Oliver Stone's Nixon and JFK

As Jean-Luc Comolli and Jean Narboni have said, "Clearly the cinema 'reproduces' reality: this is what a camera and film stock are for-so says the ideology." We have seen just how limitless the reproduction of reality is in two of Oliver Stone's films, Nixon and J.F.K. Both films have managed to recreate reality, while at the same time reflecting a certain ideology that brings skepticism. As a result, the reproduced reality causes the viewer to question all realities.

J.F.K. and Nixon are films set in an era of skepticism. The two films are set within a decade of one another, J.F.K in the early 1960s, and Nixon from the early 1960s to 70s. Stone uses the doubt of the 1960s in his recreation of that era. His ideology seems to correspond to the ideology of that era. The definition of ideology is, "The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture; A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system" (American Heritage). Accordingly, Stone works with the ideology of the 1960s, the one that warned against trusting the government, in making these two films. Stone takes this "don't trust big brother" ideology of the Vietnam era a step further and, with his films, emphasizes a "trust no one" philosophy.

Examples of this occur in both films. So many theories have been proposed where the death of President Kennedy is concerned, and Stone manages to bring to life a scenario in which not only the U.S. government is responsible for Kennedy's death, but also some Cuban leaders are cited as a root of the assassination. He brings the event to life by using actual clips of the president, as well as including scenes with actors and actresses who become part of the scandal - the woman who saw a gunman on the hill, the prostitute who is left for dead on the side of a road, and so on. As the film goes on the audience becomes entrapped as well. We are given information that other people are murdered for knowing and we also become confused as the web of deceit gets more and more complicated.

In Nixon, Stone tells us the story of a President who gets caught in a scandal and can do nothing to save himself. Nixon was trapped from the minute he met the Cubans - the same group that had Kennedy murdered, according to his other film, and a group that is at the root of the Nixon's election, the Watergate scandal, and subsequently Nixon's resignation. In this particular film, Stone turns the general perception of reality, that is to say, that Nixon was responsible for the scandal, into a complicated web of lies and scandal for which Nixon was not truly responsible. In the film, Nixon is characterized as a scapegoat and a puppet.

Stone's view is so interesting because he takes that pessimistic paranoia of the 60s and justifies it completely. Not only is it justified, but he shows that the paranoia is not even extreme enough. He has managed to turn reality into ultra-reality, paranoia into ultra-paranoia, and the government into the stereotypical "big brother" institution that is always there watching.

Stone turns the "bad guy" into the victim. Lee Harvey Oswald and President Nixon become protagonists of a sort, while the government is the antagonist. Our perception of reality is undermined as everything we think we know about our society blows up in our faces. This blatant realism that Stone is a master of is what makes these films "reproductions of reality," and maybe Stone's reality is even truer than what we perceive as "reality." So many people have gone through life believing that Lee Harvey Oswald was some nut-job who assassinated President Kennedy, and then Stone shows us a world in which Lee Harvey Oswald was a scapegoat, and a victim, in a plot perpetuated by the very government that was supposed to protect the President and U.S. citizens. Though Stone cannot take credit for the theory that Kennedy's assassination and Oswald subsequent murder are more than suspicious, he manages to bring the scenario to life, either for one to relive, or to experience for the first time.

Like reality, once you are in, you are stuck. When watching these films, one feels as if one is stuck in an unpleasant place, but it is impossible to leave, in a way similar to an unpleasant reality. The films are so real that they eclipse real-time. Instead of watching a film for three hours, it feels like we spend years with these characters. Once again, Stone's reality goes beyond reality and tampers with our perceptions.

The fact that Stone can create something that is more than real is not the only fascinating thing about these films. It is also amazing that he can take two of the most well-known events in the history of our country - events that even a small child is aware of- and make them fresh in his re-creation. Even preconceived views take a back seat to Stone's ideology as it is represented by the films. It is impossible to watch these two films from beginning to end without questioning everything. And they cause the realization that every event has consequences in the long run, but it is hard to even believe in consequences after seeing that even the person who seems to have the most power, i.e. the President of the United States - is just as powerless and vulnerable as anyone else, and maybe even more so than the average citizen. In this recycled reality we see the glamour taken out of the presidency. All that is left is war, murder, and corruption.

And so, in using the 60s ideology, Stone ironically shows it's weaknesses. The cynicism was not cynical enough. Stone shows that the reality, and the corruption, goes beyond people's wildest dreams. He takes history and turns it inside-out so everyone can see just how complicated the innards are, and then he puts it back together as a grotesque art form that is both captivating and disturbing, simultaneously.

Bibliography/Works Cited

American Heritage Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin, 2003. Rptd. on .

J.F.K. Oliver Stone.

Nixon. Oliver Stone.

"Realism." Artlex. Delahunt, 1996-2005. .