Oliver Stone Jfk Analysis
Oliver Stone’s JFK (1991) does an excellent job depicting Jim Garrison’s breakdown of what he thought happened during the assassination of JFK. The scene itself incorporates Garrison’s narration (played by Kevin Costner), fictional reenactments of the JFK assassination and real footage to bring home the logic Garrison was arguing. Through aspects of continuity editing, audio continuity, and complexity editing, Stone makes sure that all the pieces fall in line to create a coherent 4 minute scene.
Making sure a scene practices good continuity editing is key to creating a scene that makes sense. Every movie has to organize which shot comes next and for how long. If shots aren’t put together in a logical fashion, it will be hard for the audience …show more content…
to understand what is going on. One aspect of continuity editing that is crucial for a scene to make sense is the use of continuing vectors between shots. A continuing vector occurs when someone is looking at something in a frame. If a scene has a shot of a person looking at something to the left, then the next shot of them (assuming nothing has changed) should include them looking in the same direction. This scene in JFK maintains this in many instances. In the very first seconds of the scene, Garrison turns from the crowd to the judge. The camera starts facing away from the court, then it cuts as Garrison is still turning and the camera is now facing away from the judge. Between the two shots Garrison is turning in a clockwise motion and the scene maintains that to make sure as Garrison shifts his attention the audience knows what he is doing. Another example of the continuing vectors occurs as Garrison is describing the A-Team getting into position. The A-team proceeds from right to left and the shot goes from a wide shot to a close up of a specific member. The two shots maintain continuing vectors by having everybody still looking to the left. These examples are subtle and these effects are subtle, but continuing vectors allows for the two shots put together to make sense and for the story to flow smoothly. Had the preceding shot shown the a team moving from left to right the viewer would be very confused as to which direction the A-team was actually going in or perhaps they would perceive someone in the A-team is heading towards the A-team.
In addition to continuing vectors, there are converging vectors and diverging vectors. Converging vectors occur usually between two people talking in the end of the scene, the use of converging vectors is apparent even though there really isn’t any dialogue occurring. Garrison ends his presentation and the crowd in the court looks at him and he looks at the crowd. From the two shots we know Garrison and the crowd are looking at each other even if there isn’t a wide shot showing that they are looking at each other. Diverging vectors is the same concept, but the shots suggest two people are looking away from each other. There isn’t too much to pull from the scene concerning diverging vectors, but they are of same importance with the other vectors.
Other ways of editing a scene when involving vectors occurs when the sequence goes from a shot of a person looking at something then it cuts a shot of that thing. This occurs a lot in the scene when Garrison describes the perspective of the shooters. Just before the first shot there is a shot of the shooter himself aiming down and to the right and the next shot is of JFK in the shooters sights. This technique is known as off-screen index vector-target continuity. By putting together the two shots back to back it is implied what the shooter is looking at. Had there been a shot of JFK on ground level the viewers would not get the impression that the next shot was the shooters perspective because he was looking down and to the right. By putting them together a more cohesive sequence is formed.
It is also worth mentioning that the edit between shots must have the same line of horizon to preserve vector continuity. When Garrison references the shooter on the grassy knoll the line of horizon is at eye level therefore any shot after that, if it is supposed to be from the grassy knoll shooter’s perspective must show an eye level horizon line. Simply put the camera must be shot at the same angle in order to suggest a relation between shots. Maintaining continuity with vectors between shots ensures a fluid transition between shots.
Aside from vectors, other factors play a part in making this scene work. There is a lot going on for the audience and since Garrison is only portraying a theory as to what happened, they left JFK’s actual assignation footage in color and they took away the color when Garrison’s theory was being reenacted. This distinction for the audience is important for continuity as he is telling his theory as a matter of fact when it is not exactly proven. The juxtaposition of the two pieces together how Garrison wants the jury to interpret what happened. Moreover although it may be obvious, the distinction between the court room and the JFK assassination footage needs to be made too. The grain of both the real and suggested footage juxtaposes the actual look of Garrison in the court room. Other factors such as clothing and time of day are incorporated into the film. The cars of the actual footage are replicated to mesh in with what the Zapruder film shows. And finally, to emphasis the impact of the guns being fired the camera shots cut when the shooter pulls the trigger. Cutting on the action or action continuity, enhances a motion by cutting when the action of the motion occurs.
