JFK and Free Will vs. Government Control

In present day America there seems to be the world that public knows about and the one that almost no one knows exists. Two worlds are thus created to preserve order and to separate what is true and what must be believed to be true. This concept is made apparent in the film JFK, directed by Oliver Stone. Stone proposes that there are alternate stories told to the public which are the ones that will be accepted, the ones that will not be accepted, with the truth falling somewhere in between the two. At the end of the film we are tasked with examining if we live in a world where free will and government control can both exist. With this question in mind we can see that Stone is bridging the gap between the individual and the institution to see if the truth can be uncovered and if free will truly exists. In terms of the greater conspiracy, free will versus government control is something that society has wrestled with and will continue to in the search for truth.

The concept of truth is interesting to think about when analyzing a film that is embedded with secrets. To this day we still question if one gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, assassinated John F. Kennedy or if there is more to history than the American people were led to believe. Yet, in the film, Stone asks the real questions through the use of a covert operative, named X, when he says,

“That's the real question isn't it: why? The how and the who is just scenery for the public. Oswald, Ruby, Cuba, The Mafia, keeps 'em guessing like some kind of parlor game, prevents 'em from asking the most important question: why? Why was Kennedy Killed? Who benefited? Who has the power to cover it up? Who?” (JFK)

This leaves the audience guessing as they try to discern fact from fiction. Stone proposes a unique dilemma by questioning who really holds true power in our government. Then, on the flipside it is to question whether Stone’s true intention was to create some sort of resolution or possible explanation as to why this happened to JFK and the American people. A betrayal such as this one sits deep with Americans as many still try to understand the course of events. With these two points, Stone proposes that there is something much more menacing at play in this conspiracy that rocks the very foundation of our society, and, concurrently, there is not one answer to our question of who and why Kennedy was killed. This conspiracy is full of hypotheticals and hidden agendas that Stone proves we must open our eyes to the deception. Yet, in doing so it is important to discuss the relationship of free will and government control. As a society we grapple with this eerie concept throughout the film and even afterwards. Stone asks us to take the information we are given, which pertains to the true inner workings of the government and apply it to modern day examples of similar circumstances.

In order to really understand the two worlds that this film highlights, the proper terminology is needed. Timothy Melley provides a well constructed and carefully thought out explanation of the different types of spheres in his book, The Covert Sphere: Secrecy, Fiction, and the National Security State. There is the public sphere, which society knows about and then there is the covert sector which, as Melley states, “has increasingly become a version of the state itself. It has its own bureaucracies, its own laws, and its own territories” (Melley 4). In JFK the public sphere is well known and understood, but as Jim Garrison goes further into the conspiracy, he soon finds that the covert sector is a world of its own. While at one time there may have been a clear understanding of what the covert sector was, now, in relation to this film, it has become more than a string of operations and missions to overthrow past dictators and countries. The sinister nature of this sector, which was originally tasked with protecting the people, has infiltrated the very foundation that has sought to protect all citizens. With the death of Kennedy this could be Stone’s way of announcing the beginning of a newer and much more advanced way of running a country from behind a thickly veiled curtain.

The covert sector can also be seen as “the state of exception” as stated by Giorgio Agamben in which it allows for the “paradoxical suspension of democracy as a means of saving democracy” (Melley 4). In order to preserve the state of the union, it needs to be burned from the ground up, and one way to suspend everything is with the death of the person who represents and leads the country. Kennedy’s actual assassination and the one presented in JFK allows for a connection to be made about the covert sphere and covert sector.

The covert sphere accounts for the space where secrets and conspiracies bleed over from the covert sector and where it is “dominated by narrative fictions…for fiction is one of the few discourses in which the secret work of the state may be disclosed to the citizens” (Melley 5). JFK is the type of film that aligns all three because there is the public sphere (the audience/society), the covert sphere (the film itself), and the covert sector (the information that has never been revealed and X). With this basis, a conspiracy film can materialize, as well as push the audiences’ minds to accept a new way of looking at this genre.

Melley says “the public ‘knows’ about covert action through popular fiction” which resonates with the influence that JFK has had on society (Melley 7). As a society we now understand that the doings of covert operatives and organizations have been largely created and maintained by representations in film and literature. This means that it is easy to run around in circles questioning how much the public knows because there is so much that has been popularized to extremes as Melley makes mention of. In doing so, films of a similar nature have created various archetypes which are strongly followed to create more of a unified genre. One such archetype can be seen through the presence of a strong male figure as a character and storyteller.

