I was born in 1987, 25 years after JFK's assassination. I had heard stories, seen it as a episode subject in 1960s based TV series, but I had never fully understood the impact of this tragedy until I watched this documentary. There is no narrator coldly leading you through the events of November 22, 1963. The first section of the documentary is mainly just footage; you are actually seeing what happened that day. You see Jack and Jackie at the breakfast in Fort Worth. You see the people present him with a cowboy hat he says he'll put on "Monday at the Whitehouse" and you laugh, until you realize he never made it back to the Whitehouse. You see the footage of Love Field and the drones of people that came out to see them. You watch as the motorcade moves through Dallas and then...the screen goes blank and eerily says 12:30 PM. You see the various newsflashes that broke that day as well as local Dallas new footage. I felt like I was alive in 1963. After watching this documentary, when I get into a conversation about JFK's assassination I have to remind myself that I wasn't alive. The first half of this documentary changed the way I view history. I hope it becomes a curriculum tool in schools across the country.
12 Reviews
Compelling and haunting, excellently compiled and edited
MartianOctocretr518 October 2009
When any historical documentary can transport you to another time and place, and feel the emotions from what you're seeing, it has succeeded in its purpose. The JFK assassination has been related many times, but this History Channel production is the best time capsule of the horrific news of November 22, 1963 ever.
It's related in just the manner that most people learned of and witnessed on that fateful day, and the subsequent events in the aftermath. The evening news anchors had, by 1963, become the trusted voices of the public's lifeline to national and world events. The likes of Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, John Chancellor, Harry Reasoner, and several others brought to life the rapidly unfolding events surrounding the tragedy, as passioned viewers could only be spectators from the living rooms. The story is presented in just that matter.
This compilation of vintage footage from original network news coverage, is brilliantly edited. In places, it's conveyed at almost to real-time chronology (especially the moments immediately before and after the assassination). The faces of JFK, Jackie Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, John Connelly, Bobby Kennedy, John-John, Lyndon Johnson; all are real, and you truly feel "You are there," to quote Cronkite. The sequence showing how a soap opera was in progress, with the very first news bulletin at 12:30 PM, was almost eerie in how it accomplishes this. In fact, seeing the events unfold again in this format, perhaps because of the original black&white technology, is haunting in its entirety. The person-on-the-street interviews of people, the testimonies of eye witness at the site of the shooting, etc. all bring to life this 46-year-old piece of history.
Events in the months and years following that study the conspiracy theory and Warren commission report are a little slower and the power of the story weakens as the time line spreads out. This has to be addressed, of course, because it was fallout from the assassination, but it just doesn't quite maintain the emotional level of Nov. 1963 portion. Still, the story is well told.
This is a fine production, that reverently, powerfully, and honestly relates the subject manner.
It's related in just the manner that most people learned of and witnessed on that fateful day, and the subsequent events in the aftermath. The evening news anchors had, by 1963, become the trusted voices of the public's lifeline to national and world events. The likes of Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, John Chancellor, Harry Reasoner, and several others brought to life the rapidly unfolding events surrounding the tragedy, as passioned viewers could only be spectators from the living rooms. The story is presented in just that matter.
This compilation of vintage footage from original network news coverage, is brilliantly edited. In places, it's conveyed at almost to real-time chronology (especially the moments immediately before and after the assassination). The faces of JFK, Jackie Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, John Connelly, Bobby Kennedy, John-John, Lyndon Johnson; all are real, and you truly feel "You are there," to quote Cronkite. The sequence showing how a soap opera was in progress, with the very first news bulletin at 12:30 PM, was almost eerie in how it accomplishes this. In fact, seeing the events unfold again in this format, perhaps because of the original black&white technology, is haunting in its entirety. The person-on-the-street interviews of people, the testimonies of eye witness at the site of the shooting, etc. all bring to life this 46-year-old piece of history.
Events in the months and years following that study the conspiracy theory and Warren commission report are a little slower and the power of the story weakens as the time line spreads out. This has to be addressed, of course, because it was fallout from the assassination, but it just doesn't quite maintain the emotional level of Nov. 1963 portion. Still, the story is well told.
This is a fine production, that reverently, powerfully, and honestly relates the subject manner.
