Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The coverup continues: The Kennedys in Hollywood
The coverup continues: The Kennedys in Hollywood

The "Kennedys" miniseries is the latest proof tinseltown just can't handle the truth. I should know

By David Talbot

[Image: md_horiz.jpg] Kennedy Library; Reelz
President Kennedy with wife Jackie, daughter Caroline and son John Jr. in 1962 (left); Greg Kinnear and Katie Holmes in "The Kennedys"

Although it lasted a mere 1,000 days, the Kennedy presidency has been entombed under 1,000 layers of junk history. Now -- with the 50th anniversary of JFK's brief reign upon us, and the half-century mark coming up on his 1963 assassination -- we will soon be neck deep in Kennedy sludge. A flurry of Kennedy projects are in various stages of production in Hollywood, which has long been dazzled by the family's glamour. But none of them promises to go beneath the surface and capture the deeper essence of their tragic story. When it comes to the Kennedys, Hollywood still can't handle the truth.
The first Camelot drama out of the chute is "The Kennedys," the controversial miniseries that was canceled by the History Channel under pressure from Carolyn Kennedy and historians, who argued that the channel should at least make some effort to root the story in, well, history. This was a quaint argument, since the History Channel abandoned history long ago in favor of ice-road truckers, gator wrestlers and other reality sideshows. But the network owners were sufficiently embarrassed by the ruckus to dump the series. "The Kennedys" then took a long, downward trip through television's alimentary canal, ending up in some dark cavity called the Reelz Channel. The six-episode series begins plopping out on Sunday.
"The Kennedys" is a hatchet job pure and simple. The saga is produced by Joel Surnow, which is sort of like Mel Gibson making "The Anne Frank Story." Surnow is the right-wing, Dick Cheney fluff boy who brought us "24," the show that told America not to adjust its dials, that the Constitution was now obsolete. The Camelot noir miniseries, which wallows in mobsters, mistresses and self-medication, is basically the Kennedys as Sopranos, minus the good writing and direction. The early reviews have not been kind, even in the normally charitable Hollywood trade press. "The whole thing," Variety gagged, "plays like a bad telenovela filtered through a 'History for Dummies' text."
All right, I admit, I'm a little bitter. I had a dog in this fight, a rival Hollywood project. I'm the author of a 2007 bestseller about the Kennedy brothers that tells the story of Robert Kennedy's secret quest to solve JFK's murder. My book, "Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years," focuses on the brothers' heroic struggle with the national security state to ease America away from the nuclear brink and end the Cold War. I show that Bobby Kennedy became the country's first conspiracy theorist after his brother's assassination, immediately suspecting that the same CIA and Pentagon officials with whom they had bitterly dueled were behind JFK's murder. Bobby realized that he couldn't bring President Kennedy's killers to justice unless he fought his way back to the White House. RFK's presidential campaign in 1968 was not only a fight for the soul of America -- a country poisoned by war and racial strife -- it was a breathtakingly bold, and ultimately fatal, confrontation with his brother's assassins.
This, to me, is the most dramatic story to tell about the Kennedys. They tried to save America, and they were killed by the Saurons who have kept our country in a permanent state of fear and war for the past half-century -- virtually my entire life. It's a grand epic, as old as ancient Rome, as beautiful and horrible as Shakespeare.
The executives at Lionsgate, one of the bigger independent studios in Hollywood, saw it the same way and they optioned my book for a TV miniseries in 2008. They treated "Brothers" as a hot property, the ultimate political thriller. Joining forces with a high-profile producer -- Sid Ganis, then president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences -- and an A-list TV writer, the studio began aggressively pitching "Brothers" to TV networks. Jon Hamm -- the star of Lionsgate's hit series "Mad Men" -- was chatted up as the perfect JFK. No wardrobe changes necessary.
The traveling "Brothers" road show roamed all over the entertainment capital. Because of the industry names attached to the project, we got high-level meetings at HBO, Showtime, ABC and Starz, among other stations of the Hollywood cross. At one point, Todd Haynes was interested in directing, before peeling away to do "Mildred Pierce."
There was buzz, there was excitement, there was love in the room. And then nothing. Chris Albrecht -- the programming wizard who had made HBO not just television ("The Sopranos," "Six Feet Under," etc.) and then resurfaced at Starz -- talked about making "Brothers" the centerpiece of his first season at his new network home. Albrecht was all Roy Cohn, hooded-eye intensity, and fuck-'em-let's-do-this swagger. And then, he had a sudden change of heart. The fearless TV mogul didn't want to compete with the Joel Surnow miniseries, or at least that was the explanation. In Hollywood there are always murky back stories.
Yes, I know -- "It's Chinatown, Jake" -- get over it. There are a million sad stories in Naked Hollywood. But something seemed rigged here, as one network after the next turned down "Brothers" -- something political under the surface. Oliver Stone, whom I met somewhere along the way, told me in a matter-of-fact tone, "'Brothers' will never get made in this town." Stone knew something about the subject. His "JFK," released back in 1991, was the last movie to offer a deep and brave interpretation of the Kennedy tragedy. For his efforts, Stone was so savagely pilloried, he still hasn't fully recovered his reputation or -- it seems to me -- his political self-confidence.
Apparently, Stone knew what he was talking about. Now, three years after Lionsgate bought the rights to "Brothers," my book is an orphan in Hollywood, owned by nobody but me. Meanwhile, a slew of other Kennedy projects have rushed forward. A low point in my Hollywood tragicomedy came when the screenwriter of the widely reviled Surnow miniseries, a man named Stephen Kronish, tried to defend himself against the rising chorus of criticism by citing "Brothers" as one of his sources. This is the very definition of adding insult to injury.
Now, in addition to Surnow's "The Kennedys," Matt Damon is preparing to play Bobby in yet another bland biopic; Leonardo DiCaprio is working on a Kennedy conspiracy movie based on Lamar Waldron's books -- heavy tomes that propose such a convoluted explanation for the JFK assassination that they make "Inception" look linear in comparison; and, worst of all, Tom Hanks' Playtone company is preparing an assassination miniseries for HBO based on celebrity prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's massive phone book, "Reclaiming History," which took a whopping 1,648 pages to argue that Lee Harvey Oswald did it all by himself, and was still unconvincing.
For the past 50 years, every Kennedy drama except Oliver Stone's has fallen into the same predictable categories. They are either safe -- i.e., weepy valentines to the suffering, stoic family -- or sleazy (see Surnow above). When filmmakers do screw up their courage to dig a little deeper, they invariably end up blaming the Mafia for killing Jack and changing American history. Yes, the mob played a role in Dallas. But the crime lords never participated in anything this epic without their overlords -- the CIA, their longtime partners in crime.
Here's my advice to the viewing public as the Kennedy mudslide begins. Run, and don't look back. There is nothing you need in these movies and TV "events" to understand the true Kennedy story.
This is all you need to know. The Kennedys died for a reason. They died because they told America that our enemies were human, like us, and loved their children too. They died because they vowed to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces, and because they told the generals who wanted to launch a nuclear war over Cuba that they were mad. While Barack Obama outsources his presidency to Wall Street, the Pentagon and the CIA, John Kennedy tried to tell his fellow citizens that we must no longer dominate the world.
This is what you need to know. The Kennedys died for America's sins.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx

