30-09-2013, 08:09 PM
(This post was last modified: 30-09-2013, 08:41 PM by Joseph McBride.)
And working for the NY Times (for which Morris has a blog) does not make a filmmaker/author
eager to engage in conspiracy theorizing on the assassination. Morris
made THE UMBRELLA MAN for the Times, after all. He also does a lot
of commercials for corporations to make a living so he can do his documentary films. I am disappointed
in him on this subject, though, because I admire his other work, and as
Jim DiEugenio says, THE THIN BLUE LINE takes on the DPD in a similar
case. The murder of Officer Robert Wood and the scapegoating of
Randall Adams while the real murderer was let to roam free have many similarities to the Tippit case. And some
of the same people were involved in scapegoating both Oswald
and Adams (e.g., Gus Rose, Henry Wade). It's a great
film. Morris's recent book on the Jeffrey MacDonald case is excellent and shows
that he can dig deeply into a cold case if he wants. He used to work
as a private investigator as well.
Alex Cox's THE PRESIDENT AND THE PROVOCATEUR: THE PARALLEL
LIVES OF JFK AND LEE HARVEY OSWALD shows that Cox has done
long and serious research and analysis of the JFK case. His parallel
approach does not offer a simplistic equivalency between these two very different men
but is part of a filmic collage approach to the case that intertwines
the various conflicts in the world and the nation that both men
were involved in and that ultimately resulted in the assassination
and the scapegoating of Oswald after his legend was set up by
the CIA. This results in a complex portrait of dangerous times
and many fascinating timeline proximities of events that may not
always be directly related but are part of the overall madness of
the Cold War that the book palpably involves us in as events
approach their climax. Oswald and Kennedy are shown as
similar in that the were both in the middle of the Cold War
vortex and were torn apart by it.
Cox is from England, though he was educated at UCLA and now lives and teaches
in the US, and I found it valuable to have a European perspective
on the American involvement in the Cold War (a conflict
blown way out of proportion at the time, especially in regard
to the disparity in nuclear weapons between the US and the USSR) and the insanity
of the Joint Chiefs et al (Cox pulls no punches). He is harsh on JFK
frequently for showing timidity and equivocating, harsher than I would be in some instances
(some of these situations were more complex and what JFK was dealing with more difficult), but shows
JFK evolving toward peaceful coexistence with the Soviets and
a possible detente with Cuba and a disengagement from Vietnam. He also discusses the conflicting moves
and statements by JFK in these areas that I see as a product of a gradually maturing politician caught
between almost irresolvable pressures and trying to find a way out
with increasing clarity and courage. Cos, however, makes you
reexamine your views on that period in American and world history, in a reasoned dialogue that is always good to have whether you
agree or disagree or not.
Oswald is shown with considerable clarity as a US agent who
played multiple roles (and was doubled) and who ultimately found
himself over his head and being deceived and used by his handlers to take
the fall in their murder of JFK. The book is a lively read, and Cox
has a refreshingly witty and often sarcastic style that skewers
the madness of the hawks and rightwing fanatics of the time
as well as JFK's fitful attempts to compromise with his enemies
before realizing how futile that was.
The book has a keen sense of the Zeitgeist surrounding the
assassination, which results from an author having a long
and rich engagement and perspective. For Rosenbaum to
criticize Cox as a "pedant" (an adjective I am proud to share)
shows an anti-intellectualism all too common among defenders
of the official lone-nut theory. Even Richard Hofstadter (as I discuss
in my book) mocked conspiracy theorists for engaging in scholarship.
He criticized them (us) for "that quality of pedantry" (you see
where Rosenbaum et al get their language) and actually
wrote, "One of the impressive things about paranoid
literature is the contrast between its fantasied conclusions and the
almost touching concern with factuality it invariably shows."
eager to engage in conspiracy theorizing on the assassination. Morris
made THE UMBRELLA MAN for the Times, after all. He also does a lot
of commercials for corporations to make a living so he can do his documentary films. I am disappointed
in him on this subject, though, because I admire his other work, and as
Jim DiEugenio says, THE THIN BLUE LINE takes on the DPD in a similar
case. The murder of Officer Robert Wood and the scapegoating of
Randall Adams while the real murderer was let to roam free have many similarities to the Tippit case. And some
of the same people were involved in scapegoating both Oswald
and Adams (e.g., Gus Rose, Henry Wade). It's a great
film. Morris's recent book on the Jeffrey MacDonald case is excellent and shows
that he can dig deeply into a cold case if he wants. He used to work
as a private investigator as well.
Alex Cox's THE PRESIDENT AND THE PROVOCATEUR: THE PARALLEL
LIVES OF JFK AND LEE HARVEY OSWALD shows that Cox has done
long and serious research and analysis of the JFK case. His parallel
approach does not offer a simplistic equivalency between these two very different men
but is part of a filmic collage approach to the case that intertwines
the various conflicts in the world and the nation that both men
were involved in and that ultimately resulted in the assassination
and the scapegoating of Oswald after his legend was set up by
the CIA. This results in a complex portrait of dangerous times
and many fascinating timeline proximities of events that may not
always be directly related but are part of the overall madness of
the Cold War that the book palpably involves us in as events
approach their climax. Oswald and Kennedy are shown as
similar in that the were both in the middle of the Cold War
vortex and were torn apart by it.
Cox is from England, though he was educated at UCLA and now lives and teaches
in the US, and I found it valuable to have a European perspective
on the American involvement in the Cold War (a conflict
blown way out of proportion at the time, especially in regard
to the disparity in nuclear weapons between the US and the USSR) and the insanity
of the Joint Chiefs et al (Cox pulls no punches). He is harsh on JFK
frequently for showing timidity and equivocating, harsher than I would be in some instances
(some of these situations were more complex and what JFK was dealing with more difficult), but shows
JFK evolving toward peaceful coexistence with the Soviets and
a possible detente with Cuba and a disengagement from Vietnam. He also discusses the conflicting moves
and statements by JFK in these areas that I see as a product of a gradually maturing politician caught
between almost irresolvable pressures and trying to find a way out
with increasing clarity and courage. Cos, however, makes you
reexamine your views on that period in American and world history, in a reasoned dialogue that is always good to have whether you
agree or disagree or not.
Oswald is shown with considerable clarity as a US agent who
played multiple roles (and was doubled) and who ultimately found
himself over his head and being deceived and used by his handlers to take
the fall in their murder of JFK. The book is a lively read, and Cox
has a refreshingly witty and often sarcastic style that skewers
the madness of the hawks and rightwing fanatics of the time
as well as JFK's fitful attempts to compromise with his enemies
before realizing how futile that was.
The book has a keen sense of the Zeitgeist surrounding the
assassination, which results from an author having a long
and rich engagement and perspective. For Rosenbaum to
criticize Cox as a "pedant" (an adjective I am proud to share)
shows an anti-intellectualism all too common among defenders
of the official lone-nut theory. Even Richard Hofstadter (as I discuss
in my book) mocked conspiracy theorists for engaging in scholarship.
He criticized them (us) for "that quality of pedantry" (you see
where Rosenbaum et al get their language) and actually
wrote, "One of the impressive things about paranoid
literature is the contrast between its fantasied conclusions and the
almost touching concern with factuality it invariably shows."