Was it my imagination...
movibuf196220 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
...or did this magnificent History Channel documentary about the Kennedy assassination actually unfold without showing the assassination once? I need to regroup a bit here, because I was certain that I saw this TV special a year or two ago, so much does it feel like something I've seen before. But it appears for all intents and purposes to be brand-new, told in almost real-time (no narration or God-awful reenactments which are supposed to represent the actual history that we are so often subjected to in storm chaser videos and such). But this special- especially for the first 25 minutes- is absolutely amazing: plain black boarders with a teletype clock click minute-by-minute as the events of November 22, 1963 unfold: Kennedy's breakfast speech in Fort Worth, a quick flight to Love Field in Dallas, and the start of the motorcade into Dealey Plaza. And all the images are true documents: black-and-white and color film- both newsreel and home movies- interspersed with some fantastic quality b&w videotape, a medium still relatively new in 1963.
And then, perhaps the most genius edit of all: the moment the cars turn onto that small expressway past the Texas Book Depository at the strike of 12:30 pm CST, the scene switches *not* to the famous Zapruder film that we all know, but to the start of "As The World Turns," in monochrome videotape, with the first CBS Bulletin (voiced by an off-camera Walter Cronkite) interrupting the soap opera- just as it had 46 years ago.
Not seeing the event actually made this more frightening to watch.
When the action resumes from the bulletin interruption, the cars have already begun their sprint to the hospital, but we already know it will be to no avail. A few minutes later, the docudrama gives the same treatment on the ABC network, as a ladies' fashion show (also in its original black-and-white videotape) is interrupted by ABC/WFAA's "out-of-breath" program director Jay Watson. (Watson's ABC footage, it seems, is given more air time than the CBS Cronkite footage- perhaps because Cronkite's now famous on-camera reaction had been aired many times before.) Incredibly, horribly, it's all over at the strike of 1:00 pm, just a scant 30 minutes after it began, as the death knell tolls all over the country and the world falls into sorrow. Almost without a break, we are then given a minute-by minute blow of the antics of Lee Harvey (Harold?) Oswald- arrested almost immediately and transferred to what looks like the police station's night court. But by the time we can begin to process his back story, he, too, is gunned down by Jack Ruby (nee' Rubenstein)- this even caught on both film AND videotape. The remainder of the docudrama, of course, delves into the never-ending Warren Commission analysis of what really happened to the president, and the ensuing speculation as to whether or not there was more than one assassin- a speculation that continues to this day. For 4 grueling hours we are transplanted into a block of time, the events of which seemed to have happened in a matter of minutes. And, echoing a famous newsreel from the 1960's, we are there.
And then, perhaps the most genius edit of all: the moment the cars turn onto that small expressway past the Texas Book Depository at the strike of 12:30 pm CST, the scene switches *not* to the famous Zapruder film that we all know, but to the start of "As The World Turns," in monochrome videotape, with the first CBS Bulletin (voiced by an off-camera Walter Cronkite) interrupting the soap opera- just as it had 46 years ago.
Not seeing the event actually made this more frightening to watch.
When the action resumes from the bulletin interruption, the cars have already begun their sprint to the hospital, but we already know it will be to no avail. A few minutes later, the docudrama gives the same treatment on the ABC network, as a ladies' fashion show (also in its original black-and-white videotape) is interrupted by ABC/WFAA's "out-of-breath" program director Jay Watson. (Watson's ABC footage, it seems, is given more air time than the CBS Cronkite footage- perhaps because Cronkite's now famous on-camera reaction had been aired many times before.) Incredibly, horribly, it's all over at the strike of 1:00 pm, just a scant 30 minutes after it began, as the death knell tolls all over the country and the world falls into sorrow. Almost without a break, we are then given a minute-by minute blow of the antics of Lee Harvey (Harold?) Oswald- arrested almost immediately and transferred to what looks like the police station's night court. But by the time we can begin to process his back story, he, too, is gunned down by Jack Ruby (nee' Rubenstein)- this even caught on both film AND videotape. The remainder of the docudrama, of course, delves into the never-ending Warren Commission analysis of what really happened to the president, and the ensuing speculation as to whether or not there was more than one assassin- a speculation that continues to this day. For 4 grueling hours we are transplanted into a block of time, the events of which seemed to have happened in a matter of minutes. And, echoing a famous newsreel from the 1960's, we are there.