"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.

“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
I am not by any means a researcher, but a minor student of the assassination research. I appreciate a very thoughtful, precise, understandable point of view as I read Mr Talbot's message. I truly believe, as I once read, the assassination is like a puzzle with a thousand pieces, but the box has two thousand pieces to choose from. I don't recall who made that statement, but it makes sense to me.
For L.R. Trotter regarding sourcing the 1,000/2,000-piece proposition:

Junkkarinen, a doubter, uses the analogy of a 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle, which is complicated enough. But the box of the JFK assassination puzzle has 2,000 pieces. To solve it, you must first figure out which 1,000 pieces don't fit.

For David Talbot, James Douglass, Oliver Stone, now is the time to collaborate on the most needed screenplay, that dramatic construct to supplant the official propaganda with a vision of truth.

David Talbot is aware of the truth and embittered by the Kafka Castle's quarantine of his work.

Stone was able to present his powerful statement, as was James Douglass. Talbot with his experience in both the guts of the assassination and the gutlessness of Hollywood may provide the complement for the current needful thing: a semicentennial film.

Stone's 1991 JFK presented Jim Garrison in a dramatic courtroom setting utilizing the Zapruder film and graphic depictions of the tactical operation.

Douglass' 2008 JFK and the Unspeakable: Why he died and why it matters unfolded as a lyric tale of spiritual growth and epic pursuit of peace prompting the public martyrdom of the uncompromising president.

It's a delight to read Talbot calling Waldron's tedium "convoluted." I found the first volume a titanic disaster, unable to retain buoyancy or make headway, bound for the deep. The intent must be to drown any understanding of the true nature of the powerful.

Tom Hanks' Toy Depository Four rehashing Bugliosi's insulting pronunciamentosall handily explained by Jim DiEugenio, the rehash of the too-cute Posner, who is the apologist for the unforgivable Warren Report.

Stone was attacked, but by whom. By anyone with a brain? By anyone with integrity? Or were his attackers merely the beetles of Byzantium and the shrieking fairies and carping harpies who serve them.

