New JFK movie "Parkland" will be based on Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, and produced by Tom Hanks.
Liza Foreman - Reuters
6:21 p.m. CDT, October 30, 2012
.jpg)
.jpg)
Playtone partners Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman are producing the film in association with Exclusive Media, who will also be financing.
The movie is based on Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy."
A former L.A. County Deputy D.A. Bugliosi was best known for prosecuting Charles Manson. A three-time Edgar Award winner, he also wrote the number-one New York Times bestsellers; "Helter Skelter," based on the Manson case; "And The Sea Will Tell"; and "Outrage."
The adapted screenplay for "Parkland" is written by Peter Landesman, who will also make his directorial debut with the film, which recounts the chaotic events that occurred at Dallas' Parkland Hospital on the day Kennedy was assassinated .
To be shot in Austin, Tex., it's set to be released in 2013, for the 50th anniversary of the assassination.
"Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman are two exceptional producers with great taste, so we are delighted to be collaborating with them on this fascinating film about such a significant chapter in American history," Exclusive Media's Nigel Sinclair and Guy East said in a statement. "Paul, Billy Bob and Jacki are perfectly cast to bring Vincent's book to life."
25 comments:
Thanks for the heads-up Katie.
Hopefully this film, will make it to the theaters.
With Tom Hanks at the helm, I'd say it's got a good shot.
It doesn't get much bigger than Tom Hanks.
I've actually read the Bugliosi book, and believe it is very well researched. Sure seems to make the case to me that LHO acted alone.
But you just can't put some people's illusions to rest no matter how much logic you throw at them. Kind of like the presidential election.
This ought to be a good movie. I've read a lot of good things about this book. It certainly garnered a lot of interest from top stars.
This is from Wiki:
Much of the book was based on Bugliosi's preparation for a mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald staged by British television, in which he acted as the prosecutor of Oswald, and obtained a verdict of "guilty":
"My professional interest in the Kennedy assassination dates back to March 1986 when I was approached by a British production company, London Weekend Television (LWT) to "prosecute" Lee Harvey Oswald as the alleged assassin of President Kennedy in a proposed twenty-one hour television trial to be shown in England and several other countries, including the United States. I immediately had misgivings. Up to then, I had consistently turned down offers to appear on television in artificial courtroom settings. But when I heard more of what LWT was contemplating, my misgivings quickly dissolved. Although this could not be the real trial of Oswald...LWT, working with a large budget, had conceived and was putting together the closest thing to a real trial of Oswald that there would likely ever be, the trial in London being the only "prosecution" of Oswald ever conducted with the real witnesses in the Kennedy assassination. Through painstaking and dogged effort, LWT had managed to locate and persuade most of these original key lay witnesses, many of whom had refused to even talk to the media for years, to testify...There would be absolutely no script...and no actors would be used."
You can watch the "mock trial" on You Tube. It's in 30 parts so it's quite long.
Here is part one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO-UrGDUUzA
Here's a "Table of Contents" for this series:
Part 1 -- Opening Statement by Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi
Part 2 -- Opening Statement by Defense Attorney Gerry Spence
Part 3 -- Buell Wesley Frazier
Part 4 -- Charles Brehm
Part 5 -- Harold Norman
Part 6 -- Eugene Boone
Part 7 -- Marrion Baker
Part 8 -- Ted Callaway
Part 9 -- Johnny Brewer
Part 10 -- Cecil Kirk
Part 11 -- Dr. Charles Petty
Part 12 -- Monty Lutz
Part 13 -- Dr. Vincent Guinn
Part 14 -- Lyndal Shaneyfelt
Part 15 -- Nelson Delgado
Part 16 -- Ruth Paine
Part 17 -- Ruth Paine (continued)
Part 18 -- Ruth Paine (continued)
Part 19 -- William Newman
Part 20 -- Tom Tilson
Part 21 -- Dr. Cyril Wecht
Part 22 -- Dr. Cyril Wecht (continued)
Part 23 -- Dr. Cyril Wecht (continued)
Part 24 -- Paul O'Connor
Part 25 -- James Hosty
Part 26 -- Edwin Lopez
Part 27 -- Seth Kantor
Part 28 -- Closing Arguments
Part 29 -- Closing Arguments (continued)
Part 30 -- Closing Arguments (continued); Plus: The Verdict
right now the research community ie conspiracy theorist are a little bit up in arms.