Very Well Done
tkasle19 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The History Channel finally broadcasts some HISTORY -- as opposed to crypto-biological monsters, UFOs, loggers, arctic truck drivers, prophecies of impending doom and the existence of Atlantis.
"3 shots" is divided into two 2-hour broadcasts. Part one begins on the morning of November 22, 1963 before the assassination and ends with Oswald dying 2 days later. Part two begins November 24, 1963 and ends at present day.
Both parts show the events only through use of archival news footage. There is no narration; just the occasional black screen telling us the time as it goes by.
Part one is not quite "You are There" -- a music background has been laid over everything; it's mostly very effective, but occasionally it intrudes -- but it's damn close. What it effectively shows is the fog everyone was in during the first 48 hours after JFK's death. Shock and confusion ruled. Every adult interviewed is in a daze: not just the man (or woman) on the street, but the news media, the doctors, the Dallas Police Chief and particularly the Dallas D.A., who appears in his first interview as a deer staring into the headlights.
The killing was beyond everyone's comprehension. Having no precedent or policy to fall back upon, every professional made mistakes in dealing with the barrage of emotions while attempting to carry out their various duties. Reporters continuously called him "Lee Harold (or Harry) Oswald". Doctors made autopsy errors. Law enforcement -- after capturing Oswald quickly -- took a long time in deciding what charges would be brought. They also let anyone with a microphone clog the halls of the building and allowed civilians (like Jack Ruby) to roam there, too.
With the exception of its first half-hour -- leading viewers from Oswald's death to the formation and report of the Warren Commission -- part two shows a) the effect that JFK's murder has had on popular culture and b) how fading memories and the passage of time have only served to dish up various conspiracy theories.
I was 10 when JFK was killed. I saw some of the footage shown in part one. I saw Ruby killing Oswald on live TV. I saw its slow-motion replay when it was first broadcast.
Watching part one was like watching an open door into the past. Watching part two (directly after the first half) would have been humorous to me had the consequences not been so tragic. Jim Garrison is revealed to be a publicity-seeking big-mouth whose main contribution to this subject is spawning a wrong-headed movie 25 years after he spouted his strange theories. Under strong suspicion that Oswald was not buried in his own grave, it is dug up only to discover that (surprise!) Oswald was buried in it. The revelation that "the man with the umbrella" during the House Select Committee on Assassinations hearings is (gasp!) a man with an umbrella.
Other than my already-indicated problem with the show's music, I have just one other, minor criticism here. This should be titled "FOUR shots that changed America": three from Oswald, one from Jack Rubenstein, AKA Ruby.
Whether you -- like me -- believe Oswald was the lone gunman or not, we can all agree Ruby did history and all future American generations no favor when he selfishly stepped out of the crowd in that hallway below the Dallas jail-house.
All of us also should applaud and commend the hours of work that went into the making of this two-parter. It does bring history -- and all its imperfections -- truly alive.
And now back to whether the Abominable Snowman is behind the mystery of the Bermuda Triangle.........
"3 shots" is divided into two 2-hour broadcasts. Part one begins on the morning of November 22, 1963 before the assassination and ends with Oswald dying 2 days later. Part two begins November 24, 1963 and ends at present day.
Both parts show the events only through use of archival news footage. There is no narration; just the occasional black screen telling us the time as it goes by.
Part one is not quite "You are There" -- a music background has been laid over everything; it's mostly very effective, but occasionally it intrudes -- but it's damn close. What it effectively shows is the fog everyone was in during the first 48 hours after JFK's death. Shock and confusion ruled. Every adult interviewed is in a daze: not just the man (or woman) on the street, but the news media, the doctors, the Dallas Police Chief and particularly the Dallas D.A., who appears in his first interview as a deer staring into the headlights.
The killing was beyond everyone's comprehension. Having no precedent or policy to fall back upon, every professional made mistakes in dealing with the barrage of emotions while attempting to carry out their various duties. Reporters continuously called him "Lee Harold (or Harry) Oswald". Doctors made autopsy errors. Law enforcement -- after capturing Oswald quickly -- took a long time in deciding what charges would be brought. They also let anyone with a microphone clog the halls of the building and allowed civilians (like Jack Ruby) to roam there, too.
