Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/JFK (film)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Steve 21:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC) [1].[reply]

JFK (film)

edit
Nominator(s): J.D. (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have put a lot of work into this article and think that it is ready for promotion to FA status. This is an important film not only in Oliver Stone's career but cinema in general, generating a lot of controversy and discussion. J.D. (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • Should reference #23 have a page number?
  • Page range in ref #32 needs an en dash.
  • Otherwise, sources look good.

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will hunt down the page number for reference #23 and I fixed #32.--J.D. 18:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This has improved over the last 18months!! Is there anything you can do about the block quotation "Darryl Zanuck's The Longest Day..." It makes the section look a little messy, as it's within a bullet list. It's a short quotation, to perhaps just integrate it within the main text? The JPStalk to me 18:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that does look awkward. I have removed it and placed it in the Production section. Thanks for the comments!--J.D. 18:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Is the Riordan work a book or an article? In quotation marks is the usual method of listing an article from a journal/magazine. A book title goes in italics.
  • Is current ref 23 a book? If so, it should have a page number and the italics issue mentioned above.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Prose issues and a few ambiguities, mainly. Nothing that major. I'll skip the rest of the preamble and get right to it:
    • Infobox:
      • Oliver Stone linked three times. Needs only the first instance.
      • Per WP:FLAG, we don't really need the flag image there. I'd also unlink United States as it doesn't link to anything that will increase a reader's understanding of the article.
      • The cast list seems a little long for a quick-stop infobox. While not strictly necessary, I'd be tempted to trim this to the half a dozen main characters.
    • Lead section:
      • By a strict reading of WP:PIPE, the link [[1991 in film|1991]] should be amended so it's more obvious which article it points to.
      • Change one of those first two "The film"s for "It" or similar, as the sentences are close enough together that it scans oddly.
      • "The film examines the events leading to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and alleged subsequent cover-up through the eyes of former New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison (played by Kevin Costner.)" Consider isolating "and alleged subsequent cover-up" with em-dashes, or maybe just commas, to remove the ambiguity.
      • Jim Garrison is linked twice.
      • "Stone's film became embroiled in controversy even before it was finished filming when Washington Post national security correspondent George Lardner showed up on the set and wrote a scathing article attacking the film based on the first draft of the screenplay." Phew. Consider introducing a couple of commas, or maybe breaking the sentence up thus: "Stone's film became embroiled in controversy even before it was finished filming, after Washington Post national security correspondent George Lardner showed up on the set. Based on the first draft of the screenplay, he wrote a scathing article attacking the film."
      • "implications of President Lyndon B. Johnson" doesn't work. Consider "including the film's implication that President Lyndon B. Johnson was part of a coup d'etat to kill Kennedy."
      • "Initially, Stone's film performed slowly at the box office but it gradually picked up momentum, earning over $205 million in worldwide gross; Garrison's estate subsequently sued Warner Bros. for their share of the film's profits, alleging Hollywood accounting." A better explanation than "hollywood accounting" should be used. Don't force the reader to follow the link away from the article. Replace the semi-colon after "gross" with a period, and better explain the first statement; "performed slowly" doesn't work for me. Consider simplifying (e.g. "After a slow start at the box office, the film went on to earn $205 million worldwide.")
        • Fixed. Although, I think I'm going to keep "Hollywood accounting" wikilinked only because it is a pretty complex definition and I really don't want to bog down the lead section trying to explain what exactly the term means. If people really need to know they can easily check it out.--J.D. (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've struck these after a couple of minor edits of my own. Feel free to revert if for some reason you disagree. Steve T • C 20:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Looks good to me.--J.D. (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Synopsis" section:
      • The prose seems less well-developed than in other sections. Give it another pass, or ask someone else to if you're too close to it. The first sentence in particular is pretty cumbersome. The section could also stand to be trimmed some more. I know it's a long film, but see what else could be lost without impacting upon a reader's understanding of the article. Another option is to simplify the prose, removing redundant words and phrases (e.g. "himself").
      • The placement of "investigation" in quotes smacks of lacking a neutral point of view on the topic of the Warren Commission.
      • While written in a welcome out-of-universe tone, fewer statements to the effect of "The film then..." would go a little way to lowering the word count.
      • Per WP:MOS#Titles, "years as President" should be "years as president", as the word is talking about the office in general, rather than used as a title (e.g. "President Kennedy").
      • Is Image:Mrx_jfk.jpg being used for anything other than decoration?
        • OK, I think I've made the changes you listed for this section. I cut down the prose some. Simplified some of the more complex sentences and removed the image.--J.D. (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Production" section:
      • Inline external links are to be avoided (first sentence).
      • "Zachary Sklar... met Jim Garrison in 1987 and helped him rewrite a manuscript about the Kennedy assassination." It's unclear here that this refers to Garrison's initial draft of the book, rather than one already extant ("a manuscript").
      • Redundant words (e.g. "essentially").
      • "One of the filmmaker's primary goals with JFK was to provide an antidote to the Warren Commission Report..." Antidote scans oddly in this context. Would "rebuttal" be better?
      • "Stone... hired Jane Rusconi... to head up a team of researchers and assemble as much information about the assassination as possible while finishing Born on the Fourth of July." While Stone finished BotFoJ? The distance from the mention of Stone is large enough to make it slightly ambiguous.
      • "...upwards of 100 to 200..." Which is it, 100 to 200, or potentially more than that?
      • "He met with three executives at Warner Bros. while in pre-production on The Doors who wanted him to make a film about Howard Hughes." Makes it sound as if The Doors wanted him to make a film about Howard Hughes. Suggested re-order: "While in pre-production on The Doors, he met with three Warner Bros. executives who wanted him to make a film about Howard Hughes."
      • "Stone made a handshake deal with Warner Bros. and the studio would get all the rights to the film and put up 20 million dollars for the budget." That "and" after "Warner Bros." doesn't do what you want it to. Try a "whereby".
      • "The director did this so that the screenplay would not be widely read and bid on, and he also knew that the material was potentially dangerous and wanted only one studio to finance it. Finally, Stone liked Semel's track record." It's hard for someone with my lack of articulacy to say exactly what's wrong with this. It might be that final, tacked-on sentence. Recast in a way that better links it with the previous statement about Semel's involvement with All the President's Men, The Parallax View and The Killing Fields.
        • Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed you have. Struck. Steve T • C 21:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ""Production" section, "Screenplay" subsection:
      • The opening sentence says Sklar edited the Marrs book; do you mean Garrison's?
      • "Sklar spent a year researching and writing a 550 triple-spaced page screenplay." While I understand why you've mentioned the triple-spacing, where you mention it renders the sentence a little cumbersome.
      • "Stone and Sklar used composite characters, a technique that would be criticized in the press, most notably the "Mr. X" character played by Donald Sutherland." Reword to remove the haziness. Suggestion: "Stone and Sklar used composite characters, most notably the "Mr. X" character played by Donald Sutherland. This was a technique that would be criticized in the press."
      • No comma needed before brackets.
      • "Stone managed to pare down the script from a 190-page first draft to a 156-page shooting script." The beginning of the section already mentions a 550 page first version of the screenplay. Clarify.
    • "Production" section, "Principal photography" subsection:
      • " Although Costner's Jim Garrison is the central character around whom the film's story revolves, the film features a large cast of well-known stars.." A rather verbose way of saying "The story revolves around Costner's Jim Garrison, with a large cast of well-known stars in the supporting roles."
