14PAAAAIBAJ&pg=6974,4614754 |newspaper=The Bulletin |location=Bend, Oregon |agency=AP |page=A12 |access-date=December 21, 2014 |archive-date=February 11, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210211200353/https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1243&dat=19911215&id=O14PAAAAIBAJ&pg=6974%2C4614754 |url-status=live }}</ref> Former Indiana Representative [[Floyd Fithian]], who had served on the [[United States House Select Committee on Assassinations|House Select Committee on Assassinations]], said the film had manipulated the past.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/41011949/the_star_press/ |title=Ex-Congressman Sure of Mafia Involvement in Assassination |date=January 27, 1992 |work=The Star Press |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191224085007/https://www.newspapers.com/clip/41011949/the_star_press/ |archive-date=December 24, 2019 |url-status=live |page=6 |via=[[Newspapers.com]]}}</ref> Kennedy's son, [[John F. Kennedy Jr.]], refused to watch the film, "because that's not entertainment for me… people, historians, filmmakers…are going to take time and money studying (the assassination)." He cared little about the controversy, stating that regardless of the truth, it would not bring his father back.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://buffalonews.com/news/jfk-jr-wont-see-controversial-film/article_4b640d5b-20c5-558d-935e-bac3a477304f.html | title=JFK Jr. Won't See Controversial Film | date=May 21, 1992 }}</ref> [[Clint Hill (Secret Service)|Clint Hill]], a Secret Service agent who was with Kennedy when he was shot, criticized the film, calling it "absurd".<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xZwHAy60WE | title=Q&A: Gerald Blaine & Clint Hill | website=[[YouTube]] | date=November 29, 2010 }}</ref>