With the exception of its first half-hour -- leading viewers from Oswald's death to the formation and report of the Warren Commission -- part two shows a) the effect that JFK's murder has had on popular culture and b) how fading memories and the passage of time have only served to dish up various conspiracy theories.
I was 10 when JFK was killed. I saw some of the footage shown in part one. I saw Ruby killing Oswald on live TV. I saw its slow-motion replay when it was first broadcast.
Watching part one was like watching an open door into the past. Watching part two (directly after the first half) would have been humorous to me had the consequences not been so tragic. Jim Garrison is revealed to be a publicity-seeking big-mouth whose main contribution to this subject is spawning a wrong-headed movie 25 years after he spouted his strange theories. Under strong suspicion that Oswald was not buried in his own grave, it is dug up only to discover that (surprise!) Oswald was buried in it. The revelation that "the man with the umbrella" during the House Select Committee on Assassinations hearings is (gasp!) a man with an umbrella.
Other than my already-indicated problem with the show's music, I have just one other, minor criticism here. This should be titled "FOUR shots that changed America": three from Oswald, one from Jack Rubenstein, AKA Ruby.
Whether you -- like me -- believe Oswald was the lone gunman or not, we can all agree Ruby did history and all future American generations no favor when he selfishly stepped out of the crowd in that hallway below the Dallas jail-house.
All of us also should applaud and commend the hours of work that went into the making of this two-parter. It does bring history -- and all its imperfections -- truly alive.
And now back to whether the Abominable Snowman is behind the mystery of the Bermuda Triangle.........
Doing Fred and Ed Proud
rajah524-312 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Fred Friendly and Ed Murrow were up against the wall with the Joe McCarthy mess about a decade before JFK was killed. The fire around the demagogic McCarthy was so hot even Bill Paley was scared of getting burned. American Democracy was up against the wall, too. Murrow and Friendly had an idea. Just show McCarthy doing his thing... without any comment whatsoever. It worked.
In "JFK: 3 Shots..." the producers have used the same technique. I've only seen the first two hours of the total four thus far, but it seems clear to me where they are headed.
Abraham Zapruder is interviewed to show that he is a real person and that he was there in Dallas with his hand-held camera on the grassy knoll. Will they show the film the way anyone with a computer can watch it for themselves on the Internet?
A couple is shown with their two children being interviewed less than two hours after the event. The same couple is shown on the knoll moments after the event in one of the dozens of photos that were taken of where people thought one of the shots had come from. "The shot came from behind us, the young father said."
The Dallas police are shown presenting Lee Oswald as the sole assassin with hearsay evidence that would have never stood up to trial challenge.
Jack Ruby, whose ties to the New Orleans mob were a matter of public record =then=, is shown shooting Lee Oswald =once= with a ".38 calibre revolver." The gun, however, sounds on the videotape like a .22. (A .38 is really loud; a .22 "pops.")
Oswald is then put in an ambulance full of Dallas police officers. We know that he did not survive. The autopsy report said he died from "massive trauma." From a single .22 round. (Even so, a .38 fired a close range tends to pass right through body cleanly.)
I can't wait to see tonight's episode.
Most current-day "conspiracy theorists" believe Oswald =intended= to kill the President; few believe Oswald got the job done by himself.
If "JFK: 3 Shots..." takes its viewers =that= far, I'll be grateful. If it takes us beyond that to some clarity on who really had the means, the motive and the opportunity, I'll be astonished.
But if they do this the way I think they will in the second installment, the viewer who knows many of the facts will make one decision. The viewer who doesn't may make quite another. How nifty for the producers.
In "JFK: 3 Shots..." the producers have used the same technique. I've only seen the first two hours of the total four thus far, but it seems clear to me where they are headed.
Abraham Zapruder is interviewed to show that he is a real person and that he was there in Dallas with his hand-held camera on the grassy knoll. Will they show the film the way anyone with a computer can watch it for themselves on the Internet?
A couple is shown with their two children being interviewed less than two hours after the event. The same couple is shown on the knoll moments after the event in one of the dozens of photos that were taken of where people thought one of the shots had come from. "The shot came from behind us, the young father said."