      • Stone was "evidently" inspired? Or actually was inspired? The direct quote suggests the latter, but if the Riordan biography is synthesising the claim from comments of Stone's that are unrelated-to-JFK, then that's fair enough.
      • See WP:ELLIPSIS for correct use.
      • "By the time principal photography wrapped on City of Hope, he was ready to make his movie." Remove slight ambiguity by using Stone's name after "City of Hope". And are we using the word "film" throughout, or "movie"? Decide on one and stick with it.
      • Suggest link to Aspect ratio (image) for more information on 1.33:1, 1.85:1, and 2.35:1.
      • "Stone ambitiously wanted to..." Redundant "ambitiously", and probably pushing an opinion onto the reader.
      • Suggest new sentence after first instance of "Dealy Plaza" instead of the "and".
      • Some redundant language. Examples: "...a total of" is almost always redundant, as is "has said" ("said"), "...back in 1963" ("...in 1963"), "Among the many advisors..." ("among the advisors..."), "...actual assassination witness..." (lose the "actual"). Look for other instances.
      • "In addition to the challenging subject matter, the filmmaker utilized a variety of film stocks." The one seems to have no relation to the other. While it further impresses on the reader how very hard it all was, the first part is nothing to do with the logistics of shooting a film.
      • "35 or 16 or Super 8" should perhaps have some explanation or link.
        • Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Struck comments, one remains. Feel free to disagree. :) Steve T • C 21:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fixed outstanding comment.--J.D. (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Soundtrack" section:
      • "Composer John Williams wrote and recorded six musical sequences in full for JFK before he had seen the entire film. Soon afterwards he traveled to New Orleans where Stone was still shooting the film and saw approximately an hour's worth of edited material and some dailies." So, he scored six sequences before he'd seen the entire film, but the second sentence makes it sound as if he did it before seeing any of it. Clarify.
      • "The composer remembered the moment he learned of the assassination of Kennedy and it stuck with him for years and was a significant factor in decided to work on this film." Never a fan of two "and"s close by like that, I suggest either splitting the sentence, or at least replacing the first one with a semi-colon. "This film" should be "the film" for consistency with the rest of the article. We know which film he's talking about.
    • "Reception" section:
      • Critical reaction needs a subheading so as not to appear to be an introduction to the other subheadings.
      • "Time magazine took Stone to task for doing this..." For doing what? This is the start of a new paragraph; is it related to the "[man of] scant education and negligible conscience" comment above it?
      • "The Miami Herald said..." Quote the journalist, not the newspaper.
      • The Rotten Tomatoes statement is uncited (here's the link). But even if it were, RT's rating is unreliable for a film of this age. It's only reliable for films made since around 2000, as the reviews it collects for older works are not a representative sample (see WT:FILM passim for discussions to this effect). You'll note that only three of the reviews it lists pre-date the year 2000.
        • Fixed. As for the Miami Herald reference, Riordan doesn't name the critic who said that so I will have to leave it as is.--J.D. (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Box office" section:
      • Conspicuous linking of USD. It's usually recommended to pipe it with the dollar sign that appears first in the article instead, and nowhere else.
      • "Hollywood accounting" As above.
    • "DVD" section:
      • "To date" Which date? It may not be current or accurate in five years time, after releases on other media.
      • Recommend changing section title to "Home media" or similar; the film was available on video long before DVDs became commonplace, and it future proofs the section against any potential Blu-ray release.
    • "Cast" section:
      • With the exception of Costner/Garrison, there's no real-world casting information about anyone; their entries consist purely of "plot" (for lack of a better word) detail. Is there anything available on the casting process for these parts, along the lines of what you've done for Costner?
      • Reproducing what is essentially the list of every speaking part, real-world-context-free borders on an IMDb-style list of indiscriminate information. It might be better to remove some of those that have no supporting information ("Sally Kirkland as Rose Cheramie"), or at least render them as prose, all together in a paragraph at the end of the section.
