For a number of years, I taught a course on the JFK assassination at a major American university. I was looking forward to "Parkland" as a film that could provide new insights into the case at the time of the fiftieth anniversary. Unfortunately, the film presents a superficial account of the events of the tragic assassination weekend. Above all, it fails to assess the wealth of new information we have today to understand why and how President Kennedy was murdered.
The film is structured around four main stories unfolding during the assassination weekend--the events at Parkland Hospital, the famous home movie taken by Abraham Zapruder, the instant arrest and subsequent killing of Lee Harvey Oswald while in custody of the Dallas police, and the handling of the case by the FBI. In every instance, the filmmakers fail to probe beneath the surface to shed light on the assassination.
While the film pays tribute to the heroic efforts of the Parkland medical professionals to save the life of President Kennedy, it completely ignores the most important testimony of those eyewitness at the hospital. Researcher Robert Groden interviewed 82 members of the medical staff--the precise group of characters depicted in the film--and learned that every eyewitness (100%) indicated that the president was shot from the front of the limousine, due to the tiny entry wound to his throat. The significance of this detail is that Oswald could not have been the only shooter in the case. The film neatly sidesteps this essential issue.
In depicting the historic role played by dress manufacturer Abraham Zapruder, the film is hopelessly mistaken on crucial details about Zapruder's home movie. Zapruder himself provides a fascinating and detailed account of his filming and his recall of the events in Dealey Plaza, as published in the Warren Commission hearings. It is not clear that the screenwriters even consulted this essential primary source. After returning to his office, Mr. Zapruder first locked the film in his safe. He insisted on working personally with Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels to try to ensure the integrity of the evidence. The film, which shows Sorrels coercing Zapruder, does not come close to depicting the original handling of the film and how the chain of custody in this crucial piece of evidence was broken during the assassination weekend.
In its portrayal of the alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, the film made the fatal mistake of developing Oswald from the perspective of his brother Robert. We never saw the vehement attempts of Oswald to proclaim his innocence, wherein he informed the media that "I did not shoot anyone" and "I'm just a patsy." In the film's odd treatment of Marguerite Oswald, the performer adopted a Southern accent; but the short Marguerite did not speak with a Southern drawl. In the film, Marguerite claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald was a government agent. But the film never made the effort to determine whether or not there was any truth in Marguerite's assertion.
In perhaps the most accurate subplot depicted in "Parkland," the film focuses on the intentional destruction of evidence by the Dallas FBI office when SA Gordon Shanklin orders Agent James Hosty to destroy its file on Oswald. This strand of the film is revealing because we never see the FBI actually investigating the crime scene: Oswald is immediately arrested, identified as the killer of President Kennedy and Officer Tippit, prior to being shot by Jack Ruby on live television. Immediately, Oswald was convicted in the minds of the public through the efforts of the FBI and, later, the Warren Commission. Astonishingly, the crime scene was not secured, evidence was destroyed, and the facts were subsequently manipulated to fit the instant conclusion of Oswald's guilt.
In 1991, director-writer Oliver Stone was condemned by the media for his three-hour treatment of the assassination in the film "JFK." But Stone and his screenwriter Zachary Sklar published a 600-page book (still in print), documenting sources for every fact in the film. Will the filmmakers of "Parkland" also be providing a companion source book to demonstrate the extent of their research? Or, was the goal merely to present the same story told to the public after Americans returned to work on November 26, 1963?
The film is structured around four main stories unfolding during the assassination weekend--the events at Parkland Hospital, the famous home movie taken by Abraham Zapruder, the instant arrest and subsequent killing of Lee Harvey Oswald while in custody of the Dallas police, and the handling of the case by the FBI. In every instance, the filmmakers fail to probe beneath the surface to shed light on the assassination.
While the film pays tribute to the heroic efforts of the Parkland medical professionals to save the life of President Kennedy, it completely ignores the most important testimony of those eyewitness at the hospital. Researcher Robert Groden interviewed 82 members of the medical staff--the precise group of characters depicted in the film--and learned that every eyewitness (100%) indicated that the president was shot from the front of the limousine, due to the tiny entry wound to his throat. The significance of this detail is that Oswald could not have been the only shooter in the case. The film neatly sidesteps this essential issue.
In depicting the historic role played by dress manufacturer Abraham Zapruder, the film is hopelessly mistaken on crucial details about Zapruder's home movie. Zapruder himself provides a fascinating and detailed account of his filming and his recall of the events in Dealey Plaza, as published in the Warren Commission hearings. It is not clear that the screenwriters even consulted this essential primary source. After returning to his office, Mr. Zapruder first locked the film in his safe. He insisted on working personally with Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels to try to ensure the integrity of the evidence. The film, which shows Sorrels coercing Zapruder, does not come close to depicting the original handling of the film and how the chain of custody in this crucial piece of evidence was broken during the assassination weekend.
In its portrayal of the alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, the film made the fatal mistake of developing Oswald from the perspective of his brother Robert. We never saw the vehement attempts of Oswald to proclaim his innocence, wherein he informed the media that "I did not shoot anyone" and "I'm just a patsy." In the film's odd treatment of Marguerite Oswald, the performer adopted a Southern accent; but the short Marguerite did not speak with a Southern drawl. In the film, Marguerite claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald was a government agent. But the film never made the effort to determine whether or not there was any truth in Marguerite's assertion.
In perhaps the most accurate subplot depicted in "Parkland," the film focuses on the intentional destruction of evidence by the Dallas FBI office when SA Gordon Shanklin orders Agent James Hosty to destroy its file on Oswald. This strand of the film is revealing because we never see the FBI actually investigating the crime scene: Oswald is immediately arrested, identified as the killer of President Kennedy and Officer Tippit, prior to being shot by Jack Ruby on live television. Immediately, Oswald was convicted in the minds of the public through the efforts of the FBI and, later, the Warren Commission. Astonishingly, the crime scene was not secured, evidence was destroyed, and the facts were subsequently manipulated to fit the instant conclusion of Oswald's guilt.
In 1991, director-writer Oliver Stone was condemned by the media for his three-hour treatment of the assassination in the film "JFK." But Stone and his screenwriter Zachary Sklar published a 600-page book (still in print), documenting sources for every fact in the film. Will the filmmakers of "Parkland" also be providing a companion source book to demonstrate the extent of their research? Or, was the goal merely to present the same story told to the public after Americans returned to work on November 26, 1963?