Moving away from the video aspects, audio continuity works in tandem with the video counterpart to enhance a scene. Background/environment noise such as the crowd cheering for JFK or the bullet being loaded into the gun are added to put the audience into the scene. The actual Zapruder film didn’t have and audio so it is the job of the director and editor to add and record sounds that seem fit with the video being displayed. And since the scene takes place from all over, the sound needs to account for that. In shots where the crowd is close up the crowd must sound loud and in shots where the shooter is 6 floors up the crowd must sound feint or not be able to be heard. Another factor lies in the way the film delivers dialogue. The audio has to deliver a continuous level of narration that sounds as if Garrison is explaining the scene in one take. Then the rhythm of the music and the sounds have to build up to the climax of the moment JFK is shot in the head. So the music gets faster and more pronounced throughout the scene. The gradual increase of tempo and loudness develop a dynamic range between calm and excited further enhancing the suspense of the scene.
Finally, something unique to film is its ability to determine how the story progresses and this is achieved through complexity editing.
The first and foremost most conventional way to tell a story as it happens in time or in a sequential analytic montage. Garrison does this throughout his depiction of the JFK assassination, for example JFK makes the turn from Main onto Houston before he gets shot so we see JFK make the turn while being aimed down the scopes of the shooters. The sequence of shots show the car making the turn. This is told in this way to highlight the main event of the story (the events leading up to JFK’s assassination). Another way of telling a story is through a sectional analytic montage. This is where the same moment in time is playing over and over from different perspectives. This is to emphasize an important moment in a film. Most notably in this scene when JFK is shot in the head the moment is replayed from the perspective of the shooter the perspective of Zapruder, the perspective of the crowd and many other camera angles focused on JFK. This enhances the climax of the scene and really emphasizes Garrison’s point is that the footage shows JFK moving his head back and to the left, which suggests he was shot from the grassy knoll and not from the
depository.
Finally in complexity editing audio and video can be juxtaposed with a comparison idea-associative montage or a collision idea-associative montage. An example of a comparison idea-associative montage is simply when JFK was shot in the head the feeling of the music matched the feeling of the events. The music in that moment was loud and came in bursts with each video of a gunshot. This is comparison idea-associative because it mixes two loud and suspenseful moments together to enhance the gravity of the event. In contrast an example of a collision idea-associative montage is when the teams were in position to shoot the president and the crowd was cheering. On one hand the audience knows the president is in danger, but the crowd cheering makes the event feel happy or exciting. This effect puts more stress on the audience because they feel as though the audience shouldn’t be cheering when something bad is about to happen. This is a good precursor to the assassination because it leaves the viewer feeling uneasy and perhaps makes them feel more suspense.
An accumulation of these editing aspects glue together an exhilarating scene. Through structured storytelling, continuous shots and the synergy of audio and video techniques, an effective narrative is produced. Garrison’s argument may have contained a lot of assumptions about what really happened that day, the audience is left feeling that this theory is plausible based on his telling.
Making sure a scene practices good continuity editing is key to creating a scene that makes sense. Every movie has to organize which shot comes next and for how long. If shots aren’t put together in a logical fashion, it will be hard for the audience …show more content…
to understand what is going on. One aspect of continuity editing that is crucial for a scene to make sense is the use of continuing vectors between shots. A continuing vector occurs when someone is looking at something in a frame. If a scene has a shot of a person looking at something to the left, then the next shot of them (assuming nothing has changed) should include them looking in the same direction. This scene in JFK maintains this in many instances. In the very first seconds of the scene, Garrison turns from the crowd to the judge. The camera starts facing away from the court, then it cuts as Garrison is still turning and the camera is now facing away from the judge. Between the two shots Garrison is turning in a clockwise motion and the scene maintains that to make sure as Garrison shifts his attention the audience knows what he is doing. Another example of the continuing vectors occurs as Garrison is describing the A-Team getting into position. The A-team proceeds from right to left and the shot goes from a wide shot to a close up of a specific member. The two shots maintain continuing vectors by having everybody still looking to the left. These examples are subtle and these effects are subtle, but continuing vectors allows for the two shots put together to make sense and for the story to flow smoothly. Had the preceding shot shown the a team moving from left to right the viewer would be very confused as to which direction the A-team was actually going in or perhaps they would perceive someone in the A-team is heading towards the A-team.
In addition to continuing vectors, there are converging vectors and diverging vectors. Converging vectors occur usually between two people talking in the end of the scene, the use of converging vectors is apparent even though there really isn’t any dialogue occurring. Garrison ends his presentation and the crowd in the court looks at him and he looks at the crowd. From the two shots we know Garrison and the crowd are looking at each other even if there isn’t a wide shot showing that they are looking at each other. Diverging vectors is the same concept, but the shots suggest two people are looking away from each other. There isn’t too much to pull from the scene concerning diverging vectors, but they are of same importance with the other vectors.