The Dallas police are shown presenting Lee Oswald as the sole assassin with hearsay evidence that would have never stood up to trial challenge.
Jack Ruby, whose ties to the New Orleans mob were a matter of public record =then=, is shown shooting Lee Oswald =once= with a ".38 calibre revolver." The gun, however, sounds on the videotape like a .22. (A .38 is really loud; a .22 "pops.")
Oswald is then put in an ambulance full of Dallas police officers. We know that he did not survive. The autopsy report said he died from "massive trauma." From a single .22 round. (Even so, a .38 fired a close range tends to pass right through body cleanly.)
I can't wait to see tonight's episode.
Most current-day "conspiracy theorists" believe Oswald =intended= to kill the President; few believe Oswald got the job done by himself.
If "JFK: 3 Shots..." takes its viewers =that= far, I'll be grateful. If it takes us beyond that to some clarity on who really had the means, the motive and the opportunity, I'll be astonished.
But if they do this the way I think they will in the second installment, the viewer who knows many of the facts will make one decision. The viewer who doesn't may make quite another. How nifty for the producers.
Extremely Impressive Documentary
Michael_Elliott8 November 2009
JFK: 3 Shots That Changed America (2009)
*** 1/2 (out of 4)
Extremely entertaining and at times brilliant documentary from The History Channel. Spread over two episodes totally just over three hours, this documentary doesn't use a single talking head but instead shows us the history of the Kennedy assassination via actual broadcasts from the president arriving in Dallas to where we are today. Every bit of the footage is shown in the order that it originally aired and this includes showing us clips of "As the World Turns", which was interrupted to announce that the President had been shot. The first episode takes a look at the first forty-eight hours, which had our President killed and then his assassin killed. Part two then takes a look at everything that has happened over the years from countless debate to the Oliver Stone movie. The first half of this documentary is downright brilliant as it gives those people who weren't around in 1963 a chance to see how the world got to hear the news. I thought the film did a masterful job at building up suspense even though everyone certainly knows what happened. Seeing the old broadcasts was incredibly interesting as was parts of the speech Kennedy gave just an hour before his death. We also get a lot of wonderful footage from the Dallas Police Station and of course the news of Oswald being murdered. What I found so fascinating is that conspiracy theories were already building up in people before the official word was released that Kennedy had died from the injuries. This here certainly fuels the second part of the film, which is rather obvious in its one sided nature in showing that there must have been more than one person involved. I thought the film lost some of its power during the final few sections just because it is so one sided. This might be due to the fact that a majority of people over the past two decades feel that Oswald didn't act alone. There's stuff here that could be debated but the real reason for anyone to watch this film are for all the scenes that deal with the hour before and after the assassination. I'm sure many buffs have seen this stuff before but seeing them in order and showed the way they originally were is quite haunting and it really makes one understand what it must have been like when someone first heard the news. I wasn't born until 1980 yet watching this stuff really made me understand everything my parents or grandparents told me in regards to their memories of hearing about the events. Fans of history will certainly want to check this out but I think even those not all that interested in the event will probably find themselves caught up in the drama.
*** 1/2 (out of 4)
Extremely entertaining and at times brilliant documentary from The History Channel. Spread over two episodes totally just over three hours, this documentary doesn't use a single talking head but instead shows us the history of the Kennedy assassination via actual broadcasts from the president arriving in Dallas to where we are today. Every bit of the footage is shown in the order that it originally aired and this includes showing us clips of "As the World Turns", which was interrupted to announce that the President had been shot. The first episode takes a look at the first forty-eight hours, which had our President killed and then his assassin killed. Part two then takes a look at everything that has happened over the years from countless debate to the Oliver Stone movie. The first half of this documentary is downright brilliant as it gives those people who weren't around in 1963 a chance to see how the world got to hear the news. I thought the film did a masterful job at building up suspense even though everyone certainly knows what happened. Seeing the old broadcasts was incredibly interesting as was parts of the speech Kennedy gave just an hour before his death. We also get a lot of wonderful footage from the Dallas Police Station and of course the news of Oswald being murdered. What I found so fascinating is that conspiracy theories were already building up in people before the official word was released that Kennedy had died from the injuries. This here certainly fuels the second part of the film, which is rather obvious in its one sided nature in showing that there must have been more than one person involved. I thought the film lost some of its power during the final few sections just because it is so one sided. This might be due to the fact that a majority of people over the past two decades feel that Oswald didn't act alone. There's stuff here that could be debated but the real reason for anyone to watch this film are for all the scenes that deal with the hour before and after the assassination. I'm sure many buffs have seen this stuff before but seeing them in order and showed the way they originally were is quite haunting and it really makes one understand what it must have been like when someone first heard the news. I wasn't born until 1980 yet watching this stuff really made me understand everything my parents or grandparents told me in regards to their memories of hearing about the events. Fans of history will certainly want to check this out but I think even those not all that interested in the event will probably find themselves caught up in the drama.