      • Prose sections need another pass to eliminate mistakes (e.g. "...New Orleans District Attorney who initially attempted to help the government's investigation", "a key witness to the assassination Kennedy.")
        • Fixed. I removed some of the lesser important cast members and took the casting info about Costner and put it down after the cast list with the other prose. Does that look better?--J.D. (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, it does. Is there really no other casting information, of similar quality to that found for Costner/Garrison, available for the other cast members? If not, then fair enough. Steve T • C 22:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is, but not enough to really apply it to most of the cast listed. I mean, there is some info for the primaries like Gary Oldman and Tommy Lee Jones, but after that it gets sparser. I think I'll just leave it with what I've got.--J.D. (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • See, that's where you might fall down on the comprehensiveness requirement; if there's information not included in the article that does have a place, you need to have a good editorial reason for leaving it out, such as its being indiscriminate or trivia. No-one wants to hear that Oldman had eggs for breakfast every day of the shoot, but that he met with Marina Oswald and her daughters to prepare for the role might have some relevance. Steve T • C 19:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • You make a good point. I'll go through my sources and see if I can dig up some more casting info.--J.D. (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I did find additional casting info but only a little about casting Joe Pesci and Tommy Lee Jones. I could add it but I think it would still make the rest of the cast look uneven as there is no info about their casting. I think that the emphasis on Costner being cast is crucial because it helped convince the studio to bankroll the film. If you think it doesn't work, I could trim the bit about casting of Costner to just the importance of his casting in getting the film financed.--J.D. (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Oh, no, definitely don't remove any information. The section's looking uneven is not a reason to leave anything out. If there is information of Costner, Pesci, Jones and Oldman, that could form four decent paragraphs right there, with the rest of the cast making up either a bulleted list, or one paragraph on its own. Is the example I gave about Oldman mentioned in the Riordan book? My memory of reading it (long, long ago) is hazy. Steve T • C 22:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Unfortunately, Riordan's book doesn't mention anything about the casting of Oldman but I think I have an interview with him in an old issue of Empire where he talks about working on the film. I will try to dig it out and in the mean time I'll add the casting info about Pesci and Jones.--J.D. (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Hmm. Then it might be worth your while checking out a couple of other sources. For example, I've just dug out my copy of Oliver Stone: The Making of His Movies by Chris Salewicz (isbn 0-75281-820-1), which mentions Oldman's meeting with Marina, as well as a few other production details that don't seem to be in the article. Steve T • C 22:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • That's interesting! Well, I did add some additional casting notes for Pesci, Jones and Oldman. I did find that Empire magazine article. How does it look now?--J.D. (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                            • I'm going to have a look in the Salewicz book to see if there's anything else of note mentioned that isn't in the article, but that's much better. However, I will make the suggestion that you should remove the duplicate information from those entries that have it. For example, the Costner/Garrison entry: "Kevin Costner stars as Jim Garrison, the New Orleans District Attorney who attempted to help the government's investigation of the New Orleans links to the JFK assassination." Don't we already know that plot information from the summary? That section is there to give the rest of the article its proper context. It becomes redundant if the information is repeated. This example is particularly unnecessary, given that the plot section is right above it. Steve T • C 19:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Alrighty. I've started trimming away redundant info that is already in the Synopsis. Let me know if you find anything in the Salewicz book.--J.D. (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • OK, I think any further discussion on this should be in a new discussion at the bottom of the page. I'll mark these as resolved for now and roll them into the collapsible header. Steve T • C 11:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