Ninety percent disavow the Warren Report, and moresince Vietnam, no one believes governmentwhy should it be given the field without a fight.
That's exactly what the situation needs is a 50th anniversary film showing Douglass's take. It would be the bitter pill needed to wake the public up from (site is doubling "from") the Hollywood opium. Of course, it's probably too late in the design phase to get it out in time for the anniversary, but Douglass has done that already in book form completely taking the platform out from under the deceivers.

This Douglass/Talbot/Stone venture could combine that Oswald film I've been suggesting with Douglass's evidence. The Oswald story could run in tandem with the other new evidence Douglass reveals. This new movie would better Stone's 'JFK' by just coming right out with the CIA conspiracy and use of doubles as well as concentrating on the complete corruption of both FBI and CIA and detailing it directly. This movie could top 'JFK' by stepping back and showing the cover-up and testimony from witnesses that was suppressed by the authorities and media. The people who don't read books would have a story told to them that they never imagined and won't be able to hide behind any reasonable doubt. It would be a two part thrust of the Harvey And Lee doubles and CIA murder of witnesses. The more I think about it the more this might be better as a long documentary in many segments. Or perhaps a follow-up documentary involving Jim DiEugenio to list in full detail all the ugly parts.

The problem here is money and political disinterest. In my mind that only proves Piper's thesis. We have in America, unfortunately, a public suffering from Stockholm Syndrome that thinks seeing Stone's movie 'JFK' is equal to doing something about this terrible national disaster. In the end, when we come to their political concentration camp and try to free them, they've been under the control of that murderous government for so long that they choose to leave with them instead of being free. It's hard to overcome the evil nature of human beings.
William Burroughs comes to mind. Afghanistan and the golden triangle.

Very much an all along the watchtower time, but you and I we've been through that, and this is not our fate, so let us not talk falsely nowthe hour is getting late.

Setting the table, Stone's JFK was momentous, moved the nation, led to the release of an enormous documentary body, a tsunami of truth.

Douglass has established context, the Cold War setting, the Bay of Pigs and missile crisis and test ban treaty, even the attack on the Federal Reserve and the private correspondence and personal emissaries to Khruschev and Castro.

Talbot presents Bobbyand I suggest Bobby is the link with the youth of today. An extension of the slain idealism who was himself slainand between the brothers, King, killed not by Ray just as Bobby was not killed by Sirhan.

Can the generations post-Matrix not perceive the artifice; what does it take to show the fish they are wet.

I submit that the seeds are there subliminally for the awakening, in pieces such as Conspiracy Theory (1997) with Patrick Stewart as Sidney Gottlieb of CIA's MK-Ultra (Sirhan), and Enemy of the State (1998) with Gene Hackman demonstrating the actions which even now build another million-square feet in Utah.

The Two Oswalds of witness testimony and research by John Armstrong altogether with the insidious links of the Paines to Dulles and Bell Helicopter.

24 was of note as it depicted a significantfictional--day in episodic form.

November 22, 1963now that was a day.

Jim DiEugenio has already produced tens of thousands of words fatal to the Bugliosi lie.

If the principles would do lunch, they could fit it onto the back of single placemat, including the map of Dealey Plaza.

With lines running directly at the audience.

This is not a movie.
#6 It is called RUBISH...:rofl:

The Kennedys: it has controversy, but not much else

Conspiracy theories have inevitably sprung up why this show couldn't at first find a US channel. Here's the answer: it's rubbish

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Marilyn Monroe/Kennedys Hoax Jim DiEugenio 0 859 18-05-2020, 07:43 PM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  The Kennedys and Civil Rights: How the MSM Continues to Distort History Jim DiEugenio 15 10,347 15-11-2018, 08:00 AM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  The CIA, JFK and Hollywood: Joe Green Reviews Nick Schou Jim DiEugenio 0 2,694 21-08-2017, 06:21 PM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  Millicent Cranor on the Mary Woodward coverup Joseph McBride 0 2,072 24-04-2017, 01:45 AM
Last Post: Joseph McBride
  Il Due Kennedy 1969 "The Two Kennedys" Magda Hassan 1 1,971 17-09-2011, 07:49 AM
Last Post: Magda Hassan
  Kennedys have Dems abuzz; the Joes Bernice Moore 0 1,800 01-09-2011, 08:58 PM
Last Post: Bernice Moore
  Book: Hollywood producer was Mossad agent Ed Jewett 18 6,471 29-07-2011, 11:54 PM
Last Post: Bernice Moore
  Bugliosi continues to ask big questions Bernice Moore 0 1,655 29-07-2011, 10:35 PM
Last Post: Bernice Moore
  Hollywood at war over hachet job on jfk Bernice Moore 2 2,301 12-05-2010, 05:30 AM
Last Post: John Geraghty
  Petition against The History Channel's upcoming smear of "The Kennedys" Gil Jesus 0 1,894 17-03-2010, 05:09 PM
Last Post: Gil Jesus

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)