The Obvious
binaryg25 March 2010
"JFK: 3 Shots That Changed America"
I was 22 when President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas and remember where I was when I learned what had happened, and remember watching Lee Harvey Oswald being assassinated live on television. Those events and the subsequent events shown in this remarkable documentary hold a vivid place in my memory. I understand that memory is a tricky thing ("Memories are interpreted like dreams." -Leo Longanesi) and for that reason watching this documentary was spellbinding.
I thought the lack of narration, especially in the first half, was a stroke of genius on the part of the film makers. I have my bias about whether there was a conspiracy in the President's murder. And to watch the events depicted in this film of the events of November 22, 1963, my feeling of conviction about the conspiracy was completely verified. To watch how quickly the Dallas Police gather evidence and draw conclusions about their certainty, while at the same time completely mishandling of the events of that weekend scream "frame-up." I didn't need any narration to explain what was happening and am grateful for the chance to relive so many of those moments with the advantage of hindsight.
I do not pretend to know who was responsible for President Kennedy's death. I would like to know before I go to my grave but alas I will not. Once again, I am grateful that this film is in the record just as I was when Oliver Stone released his "JFK." This injustice must not be forgotten.
I was 22 when President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas and remember where I was when I learned what had happened, and remember watching Lee Harvey Oswald being assassinated live on television. Those events and the subsequent events shown in this remarkable documentary hold a vivid place in my memory. I understand that memory is a tricky thing ("Memories are interpreted like dreams." -Leo Longanesi) and for that reason watching this documentary was spellbinding.
I thought the lack of narration, especially in the first half, was a stroke of genius on the part of the film makers. I have my bias about whether there was a conspiracy in the President's murder. And to watch the events depicted in this film of the events of November 22, 1963, my feeling of conviction about the conspiracy was completely verified. To watch how quickly the Dallas Police gather evidence and draw conclusions about their certainty, while at the same time completely mishandling of the events of that weekend scream "frame-up." I didn't need any narration to explain what was happening and am grateful for the chance to relive so many of those moments with the advantage of hindsight.
I do not pretend to know who was responsible for President Kennedy's death. I would like to know before I go to my grave but alas I will not. Once again, I am grateful that this film is in the record just as I was when Oliver Stone released his "JFK." This injustice must not be forgotten.
Brilliant
leroy-4484617 May 2020
This is by far the most meticulously and thorough documentary I have ever seen.It even shows the TV program that was on at the time and the cutting in newsflash of the shooting.Even officer Tippet's radio conversation with his base is included.I purchased this about 5 years ago,and since then I have probably seen it 4-5 times.I have loaned it to my brother and friends, and they have the same opinion.One of the best,and not to be missed.
Started out well but disappointing
pik92312 October 2009
Perhaps if this documentary could be viewed without so many commercial interruptions, I would be willing to give it another try. The first part of the documentary, screened on Sunday night, had more substance, new footage, and a train of thought that was obvious. It was well done in fact and I was looking forward to the second half, screened on Monday night, with good expectation. But I think the film makers, be it the writers or editors lost focus on what they were trying to do, or maybe they were limited by time restrictions. For sure, they had to fit in bits and pieces according to commercials.
Too bad, I was really looking forward to something good - something different, something that would give if not new insight, a fresh look into a piece of history that is so much a part of my life. I would have gone as far as purchasing the DVDs if the show was any good, but it just didn't make it for me.
I think the film makers went out into to many tangents, too many directions, going into various periods of time that didn't allow the show to hold together.
