09-10-2013, 04:35 PM
The New York Times has done it again! In his review of the film "Parkland," the Times critic Stephen Holden accurately describes the film as pedestrian, but offers no critical analysis of the choices made by the screenwriter and director.
At the close of the review, Holden asserts that "the Kennedy industry grinds on, with no end in sight."
By "the Kennedy industry," the implicit point is that any book or film related to the JFK assassination is a commodity, as opposed to a serious scholarly or artistic contribution. Let's hope that the reprise of Oliver Stone's "JFK" in November will introduce a new generation to the topic and raise the level of awareness that the New York Times is incapable of achieving in the print medium.
James
For the New York Times review of Parkland of October 3, 2013, see: http://movies.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/mov....html?_r=0
At the close of the review, Holden asserts that "the Kennedy industry grinds on, with no end in sight."
By "the Kennedy industry," the implicit point is that any book or film related to the JFK assassination is a commodity, as opposed to a serious scholarly or artistic contribution. Let's hope that the reprise of Oliver Stone's "JFK" in November will introduce a new generation to the topic and raise the level of awareness that the New York Times is incapable of achieving in the print medium.
James
For the New York Times review of Parkland of October 3, 2013, see: http://movies.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/mov....html?_r=0