Ruby and Oswald

This movie is a straightforward docudrama on the events surrounding JFK's assassination during the weekend of November 22, 1963. As the movie states at the very beginning, it is based upon the witness testimony given to the Warren Commission. If you want to see the truth of what actually transpired during that weekend then this movie is worth watching. There are many well-researched conspiracy theories that have been put forth during the last four decades concerning JFK's assassination. Yet not one of them has ever disproved the majority of the assassination witnesses' original testimony given to the Warren Commission or the physical evidence that pointed to Oswald as the assassin. Frederic Forrest gives an excellent portrayal of Lee Harvey Oswald as does Michael Lerner of Jack Ruby. I think the movie might have been more effective if it had been filmed in black & white since so many people watched those events on a black & white television.

Being in England, the Kennedy assassination did not have the same impact on me or my contemporaries, than it would have had to the American people. For that reason I think we English can view the events of that day in November 1963 from a more detached viewpoint. Whether the conspiracy theories have any credence to them I couldn't say, maybe they do and maybe they don't, I keep an open mind on that. However, I do find the motives put forward in this film for Jack Ruby killing Oswald somewhat implausible and hard to believe. I watched this film earlier this evening on one of the movie channels, and I must admit I did find it entertaining and worth watching, but I think one has to be selective in what one takes for gospel and what is supposition, in my opinion it was too simplistic and naive in parts. I thought the acting was good though, both of the actors that played the lead parts were very good and dealt with a sometimes 'iffy' script admirably.

Its appropriate I suppose that I am writing these words near the 40th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's assassination. The day that was like blood on the American flag and darkness at noon. I have always eagerly watched every movie or documentary on the assassination. Everyone loves a good mystery and this is one mystery that will never be solved. Ruby And Oswald was first shown when I was in the fourth grade and I have seen it several times since. Frederic Forrest and Michael Lerner (who is unfairly known mainly for looking like Roger Ebert) both do a fine job in the title roles. One is a bitter young loner seeking fame by killing the President the other is a hot-tempered man driven to violence by grief. The only thing that I have against this film is its very naive and simplistic viewpoint. Its almost as if the writers just read the Warren Commission report and took it as Gospel without looking below the surface. The one question that I have is this. If Ruby loved Kennedy so much (there is a scene early in the film where he tells his nightclub audience about "our dear President Kennedy" and angrily attacks a man who insults the President) why wasn't he out watching the motorcade as it practically passed by his front door? He was in a newspaper office at the time going over ads for his nightclub! I think its been proven that Ruby was just a pathetic loser who wanted his "fifteen minutes" of fame so to speak by shooting Oswald. I recently wrote a letter to Jim Leavelle the Dallas detective who was handcuffed to Oswald when Ruby shot him. Leavelle wrote me that there was no conspiracy and that people like Oliver Stone are basically just out for a buck and don't give a tinker's damn about the truth. I called Mister Leavelle and spoke with him and he said that he thought Ruby believed he would be a hero and that everyone would shake his hand and he would be on the Ed Sullivan show for shooting Oswald. Still, this is a good film with fine performances that really brings that terrible day to life.

I watch this movie on an early Sunday morning Bank Holidays. Being an early riser, saw this at 0700. This must be a made-for-telly one. Its not bad at all. It looked like it was made in the 70s maybe, Dennehy was so young then. It seemed to try to give a balanced view of what happened with Ruby. I used to read about The Kennedy Assassination and to my mind this Ruby guy is a bit loony and this movie I supposed portrayed it pretty well. It gave a good historical description I supposed. The acting ain't great at times but maybe people who like facts will say that it represented accurate accounts of what happened that time.

Certainly this film is worth watching for the location filming and the real film of JFK but, as several reviewers have pointed out, as an account of the assassination of JFK it bears little resemblance to the truth. Some glaring errors have already been noted above, especially the ridiculous characterisations of Ruby and Oswald. Ruby was a mobster working for the New Orleans and Chicago mob and was never known to be a defender of JFK's 'honour' as portrayed in the film. This is a later invention aimed at providing a motive for his murder of Oswald, which was done to silence Oswald. Everything that Ruby does in the film is clearly intended to present him as some kind of good guy/avenger of JFK and is clumsily obvious. Furthermore, even basic details are wrong in this movie - for example, the package of 'curtain rods' which Oswald carried into Dallas was described by several witnesses as 13 inches long - yet in the film it looks more like two feet long to suggest a rifle. As for this film being based on the findings of the Warren Commission and thus being a 'truthful' account, a Senate Commission on Assassinations in the late 1970s re-investigated JFK's death and discredited the Warren Commission findings completely. In the opinion of the Senate Commission - which reviewed physical and witness evidence that the Warren Commission deliberately refused to admit, there WAS a conspiracy to kill JFK and they concluded that if Oswald was directly involved, he did not act alone. This is undisputed fact, as anyone can check. Further physical and eyewitness testimony that the Warren Commission refused to review also conclusively demonstrates that the fatal wound to JFK's head came from the right front, meaning there was a second gunman at least. Also, no fingerprints were ever found on the alleged murder weapon and Oswald's partial palm print was 'discovered' until after his death two days later. The only accurate point is that we never see Oswald firing the rifle - no one ever did.So viewers who think this film is an accurate representation are deluding themselves - and no, I'm not a conspiracy nut, I just prefer to keep an open mind and base my opinions on established fact rather than the accepting on face value anything that a government chooses to tell us. Incidentally, much of the acting in this movie is poor to say the least, wooden I would say. Only Frederic Forrest as Oswald carries any conviction in my opinion.