If I had to write a synopsis of this film, I would not be able to do so - I have no idea what your main objective was. I think you should go back and reedit the film, rethink the film, rework the film. With all the material you have, with all the materials still available but you didn't use - this was a poor job. Too bad.
Too bad, I was really looking forward to something good - something different, something that would give if not new insight, a fresh look into a piece of history that is so much a part of my life. I would have gone as far as purchasing the DVDs if the show was any good, but it just didn't make it for me.
I think the film makers went out into to many tangents, too many directions, going into various periods of time that didn't allow the show to hold together.
If I had to write a synopsis of this film, I would not be able to do so - I have no idea what your main objective was. I think you should go back and reedit the film, rethink the film, rework the film. With all the material you have, with all the materials still available but you didn't use - this was a poor job. Too bad.
Phenomenology of watching
chaos-rampant23 March 2016
This is right up my alley. It's that Dallas morning that changed the soul of America and the days and months leading away from it in confusion and growing dissonance. It's purely visual, purely composed from what news cameras captured that day and beyond. We have intertitles that lay out a timeline and only news coverage from TV to usher us along.
I prefer the first part here that begins with ominously boarding a plane at Fort Worth for a parade in Dallas a few hours later and ends with Oswald fatefully meeting Ruby outside the court. The second segment traces the conspiracy and paranoia as viewers are not content with what they have been told happened and push for more revealing storytelling. We stray a bit far eventually, all the way up to 90s, but of course it's all part of what that was set in motion that Dallas morning at 12.30.
It's all in that first part that succeeds in shaking us up from our position of juggling stories, an intellectual position, and puts us back into life. A simple reading would surmise that we become the stunned viewer following events as they unfold. The murder is not seen in the timeline of events; Zapruder's film wasn't going to air for another decade after all and no one had images for it. A TV program is interrupted by a news bulletin instead.
Even better; some of the footage we see, composed from various cameras, weren't going to see the light of day until many decades later and are here probably assembled together for the very first time. We are privy to a tapestry of views that no viewer in JFK's time ever was.
But we actually get to inhabit a larger horizon. Not only are we a viewer who follows events, who can only watch as the earth quakes and truth comes crashing on the floor, certainties scattered in a heap. We are also the viewer who eerily anticipates, can't help but be. This is for you to deepen with perception. As JFK is coming out of the plane in the Dallas runway, is Oswald crouching on that room already? Are others somewhere in the same city now, anxiously waiting? And this is what captivates so much about the events; so many parallel universes to ponder suggest themselves.
Somewhere further afield lies the truth of what happened, we can't help but imagine, somewhere in some room there's someone who knows, ideally a list of names that go all the way up. JFK's story shows our deep need to surround ourselves with stories, to inhabit a horizon in which reality is charged with immanent meaning. Ordinary life is a bore to us. Deep down we want things to be not what they seem, to suggest doorways to meaning and this particular story is full of them.
But what if we stop attaching ourselves to narratives and simply observe the elusive nature of things as they rise and vanish again? What if we refrain from judgement that insists on what is true, and just let life open itself up as the playground of illusion? Now we can know how much we can say and what will have to stay incomplete; we have a softer, more vital truth in our hands. This is the room where Oswald crouched that morning, the film takes us to the very place. This is how it truly was inside the station with reporters clamoring in the halls while Oswald was interrogated beyond this wall.
Use this to train an eye that is open and patient with reality, not just as historic document. Allow yourself to be there, see intensely into what can be seen, allowing the rest to hover.
I prefer the first part here that begins with ominously boarding a plane at Fort Worth for a parade in Dallas a few hours later and ends with Oswald fatefully meeting Ruby outside the court. The second segment traces the conspiracy and paranoia as viewers are not content with what they have been told happened and push for more revealing storytelling. We stray a bit far eventually, all the way up to 90s, but of course it's all part of what that was set in motion that Dallas morning at 12.30.
It's all in that first part that succeeds in shaking us up from our position of juggling stories, an intellectual position, and puts us back into life. A simple reading would surmise that we become the stunned viewer following events as they unfold. The murder is not seen in the timeline of events; Zapruder's film wasn't going to air for another decade after all and no one had images for it. A TV program is interrupted by a news bulletin instead.
