He’s planning another one, this time dealing with the assassination attempt on Reagan by John Hinkley.
And while I remember watching JFK’s point-by-point assault on the Warren Commission’s report and his weird treatment of Nixon, I have always wondered about the historical accuracy of Stone’s movies. Particularly the whole “back and to the left” bit in JFK.
Historically accurate? Not even close. He took a number of conspiricy theories and threw them into a piece of historical fiction. I can’t think of all of them, but it really started losing me when Oswald’s picture was edited by adding guns. And the testimony of that attorney during the trial? Pure trash. I certainly would have said not guilty if I was in that jury.
If Oliver Stone’s credibility was the only evidence I had, I reserve my opinion on whether there was even a president named Kennedy.
Well, what about…?
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1991/12/686250.html
Even if you like or respect Ebert as a film critic, he is not a historian. (Even Ebert notes that Stone
and
If you are interested in the facts of the JFK assaination, there are good works on the subject.
Stone is a polemicist (and a good one) with a vision of how he sees the U.S. vs how he thinks the U.S. should be. Like him or loathe him, Stone is powerful. However, Stone rarely tries for deep historical accuracy. He is interested in the vision, not the grubby little facts.