It should be noted that what is reflected in the conspiracy thriller genre often has to do with “the remarkable dominance of men as both creators and subjects” which highlights the intelligence history and the traditionally male genres that center on war and espionage (Melley 7). While espionage and covert affairs interest the public, there is still the paradigm of male dominance that is present in the media. The titular character, Jim Garrison, represents this creator and subject as he drums up the conspiracy, but also serves as the innocent man who can be seen as slightly naïve, mainly due to a lack of information, when it comes to the government’s questionable dealings in the past. Garrison’s ability to serve as this man searching for the truth seems to satisfy the dominant male presence needed in this type of film, but he also fulfills another role.

While many people have been conditioned to accept a strong American man as a savior/hero figure, Garrison is also quite vulnerable when he learns of what covert operatives were really doing before and during the assassination. As Garrison speaks with X on a park bench he looks defeated, not only as a man, but also as a member of society. His face is wrinkled with tension and his mouth almost incapable of closing as so much kept information is finally revealed. In a moment of true honesty, Stone pushes the boundary of what makes a character strong. While Garrison is still the strong, white male that has authority and power, it is also stripped from him when he seems to realize that there are, and might always be, those who are more powerful. This leads to the conclusion that Garrison cannot save the American people from those who wish to deceive them, but he can choose to pull back the curtain a bit, revealing a few sinister and misleading acts.

Stone takes the audience on a journey of acceptance and denial depending on the individual’s will to believe. We, as the audience, have the appearance of free will within the context of a film, as long as we separate the subject matter from true events, but this is also where things become a bit more confusing. If Stone is providing us with what could be real evidence behind Kennedy’s assassination then there should be more of a call to arms than simply giving us the freedom to choose. If you look at this on a few levels you can see that on the surface Stone presents us with the information/facts and lets us decide, but then when looking at the issue from bit further away you can see that he sees a storm brewing. The lack of knowledge and awareness that the American people have is concerning and needs to be addressed head on. To satisfy this predicament, Stone provides the audience and the American people with a sort of call to action, especially in the courtroom scene where Garrison is speaking to the jury.

Garrison gives a rousing performance in which he appeals to the jurors over the loss of a “king,” in reference to Kennedy (JFK). While it can be said that Garrison admired Kennedy there is something more to this scene than a defense. He might be teaching us all a lesson. The reference to a king is similar to the coups d'état theory present in the second half of the film. Kennedy is likened to Caesar, as his most trusted advisors could have been the ones to betray him. Stone uses a shot of Kennedy with his back to the camera as he looks down, alluding to the betrayal of Caesar. This comes after X speaks with Garrison and gives him a great deal of ammunition to move forward with the trial, especially with the comment on Kennedy’s likeness to Caesar in which he says, “Like Caesar, he is surrounded by enemies, and something's underway, but it has no face, yet everybody in the loop knows” (JFK). While this is quite an ominous statement, Stone uses such intensified language to further the point that there is no face to this ‘enemy,’ but it can be seen time and time again.

In relation to who the real enemy is in such a conspiracy, there also needs to be an understanding of who has the right to perpetuate or stop, that which is wrong in society. Peter Knight makes an interesting assertion in his essay, “Making Sense of Conspiracy Theories,” that can be applied to the argument of whether the individual or the institution is the real agent of history. The individual has the free will to choose right from wrong or good from bad whereas the institution is more complex and often seen as the perpetrator of this ill will toward society. Garrison represents every person’s power to choose, despite the odds. While he may be defamed, discredited, and possibly killed for his choices, he is still standing up for what he believes to be true. If we were to think in such limiting terms, then Garrison is the individual versus the institution, which is the government in this case. Knight suggests that you change the structures “of power that condone and perhaps encourage such activities” and by also realizing that abstract institutional structures “transcend any individual intention” (Knight 19). However, this is only one view and can be challenged with another when Knight says that

“In this view, a conspiracy theory that claims to have found the real hidden cause of events (even if they are proven to be true in some cases) will always in some measure be mistaking or perhaps even mystifying the real underlying causes of events that need to be understood in terms of institutions rather than individuals” (Knight 19).