Johnny thanks for the tip on those pics at cielodrive.com. Great stuff. I haven't seen most of those before.
I was wondering why the 2 houses at Cielo Drive look so trashed out. In Abigail's room there's a bunch of crap on the floor. In fact every room looks trashy with stuff strewn everywhere.
In the guest house the pictures are askew on the walls and a chair is dumped over on its back.
I'm wondering if:
(a) these people were slobs
(b) the killers made a mess in the main house or
(c) the police trashed these houses looking for clues
Also, you can tell that there's a nice dark hardwood floor under the carpet in the main house. I'm wondering why they didn't just rip that carpet up and leave that nice hardwood floor.
maybe it was B and C. Don't forget, Winnie Chapman was pretty conscientious about her work so she probably kept it fairly clean.
but the inside looks like a rental. altobelli seemed pretty tight with his money, hell he sued the family estate for clean up...
Without Ruth Paine LHO would not have been such a desperate man.
Paine talked Marina into moving in with her and leaving LHO. The homewrecking, meddling bitch!
Ruth Paine was fluent in Russian and probably a bigger commie than LHO.
and Ruth Paine's hubby had a Lenonesque beard.
This may be the wrong blog, but I'll just toss this out to you all. I've read Vince's JFK book a couple times and it has some good stuff in it but he also is giving you a prosecutorial brief rather than an objective book. Anyone who thinks he only shaded issues on Manson but not on his JFK book may want to rethink it. After all, most of us when we read Helter Skelter we thought that was 'it' until later when we started to look into the case and realized that the 'it' had a lot more to the story. That maybe Helter Skelter had the right killers, but the 'why' was missing. Anywhoooo:
Ruth and Michael Paine are damn interesting. If you want to read a very good book on the subject, check out 'JFK and the Unspeakable' and you'll learn that Ruth is more than a simple Quaker. Moreover, Ruth and Michael were an important factor in allowing Lee to live apart from Marina.
"Michael Paine did not just work at Bell Helicopter. He did not just have a security clearance there. His stepfather, Arthur Young, invented the Bell helicopter. His mother, Ruth Forbes Paine Young, was descended from the Boston Brahmin Forbes family -- one of the oldest in America. She was a close friend of Mary Bancroft. Mary Bancroft worked with Allen Dulles as a spy during World War II in Switzerland. This is where Dulles got many of his ideas on espionage, which he would incorporate as CIA Director under Eisenhower. Bancroft also became Dulles' friend and lover. She herself called Ruth Forbes, "a very good friend of mine." (p. 169) This may explain why, according to Walt Brown, the Paines were the most oft-questioned witnesses to appear before the Commission.
Ruth Paine's father was William Avery Hyde. Ruth described him before the Warren Commission as an insurance underwriter. (p. 170) But there was more to it than that. Just one month after the Warren Report was issued, Mr. Hyde received a three-year government contract from the Agency for International Development (AID). He became their regional adviser for all of Latin America. As was revealed in the seventies, AID was riddled with CIA operatives. To the point that some called it an extension of the Agency. Hyde's reports were forwarded both to the State Department and the CIA. (Ibid)
Ruth Paine's older sister was Sylvia Hyde Hoke. Sylvia was living in Falls Church, Virginia in 1963. Ruth stayed with Sylvia in September of 1963 while traveling across country. (p. 170) Falls Church adjoins Langley, which was then the new headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency, a prized project of Allen Dulles. It was from Falls Church that Ruth Paine journeyed to New Orleans to pick up Marina Oswald, who she had been introduced to by George DeMohrenschildt. After she picked Marina up, she deposited her in her home in Irving, Texas. Thereby separating Marina from Lee at the time of the assassination.
Some later discoveries made Ruth's itinerary in September quite interesting. It turned out that John Hoke, Sylvia's husband, also worked for AID. And her sister Sylvia worked directly for the CIA itself. By the time of Ruth's visit, Sylvia had been employed by the Agency for eight years. In regards to this interestingly timed visit to her sister, Jim Garrison asked Ruth some pointed questions when she appeared before a grand jury in 1968. He first asked her if she knew her sister had a file that was classified at that time in the National Archives. Ruth replied she did not. In fact, she was not aware of any classification matter at all. When the DA asked her if she had any idea why it was being kept secret, Ruth replied that she didn't. Then Garrison asked Ruth if she knew which government agency Sylvia worked for. The uninquiring Ruth said she did not know. (p. 171) This is the same woman who was seen at the National Archives pouring through her files in 1976, when the House Select Committee was gearing up."