Other ways of editing a scene when involving vectors occurs when the sequence goes from a shot of a person looking at something then it cuts a shot of that thing. This occurs a lot in the scene when Garrison describes the perspective of the shooters. Just before the first shot there is a shot of the shooter himself aiming down and to the right and the next shot is of JFK in the shooters sights. This technique is known as off-screen index vector-target continuity. By putting together the two shots back to back it is implied what the shooter is looking at. Had there been a shot of JFK on ground level the viewers would not get the impression that the next shot was the shooters perspective because he was looking down and to the right. By putting them together a more cohesive sequence is formed.
It is also worth mentioning that the edit between shots must have the same line of horizon to preserve vector continuity. When Garrison references the shooter on the grassy knoll the line of horizon is at eye level therefore any shot after that, if it is supposed to be from the grassy knoll shooter’s perspective must show an eye level horizon line. Simply put the camera must be shot at the same angle in order to suggest a relation between shots. Maintaining continuity with vectors between shots ensures a fluid transition between shots.
Aside from vectors, other factors play a part in making this scene work. There is a lot going on for the audience and since Garrison is only portraying a theory as to what happened, they left JFK’s actual assignation footage in color and they took away the color when Garrison’s theory was being reenacted. This distinction for the audience is important for continuity as he is telling his theory as a matter of fact when it is not exactly proven. The juxtaposition of the two pieces together how Garrison wants the jury to interpret what happened. Moreover although it may be obvious, the distinction between the court room and the JFK assassination footage needs to be made too. The grain of both the real and suggested footage juxtaposes the actual look of Garrison in the court room. Other factors such as clothing and time of day are incorporated into the film. The cars of the actual footage are replicated to mesh in with what the Zapruder film shows. And finally, to emphasis the impact of the guns being fired the camera shots cut when the shooter pulls the trigger. Cutting on the action or action continuity, enhances a motion by cutting when the action of the motion occurs.
Moving away from the video aspects, audio continuity works in tandem with the video counterpart to enhance a scene. Background/environment noise such as the crowd cheering for JFK or the bullet being loaded into the gun are added to put the audience into the scene. The actual Zapruder film didn’t have and audio so it is the job of the director and editor to add and record sounds that seem fit with the video being displayed. And since the scene takes place from all over, the sound needs to account for that. In shots where the crowd is close up the crowd must sound loud and in shots where the shooter is 6 floors up the crowd must sound feint or not be able to be heard. Another factor lies in the way the film delivers dialogue. The audio has to deliver a continuous level of narration that sounds as if Garrison is explaining the scene in one take. Then the rhythm of the music and the sounds have to build up to the climax of the moment JFK is shot in the head. So the music gets faster and more pronounced throughout the scene. The gradual increase of tempo and loudness develop a dynamic range between calm and excited further enhancing the suspense of the scene.
Finally, something unique to film is its ability to determine how the story progresses and this is achieved through complexity editing.
The first and foremost most conventional way to tell a story as it happens in time or in a sequential analytic montage. Garrison does this throughout his depiction of the JFK assassination, for example JFK makes the turn from Main onto Houston before he gets shot so we see JFK make the turn while being aimed down the scopes of the shooters. The sequence of shots show the car making the turn. This is told in this way to highlight the main event of the story (the events leading up to JFK’s assassination). Another way of telling a story is through a sectional analytic montage. This is where the same moment in time is playing over and over from different perspectives. This is to emphasize an important moment in a film. Most notably in this scene when JFK is shot in the head the moment is replayed from the perspective of the shooter the perspective of Zapruder, the perspective of the crowd and many other camera angles focused on JFK. This enhances the climax of the scene and really emphasizes Garrison’s point is that the footage shows JFK moving his head back and to the left, which suggests he was shot from the grassy knoll and not from the
depository.
Finally in complexity editing audio and video can be juxtaposed with a comparison idea-associative montage or a collision idea-associative montage. An example of a comparison idea-associative montage is simply when JFK was shot in the head the feeling of the music matched the feeling of the events. The music in that moment was loud and came in bursts with each video of a gunshot. This is comparison idea-associative because it mixes two loud and suspenseful moments together to enhance the gravity of the event. In contrast an example of a collision idea-associative montage is when the teams were in position to shoot the president and the crowd was cheering. On one hand the audience knows the president is in danger, but the crowd cheering makes the event feel happy or exciting. This effect puts more stress on the audience because they feel as though the audience shouldn’t be cheering when something bad is about to happen. This is a good precursor to the assassination because it leaves the viewer feeling uneasy and perhaps makes them feel more suspense.
An accumulation of these editing aspects glue together an exhilarating scene. Through structured storytelling, continuous shots and the synergy of audio and video techniques, an effective narrative is produced. Garrison’s argument may have contained a lot of assumptions about what really happened that day, the audience is left feeling that this theory is plausible based on his telling.