Zapruder film

I apologize in advance because unlike my past blog posts I will not be discussing the book as the main focus point. But after sitting in class and watching the Zapruder film about 50 times over and over, I feel as though I cannot not talk about it. I am willing to say that the Zapruder film is the most powerful piece of film in the history of film. It shows the gruesome death of the president of the United States of America, but there are reasons beyond this that I would call it the most powerful film. As I was sitting in class, I started to wonder something. What would have happen if Zapruder never took that film. The fact that the assassination is on film is not a matter of common occurrence. As we discussed, this wasn't a time when everywhere the president went there were 40 cameras on him. So what if Zapruder decided not to take that video. Would there even be a controversy? Would everyone have just accepted that the bullets came from Oswalds gun? Would the people crying conspiracy be the onces who were considered crazy? It is scary to think that one piece of film causes so much doubt. Film is supposed to shed light on a situation, but this film only raises questions. So if we can assume for a second here that if the filming of JFK's assassination were not captured a majority of the people in the world would believe that Oswald was the sole shooter, what other historical events are we wrong about? We don't have film of such a wide range of historical events and if this one film can bring up so many questions, what are we missing out on? The reason for the power of the Zapruder film is not what is actually on it, but rather the ramifications of what other historical events would be differently viewed if on film.
Overall, I am very happy that Zapruder did take that video. Because without it, maybe the JFK assassination would be another thing that nobody asked questions about. We would just say to each other "damn that Oswald!" without even knowing the possibility of a shooter on the grassy knoll. And I'm no ballistics expert, but that bullet sure looked like it came from in front of him...

the detail of this Novel

I am thoroughly impressed with Libra. It boggles my mind as to how much raw research must have gone into the writing of this book. DeLillo seems to have included EVERYTHING that we possibly know to be a fact about the assassination and the characters in this novel, as well as his own more post-modernist viewpoints and bending of what is known to make this book truly historical fiction. I cannot comprehend how much work must have gone into writing this novel. I used to have a fear for post-modernism which was that the idea that fiction and history are intertwined and closer to each other than we expect would be used as a cop-out to just make up whatever you want and claim post-modernism. But DeLillo has completely smashed this possibility. He has done as much work as a very good historian would have done to research and put together facts, but above and beyond that, he has created his own creative story as to what actually happened in a historical event that has no easy answers. So overall, I am very impressed with DeLillo. I am however a little disappointed in my enjoyment of this novel. I am having a hard time paying attention to what I am reading and understand what I am reading. The sheer amount of information that DeLillo provides the reader with is a little overwhelming to me. Other books such as slaughterhouse-five and Ragtime were much easier for me to understand and enjoy because of how they were written. But it almost feels as though Libra was written too densely; as if too much information is given to the reader. I am of course disappointed that I am not enjoying this book so much but once again in awe of the work that was surely put into it.