"Mr. X" scene from the movie "JFK" ( 17 mins. )

On 5/13/2024 at 11:51 AM, Gerry Down said:

Oliver Stone himself has now distanced himself from the Mr. X scene in that it's central focus being on Lansdale is incorrect.

I don't disagree with you BUT could you give me documentation on this - Oliver Stone saying Lansdale was not involved in killing JFK?

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

First of all, since I wrote a reply to Vince Bugliosi on this, let me say that what is so remarkable about this scene is this:  for the first time in a dramatic feature film that was seen by millions, the public was informed of the crimes of the CIA in overthrowing governments and attempted and successful assassination plots.  All done with first rate skill and impact.  Plus a scene stealing performance by Sutherland.  What ease the man had, exhibiting complete authority and control.

When they sit down after that walk he then begins to inform Garrison about the Cuba project, MONGOOSE, and then Vietnam.  That segment about Vietnam utterly enraged the MSM and academia. Because hacks like Halberstam and Sheehan had been selling this BS about Johnson's policy being a continuation of Kennedy's policy. Which was complete and utter horse dung, and Johnson was part of that BS.  When X references NSAM 263 and 273, those were shockers: that in the space of a few days, LBJ had more or less cancelled 263 and said he was not going to let Vietnam go the way China did.  Can you imagine comparing South Vietnam with China?  All of this is true.  Even the scene with the generals talking about Kennedy like they did, that was borne out with the declassification of the Missile Crisis tapes.

If anything, the film did not go far enough in that regard since work by others--Goldstein, Kaiser, Blight-- has furthered what Prouty and Newman did with Stone. And Newman has gone further also in the second edition of his book.  There is a scene in that book where Kennedy comes into a meeting he called, he was deliberately late.  This took place right after the debate on NSAM 111 had concluded.  JFK sat down, made some small talk and then declared "Once policy is decided those on the spot either implement it or they get out."  He paused and then said, "Now who is going to implement my policy on Vietnam?"  And McNamara raised his hand. This is why Johnson says in the film, you control McNamara and you control Kennedy. Everything said about Vietnam is pretty much dead on.  And this is what made the MSM go into a spastic state since what they had been preaching for decades was shown up as pure myth.  Plus this provided a reason for JFK's murder.

As per Lansdale, Stone always said that Lansdale was a dramatic device, that someone like Lansdale was enlisted to draw up a plan.  But since he had been running MONGOOSE he was a pretty good figure to use.  Was it him?  Who knows.  

What is really surprising  about Stone's film is how close he got without the ARRB.

BTW, that Washington scene did not really need to be done with Mr. X, Fletcher Prouty.  If I had been advising Stone at the time, I would have used Nagell in the park, and then I would have had Garrison flying home and opening up a letter from a history professor at Ohio U. The guy wrote him a 26 page handwritten essay about the death of Kennedy and the escalation of the VIetnam War. Can you imagine what a scene that would have been?  With Garrison smoking his pipe, one light on in his study,  a narrator reciting the letter, intercutting scenes of him reading with the scenes in Indochina of Rolling Thunder and combat troops arriving.

Too many people who know little or nothing about New Orleans or the film--who have not even read The Book of the Film-- have a tendency to pontificate about both subjects, to the point they sound like Dan Rather, Edward Epstein or Tom Brokaw.

 

PS. The NSAMs 55-57 were designed to begin to turn over the larger covert actions of the CIA to military intel. This is one reason why the DIA was created.

 

 

Oliver Stone specifically included a desk plate that said "Lansdale" in his movie JFK. That is not a dramatic device; that is practically indicting Gen. Edward Lansdale in the JFK assassination. What if he had put the name "DiEugenio" on that desk; would you have any doubt about who he was indicting for the JFK assassination?

Please note that when Sutherland goes into his speculation, he says words to the effect that a phone call is made to someone, maybe to someone like his superior officer.

This qualifies the scene as subjective.

There are very large medium shots of LBJ later,   and there is the thing about NSAM 273, and "just get me elected and I'll give you your war".

I know Stone does not think LBJ was involved.  But these things work dramatically and, for reasons stated above, this is qualified as subjective.

Also note how he qualified the actual hit team, could be out of a camp near Athens Greece, Cubans, Mafia hire.

He was trying to make the point that this must have been a high level plot, not a Mafia hit job, or some Cuban exiles, etc.

And he was trying to say that VIetnam was a much overlooked possible reason for the murder of Kennedy.

BTW, the real turnaround in Indochina policy was in March of 1964, with NSAM 288.  But you allow things like that in a dramatic presentation.  And that is what the last part of this is.