Knight makes a point of questioning the roles of the individual and institution in conspiracy theory. This applies to the role of a character like Garrison versus the American government because while he does not appear to change the entire structure of the government he works toward revealing the truth and calls to the American people to take an interest in doing so as well. Stone cleverly uses one man to represent the individual and many faces to represent the institution, further referencing back to X who says that this enemy has no face. This makes it easier for the American public to be controlled and to think that Oswald was the only one responsible for Kennedy’s death. The institution believes that it is better to cover up its true motives behind the assassination to create order, but in order to carry out a plan of this magnitude a lie needs to be created.

The reason that this assassination was covered up, as Garrison states, is because “the bigger the lie the more people will believe it,” this being one of the largest cover-ups that needed to be believable. Garrison then appears to almost break the forth wall as he speaks to the jury to warn the American people to choose how they react in the future. Stone uses Garrison as a way to urge citizens to open their eyes and see the world for what it is and not for what we have all been shown. It is as if he is trying to say that there is much more to a story than what the popular belief is.

This then brings us to an overarching theme throughout the film, which is free will versus government control. Garrison seems to have free will throughout the film as he searches for the truth beyond what he has been told to believe. He discovers that there were odd occurrences before, during, and after the assassination that could prove that this was an inside job years in the planning. The difficult part in proving all of this is that there are so many working parts and people who are involved. From senators and cabinet members to covert agents and militant groups, this entire conspiracy can be likened to the struggle of David and Goliath, with one small man going up against a formidable adversary. Stone allows us to think that Garrison can uncover all of this because he is the strong, American hero we have been taught to root for, however, as mentioned before, this is no ordinary film. JFK does not follow the typical pro-American film of an earlier time because it suggests that the problem might be the country or at least the powers that be.

It is rather unsettling to think that the problem might be the very infrastructure that so many depend on, but this film is more than a harsh reality check that comes along with the truth. There is a scene where a TV special airs about Garrison in an attempt to tarnish his character and show that his findings lack credibility. He is lying in bed and looks frustrated more than anything, but knows that what he is doing is right. He continues to go through with the trial even if the whole country hates him. His cause is further supported when he meets with X in the park.

Near the end of their conversation X says, “They would have killed you already but you got a lot of light on you. Instead they're trying to destroy your credibility” (JFK). While not the most comforting thing to say, it strikes a nerve in Garrison to continue making his case. This ‘they,’ presumably the government or covert operatives, could have killed him but knew that his knowledge of the assassination could further implicate them if he were to mysteriously die. In this way Garrison’s right to choose whether to continue or stop all of this is a pivotal moment in the film because he eventually chooses to battle this behemoth controversy.

Perhaps then in the context of this film, free will means waking up as Garrison says to his wife. Stone is telling us all to wake up from whatever dream we have been fed for quite some time. We must now look toward, not only, the free will man has been afforded, but we must make sure that it is put to good use to stop history from repeating itself. As Jesus Christ and Caesar were betrayed, perhaps Kennedy was as well; X says in the park “no one [said] ‘he must die’. There’s been no vote, nothing on paper; it’s as old as the crucifixion. A military firing squad; five bullets, one blank, no one’s guilty” (JFK). The plotting of a few to reinforce their own agendas cannot and should not outweigh the people’s sentiments toward a leader. Even if we look at the definition of the word, free will, it says, “Acting with free will, on such views, is just to satisfy the metaphysical requirement on being responsible for one's action” (Oxford Dictionary). We must be responsible for our actions even though as Stone attempts to show that things have happened within our institutions that should scare us, but it should also force us to change the course of events afterward. Who knows, perhaps in fifty years something else will happen to disprove this whole discussion, but if nothing else we must be aware.

Works Cited

"Definition of Free Will in English:." Free Will: Definition of Free Will in Oxford Dictionary (American English) (US). N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.

JFK. Dir. Oliver Stone. Warner Home Video, 1991. Film.

Knight, Peter. “Making Sense of Conspiracy Theories.” Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. Ed. Peter Knight. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2003. 15-25. Web. 29 Aug. 2013.

Melley, Timothy. “Introduction.” The Covert Sphere: Secrecy, Fiction, and the National Security State. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2012. 1-43. Print.