}}

    • Throughout:
      • See WP:DASH for correct use of unspaced em dashes, and WP:NBSP for appropriate insertion of non-breaking spaces.
      • A welcome lack of overlinking on common terms and phrases, but a few remain (e.g. "gay", "military industrial complex" is linked twice in same section).
      • Long quotes used throughout as direct extensions of your own prose would be better off paraphrased where possible.
        • I've trimmed down Richardson's quotes about the principal photography and paraphrased it. Most of Stone's lengthier quotes fall under his personal opinion and are pretty crucial so I've left most of them unless you see something that really needs to be paraphrased.--J.D. (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that's about it on this pass. I'll give the article another review once these issues have been resolved (or successfully ignored ;) ). Steve T • C 15:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something else that just occurred to me. The "Screenplay" section details Stone's meeting with Fletcher Prouty. The section says that "Prouty had no connection to Presidential security at the time of the assassination." It's cited to the Riordan book. Can you double check this? The "Mr X" speech is pretty much word-for-word inspired by Stone's meeting with Prouty ("...he told me the story of what he believed and he just blew my socks off") and Stone said that Prouty told him that it would have been Prouty's task to have arranged for "additional security" on the day of the assassination. Steve T • C 00:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the key is that it states that the character of X is a composite of witnesses interviews, Prouty and also "a deep throat type named Richard Case Nagell".--J.D. (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, but I was just commenting on the seeming contradiction between the sources on Prouty alone. This article explicitly states that he had nothing to do with presidential security. The Salewicz book says he would have been in charge of "additional security" on the day of the assassination. Does Riordan say the same thing? (I'll post the other Salewicz info. later today). Steve T • C 11:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will take on the rest of your comments over the course of this weekend.--J.D. (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentOppose: This is a terrific article, I can remember it's always been in strong shape. I just need to know:
    • Could be the death threats Stone received, the placements on various lists et al. go in the impact section?
    • Article needs more illustrations. Are you familiar with quote boxes? Plus, the film had amazing cinematography, so a few screenshots would be required for comprehensiveness in the filming section.
    • Do you intend to use anymore of the external links as cites? Alientraveller (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would like to use some screenshots but there is so little images out there that provide a good example and the justification is so hard to do well enough for it to pass. Do you have any ideas? I put the Stone death threat stuff in the Reaction section and it was response to the film so it kinda fits. As for the external links as cites... maybe a Themes section?--J.D. (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm going to have to oppose now, because I just realised you haven't used Oliver Stone's DVD commentary. Alientraveller (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "However, the DVD itself contains a non-anamorphic widescreen print, further compounded by a rather poor transfer." Sounds like OR to me. Any chance of a reference to a review of the disc? The JPStalk to me 22:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did find a reference (at www.dvdfile.com) but it wasn't considered a reliable enough source so I'm just going to remove it.--J.D. (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I questioned the source, but it doesn't mean it's not reliable. If you can demonstrate its reliability in some way (e.g. a report in a bona fide reliable source that cites dvdfile.com for this kind of information) then it may be OK. I only mentioned it because it didn't seem to have the historical credentials of the more mainstream sources. Steve T • C 23:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I couldn't find anything along those lines so I'll just take it out and keep it as it is right now.--J.D. (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've had a look at the Salewicz book (isbn 0-75281-820-1). The following information is in the book but not in this article. There's no requirement for any of it to go in, but there should be a good editorial reason for leaving it out (e.g. trivia, indiscriminate, etc.):
    • Stone paid $250,000 for the film rights to Garrison's book, to prevent talk going around the studios about projects he might be developing. p. 80
    • More is made of Stone's meeting with Prouty; the meeting itself (rather than the content of the meeting) provided inspiration for the "Mr X" scene ("It was one of the most extraordinary afternoons I've ever spent. Pretty much like in the movie, he just started to talk.") p. 80-81
    • The contradiction I mention above about Prouty's real-life involvement/non-involvement.
    • "Stone wrote the film from an impressionistic point of view" to accommodate the parallel plots. You allude to it already, with the mentions of Z and Rashomon, but only briefly. Stone had a lot more to say on it. This quote has some good information about the structure and how it was arrived at. Although he did employ ideas from Rashomon, his principal model was Z (p.81-83):