So Johnny, do you think Oswald is guilty?
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/index.html
If you do a search on this British site you can find lots of stuff on Allen Dulles that I've found nowhere else online.
Just a note of warning re. the link supplied by MrPoirot. That website belongs to controversial historian and "Holocaust denier", David Irving. Bloggers may be exposed to race-hate content therein.
I agree with Johnny about Bugliosi's JFK Book.
He makes some good arguments but anyone who has a point of view that doesnt fit into His thesis is rejected out of hand as a Conspiracy Nut.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MRykTpw1RQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRzu2VX81QU
There is more in that site on Dulles than I have been able to read so far and Dulles is one of the angles you can use to learn of CIA shannigans leading up to 1963.
I have no doubt that LHO killed JFK. That was never the question for me.
Also, the 6.5mm Carcano bullet that LHO used is still today a favorite caliber used by long distance shooters. It's extremely accurate out to 800yds and beyond but there is no doubt that LHO was a marksman. Sadly that may have been his only talent. He was sort of a male version of Squeaky.
I remember when Kennedy was shot November 1963. I had gone home for lunch from school and my grandmother called and said "The President's been shot. Turn on the TV".
I saw Oswald get shot on TV a couple of days later.
I remember at the time, the American people were so angry about this that we would have believed that anyone who was arrested was guilty. We wanted someone to blame for it.
Later we started hearing that Ruby was hired to kill Oswald to shut him up.
I personally don't think Oswald acted alone. I think it's physically impossible. Just my opinion.
Katie
I don't think that Oswald was innocent, but I do think that there is more to it than Oswald.
I can tell you that I believe the Warren Commission bolloxed the investigation for a variety of reasons.
Here is LBJ himself, talking with Walter Cronkite circa 1969. Listen to what he says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4PbAhJa0G4
This Bugliosi book is written with the knowledge of hundreds if not thousands of other works which purport there being a conspiracy, second gunman, etc. which Bugliosi strives to debunk...and does a very good job.
So it's sort of the opposite of Helter Skelter, which was the first work, considered definitive by the masses, but which we here try to debunk.
Conspiracy theories run rife in the assassination because the assassin was assassiated and then cancer kills the assassin who assassinated JFK. When the assassin gets assassinated that looks more than suspicious because a jewish man(Zapruder) is conveniently situated to film the assassination. Then the guy who assassinates LHO is assassinated by a another jewish man. Then four years later the brother of the assassinated president is himself assassinated. There were too many coincidences piling one atop the other.
I am confused Mr P, who is the 'another jewish guy' who killed Ruby.
I too am a Tom Hanks fan, though I wasn't a fan of Band of Brothers which I believe he produced.
But I am also a Robert Redford as a director fan and I really didn't like his 'The Conspirator' about the Lincoln assassination. The film was pedantic, unmemorable and badly acted in parts.
There was real tension at Parkland between local authorities and the Secret Service on 11/22/63. I suspect that is the angle that will be played up.
Not to be a cynic but I honestly don't see this film having theatrical legs despite Hanks involvment. It feels more like an HBO film.
One film that I am looking forward to as much as any in recent years is Hyde Park on the Hudson with Bill Murray playing FDR. I saw the previews and just think it has unique potential.
Sorry Leary. I misprinted. Ruby killed LHO. Ruby convieniently died of cancer.
I think this started out as a HBO miniseries.
Leary, RR has a film coming out based on one of my most favorite books:THE COMPANY YOU KEEP by Neil Gordon. Hope he does it justice.
no worries MrP., I misprint (and misthink) twenty times a day.
starship...I hadn't heard of that RR film but just watched the trailer and it does look great. Finally we are having a run of adult intelligent films. I've still gotta get over to see the Ben Afleck film, I've heard it is good.
I am rooting for the Parkland film. If it captures half of the real tension that existed there that day between the local law enforcement and the Feds it will be memorable. The loyalty that JFK's aides had for him and Jackie was unbounded.
Post a Comment