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...
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...
I totally thought the same thing about "wow, if this film didn't exist there wouldn't be such a big stink about who really killed Kennedy." But I didn't take that thought as far as you did, to say what other historical events are we just taking the official story for because we don't have a doubt raising film. I think that is a very important extension because it calls up all the questions we've talked about this semester about history and fiction and what makes us believe that a story is one or the other.
ReplyDeleteAnd the film fits DeLillo's general view of the paradoxical nature of technology and the "evidence" it provides: the more we see, the less we see clearly, and the more we doubt everything we've been told. There's a natural assumption that if something is caught on film, it's indisputable evidence of what "really happened" (look at how surveillance footage is deployed in court--and in the media). But this most scrutinized clip of footage belies that assumption: it shows us that more was going on outside the frame (possibly?) than we'll ever fully know. The film becomes the origin of doubt and uncertainty; the "fly on the wall" turns out to be unreliable.
ReplyDelete