      "And I had an erroneous impression of its structure. Somehow I had the impression that in Z you had the showing of the crime and then the re-showing of the crime throughout the picture until it was seen another way. That was the idea of JFK – that was the essence of it: basically, that's why I called it JFK. Not J dot F dot K dot. JFK. It was a code, like Z was a code, for he lives, American-style. As it was written it became more fascinating: it evolved into four DNA threads.
      There are four structures there: The Garrison story from the centre was very good up through the New Orleans section, but essentially was a smaller story about a man following a local lead to its natural conclusion – he couldn't get any further than that.
      And the second story that evolved from the research was the fascination of the Oswald legend: who he was and how to try to inculcate that.
      Then the third idea was to go to Dealy Plaza and recreate the murder, and then see it again and again through the movie. Because Jim never went to Dealy Plaza: he goes once in the book. That was never his domain. His domain was the New Orleans territory. How do you get the New Orleans story combined with the Texas story? That was a very tricky thing. So that was the idea to go parallel.
      And during this research the fourth thing happened to me which was that I was contacted and approached Colonel Fletcher Prouty. That became the fourth story. It became the means by which we were able to move between New Orleans, local, into the wider story of Dealy Plaza."

    • On accuracy and the trial: "The trial within the movie has national implications, but in reality the trial was just a local, little affair. For example, I don't believe that at the trial Jim Garrison ever went through the exhibition of Dealy Plaza like we did. I wanted to show it with models. I don't think he ever did that. I think his case was based on the few witnesses he had against Shaw." p. 83
    • Oldman did actually meet with Marina Oswald and her two daughters to prepare for the role. p. 83
    • The shoot lasted (or was scheduled to last) 79 days. Filming finished five months before the release date. p. 84
    • Often, Richardson would shoot the same scenes in various formats (neo-documentary, on video). It was Richardson's suggestion that the first part of the Dealy Plaza sequence be shot in 16mm black and white. p. 84
    • JFK had 200 speaking parts and 2000 visual effects. The final film had 2,800 shots (if you include it, it might be worth clarifying why this is a lot by giving the average number of shots in a film). p. 84
    • JFK marked a fundamental change in the way that Stone constructed his films: a subjective lateral presentation of the plot, with the rhythm of the editing carrying the story. Stone brought in Hank Corwin, an editor of commercials, to help edit the film. Stone chose him because of his "chaotic mind" was "totally alien to the film form". This seems relevant (p. 85):

      He irritated some of the more traditional editors – I remember the conflict. Hank's concepts are very commercial – sixty-seconds-get-your-attention-fragment-your-mind-make-you-rethink-it. But he had not developed the long form yet. And so a lot of his cuts were very chaotic.

    • JFK was Stone's last film before he switched to digital editing. A setback occurred during editing that saw all the time codes disappear. p. 85
    • Warners undertook out a $15 million marketing campaign. p. 85
    • To counter the negative press, Stone countered with a publicity campaign of his own that saw him "omnipresent, from CBS Evening News, to Oprah." p. 85
    • Stone wanted Costner for the role because he felt he carried the same "All American" frontier qualities as James Stewart. p. 82
    • Maybe it isn't something that should strictly be cited to the book (though it is mentioned), but the "Themes" section which you allude to above may be required to satisfy the comprehensiveness requirement. It's not necessary for every film (see: Transformers), but this film is replete with themes such the loss of innocence, security, etc., using the Kennedy assassination as a turning point in Stone's generation's view of the world (his words). Do you have access to offline sources such as papers and journals and the like?
  • Like I say, you may feel some of this to be trivia, and you should feel free to say so and ignore those. But some of it is definitely relevant, IMO. If you want further detail, I can get the relevant pages of the book to you (in a manner that satisfies all US and UK copyright laws of course). Just let me know. Steve T • C 15:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is great! I've actually used quite a bit in the article -- esp. the stuff about the structure of the film and the post-production which gives the article more substance. I will check Riordan's book and make sure that Prouty's role in all this is clarified better. I took out the contradicting material but I would still like to nail it down a bit better. Other than that, I think I've addressed most of the outstanding issues.--J.D. (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, that was quick. OK, I'll take a look at those edits later. While I'm here, I was thinking earlier that to solve the image problem, it might be a good idea to have a look at The Commons. I've found it particularly useful for free shots of filming locations (example). There might be a good one of the Schoolbook Depository or Dealey Plaza, or even the actors on set if you're lucky. Steve T • C 17:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resources from Erik