Even better; some of the footage we see, composed from various cameras, weren't going to see the light of day until many decades later and are here probably assembled together for the very first time. We are privy to a tapestry of views that no viewer in JFK's time ever was.
But we actually get to inhabit a larger horizon. Not only are we a viewer who follows events, who can only watch as the earth quakes and truth comes crashing on the floor, certainties scattered in a heap. We are also the viewer who eerily anticipates, can't help but be. This is for you to deepen with perception. As JFK is coming out of the plane in the Dallas runway, is Oswald crouching on that room already? Are others somewhere in the same city now, anxiously waiting? And this is what captivates so much about the events; so many parallel universes to ponder suggest themselves.
Somewhere further afield lies the truth of what happened, we can't help but imagine, somewhere in some room there's someone who knows, ideally a list of names that go all the way up. JFK's story shows our deep need to surround ourselves with stories, to inhabit a horizon in which reality is charged with immanent meaning. Ordinary life is a bore to us. Deep down we want things to be not what they seem, to suggest doorways to meaning and this particular story is full of them.
But what if we stop attaching ourselves to narratives and simply observe the elusive nature of things as they rise and vanish again? What if we refrain from judgement that insists on what is true, and just let life open itself up as the playground of illusion? Now we can know how much we can say and what will have to stay incomplete; we have a softer, more vital truth in our hands. This is the room where Oswald crouched that morning, the film takes us to the very place. This is how it truly was inside the station with reporters clamoring in the halls while Oswald was interrogated beyond this wall.
Use this to train an eye that is open and patient with reality, not just as historic document. Allow yourself to be there, see intensely into what can be seen, allowing the rest to hover.
The Standard Treatment of the Subject Matter
ridge-m-16 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
A nice, neat, little piece of propaganda conforming with the history book interpretation of the events in Dallas on that dreadful day.
The scenes that took place in Ft. Worth are all the more touching since they are infused with the viewer's knowledge of the horrific event to come.
The first overt sanitation of what actually transpired was noticed by this viewer during the sequence at Love Field as the presidential limousine begins to depart for the motorcade through downtown Dallas. One can view the rear of the Lincoln with a Secret Service agent in proper position on each side of the rear of the limo. A close inspection of the presidential car (not easily seen in this video since there is no close up shot) reveals that there are two areas in the rear bumper for an agent to stand as well as two handrails located on the trunk of the vehicle. It was standard operating procedure for a Secret Service agent to be stationed in each of these areas on the bumper to afford the President protection in the form of human shields.
This video cuts right before the Special Agent in charge riding in the follow-up car motions the properly placed agents back and away from the presidential vehicle. One can see the frustration of the Secret Service Agent on the right side of the limo since he throws his hands up in the air on three separate occasions as he follows his orders and retires to the follow-up vehicle. There is a much more complete video of this footage posted on You Tube which confirms the information this viewer has provided.
This individual who was 12 years old on the day of the assassination and remembers as if it was yesterday where he was and what he was doing when informed of the crime of the century in this country felt no need to be spoon-fed anymore video from the History Channel.
The scenes that took place in Ft. Worth are all the more touching since they are infused with the viewer's knowledge of the horrific event to come.
The first overt sanitation of what actually transpired was noticed by this viewer during the sequence at Love Field as the presidential limousine begins to depart for the motorcade through downtown Dallas. One can view the rear of the Lincoln with a Secret Service agent in proper position on each side of the rear of the limo. A close inspection of the presidential car (not easily seen in this video since there is no close up shot) reveals that there are two areas in the rear bumper for an agent to stand as well as two handrails located on the trunk of the vehicle. It was standard operating procedure for a Secret Service agent to be stationed in each of these areas on the bumper to afford the President protection in the form of human shields.
This video cuts right before the Special Agent in charge riding in the follow-up car motions the properly placed agents back and away from the presidential vehicle. One can see the frustration of the Secret Service Agent on the right side of the limo since he throws his hands up in the air on three separate occasions as he follows his orders and retires to the follow-up vehicle. There is a much more complete video of this footage posted on You Tube which confirms the information this viewer has provided.
This individual who was 12 years old on the day of the assassination and remembers as if it was yesterday where he was and what he was doing when informed of the crime of the century in this country felt no need to be spoon-fed anymore video from the History Channel.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