The article looks great so far! As usual, J.D., you structure film articles very well with the right content, and I'm sure that Steve above has given a few good tips. Since this is a Featured Article candidate, and the film is pretty famous, I'd like to list possible resources to ensure that the article is as comprehensive as possible. Some academic sources may have the critical commentary to tie with non-free images. Here are some that I found:

  • Auster, Albert (Spring 2000). "The Bacchae, the 'Missing Prince,' & Oliver Stone's Presidential Films". Journal of Popular Film & Television. 28 (1): 30–35.
  • Briley, Ron (Feb–May 1998). "Teaching JFK (1991): Potential Dynamite in the Hands of Our Youth?". Film & History. 28 (1/2): 8–15.
  • Carnes, Mark (March 1997). "Past imperfect: History according to the movies". Cineaste. 22 (4): 33–37.
  • Crowdus, Gary (March 1997). "History, dramatic license, and larger historical truths". Cineaste. 22 (4): 38–42.
  • Romanowski, William D. (Summer 1993). "Oliver Stone's JFK: commercial filmmaking, cultural history, and conflict". Journal of Popular Film & Television. 21 (3): 63–71.
  • Keller, James R. (Summer 1993). "Oliver Stone: JFK and the 'circulation of social energy' and the 'textuality of history'". Journal of Popular Film & Television. 21 (3): 72–78.
  • Sturken, Marita (December 1997). "Reenactment, Fantasy, and the Paranoia of History: Oliver Stone's Docudramas". History and Theory. 36 (4): 64–79.
  • Butler, Lisa D. (June 1995). "The Psychological Impact of Viewing the Film JFK: Emotions, Beliefs, and Political Behavioral Intentions". Political Psychology. 16 (2): 237–257. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Raskin, Marcus (April 1992). "JFK and the Culture of Violence". The American Historical Review. 97 (2): 486–499.
  • Rogin, Michael (April 1992). "JFK: The Movie". The American Historical Review. 97 (2): 500–505.
  • Rosenstone, Robert A. (April 1992). "JFK: Historical Fact/Historical Film". The American Historical Review. 97 (2): 506–511.
  • Medhurst, Martin J. (June 1993). "The Rhetorical Structure of Oliver Stone's JFK". Critical Studies in Mass Communication. 10 (2): 128–143.

The above resources were what I was able to acquire after a small search, but there may be a few more floating out there. I don't want to make the FAC process seem impossible, but I just hope that we can have some truly impressive articles that go beyond the usual sections. Yours is well on the way, so let me know if you are interested in utilizing these resources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would be interested in utilizing these resources. I think that a Theme section would probably be a good idea to making the article more comprehensive.--J.D. (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping off Erik, I think the article is well structured all, but lacks extensive use of all the sources out there. In particular, I feel that the actual claims Stone makes in the film about the assassination should be talked about (there are plenty of books which discuss how the shooting happened and how Stone was playing fast-and-loose with the facts, including [2] as well as more scholarly approaches. As such, I'm going to oppose due to lack of comprehensiveness. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, having more of this leaves the article open to something like this. I think I have covered the criticisms with the fast and loose way Stone portrayed history in the Reaction section and his reasons. In addition, there is a link to The JFK 100: One Hundred Errors of Fact and Judgment in Oliver Stone's JFK, by Dave Reitzes in the External Links section that does a pretty comprehensive job of dissecting all of the factual mistakes in the film. I just don't want to place too much emphasis on one aspect of the film and throw off the balance of the rest of the article.--J.D. (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Stone already acknowledges he was creating a "counter-myth", as mentioned in the article. He's not like Dan Brown, who makes glaring forewords that cause debate over he was deliberately playful with facts. So what the reception focuses is whether it was responsible to make a historical fantasy. If readers want to know what really happened, they can read the articles on the actual people involved. Alientraveller (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

There's only one image in the entire article, the article requires more images.--Music26/11 20:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/JFK_(film)/archive1&oldid=1088823148"