#paper three

oh, wait, extended essay did-

oh, wait, my IAs did-

Napoleon Bonaparte once said, “History is the version of the past events that people have decided to agree upon”. History is very complex because there can never be a definite history of anything. It becomes more complicated when fictional works of art are inspired by history and occasionally even seem to be nonfiction. The assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Julius Caesar are among the most famous events in history and therefore inspire many works of literature. The two most famous fictional works, Oliver Stone’s JFK and Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, are so well-known that historical facts and fictional interpretations become mistaken for each other. Both works are often criticized for their historical inaccuracies. But what really is “history”? Are Stone and Shakespeare rightfully criticized? 

These two assassinations are so famous that they could almost go without introduction, but for the sake of logistics, here are quick summaries. On November 22, 1963; while on a parade route in Dallas, President John F. Kennedy was shot and killed. An hour later, Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested for the assassination. Later that year, President Lyndon B. Johnson created the Warren Commission in order to investigate the assassination (“November”). Many people think that Lee Harvey Oswald did not do the shooting or did not do it alone and thus there are numerous conspiracy theories. In 1991, JFK by Oliver Stone was released. The movie surrounds Jim Garrison, a Louisiana District Attorney, and his prosecution of businessmen Clay L. Shaw for conspiracy to murder President Kennedy (Kurtz 167).  To this day, the assassination is one of the biggest American conspiracies. 

Jumping back two millenniums, we come to Ancient Rome and the rule of Julius Caesar. On March 15, 44 B.C., or the Ides of March, a group of Roman senators, lead by the civil magistrate Brutus, surrounded Caesar while he presided at the Senate. The senators killed Caesar by stabbing him one by one. This assassination remains one of the most legendary events of ancient history. However, the play Julius Caesar (1579) by William Shakespeare is possibly more well-known (Furtwangler 14).

The historical sources of the Julius Caesar assassination are warped by time and the information is further distorted by Shakespeare’s selective chronicling. There are no original accounts or evidence from the assassination, only the works of ancient historians whose writing occurred years after the incident. These ancient historians wrote in a different era of Rome and therefore their facts are blurred by their respective views and political situations (Furtwangler 13-14). Shakespeare was very selective when using historical facts of Caesar: the majority of his facts are from Thomas North’s translation of Plutarch’s Parallel Lives. Almost all of his story was taken from the last five of twenty-three pages (Chernaik 92). 

Julius Caesar’s image has changed throughout history, especially because of Shakespeare. There were many other plays about Julius Caesar written by Shakespeare’s contemporaries, most of which painted Caesar as a noble warrior and highlighted his triumphs. Shakespeare, however, did not include any of these qualities (Chernaik 92). Although he is the title character, Caesar only appears in three out of eighteen scenes in Shakespeare’s play and although Brutus has the most lines, Caesar’s name is mentioned almost twice as much as Brutus’. These statistic show that the play is more about the myth of Julius Caesar rather than the man (Zander 6). However, much of the common knowledge surrounding Julius Caesar and his assassination originates from Shakespeare’s play. Horst Zander says, “Attempts by historians to present a ‘faithful’ picture of Caesar often seem to be marred by the one popularized in Shakespeare’s drama” (4). People tend to know more about Julius Caesar’s assassination than any other facts about the man, which corresponds to Shakespeare’s focus on the event over the character of Caesar. 

Shakespeare took many factual liberties when writing Julius Caesar. Historically, the contents of the play span a period of two and a half years, however Shakespeare condenses this time into his plot and does not give an impression that much time has elapsed (Zander 7). Many of the characters’ involvements with the assassination were greatly expanded compared to their historical relevance. Shakespeare was not concerned with creating a historical play, he wanted to use history to not only entertain but to discuss important issues from his own era such as the nature of power and political justice (Palmer).   The historical accounts of the Kennedy assassination are quite different: There is an abundance of information. There are over 600 books written on the assassination alone, not including the 17,000 page Warren Commission report filed with evidence and testimony (Von Bothmer 243). Not only is there this abundance of written history, but the assassination was actually filmed. On that November day in 1963, a fifty-eight year old dress manufacturer, Abraham Zapruder was filming the parade and accidentally recorded the assassination (Vågnes 4). The clip was first publicly shown by Jim Garrison at Clay Shaw’s trial (Kurtz 173). Soon after, the Zapruder film became a culture phenomenon. 

Oliver Stone has been highly criticized for the historical accuracy of all of his movies, especially JFK.  Stone freely admitted that the film is meant for entertainment and was created using his “dramatic license” (Roberts 85). He does not consider himself a cinematic historian but a “docu-dramatist” and explains that his films should be taken as evaluations of history (Toplin 6). JFK has been accused of using “political paranoia as cinematic motif” and therefore reinforcing the audience’s belief in a conspiracy as fact. Stone evokes audience emotions in order to make the conspiracy theories he promotes more believable, which gives them a false sense of reality (Kurtz 170). The film even freely interchanges fabricated images of Kennedy’s assassination and actual footage, especially in the final court scene (Giglio). These constant shifts between historical recordings and synthesized clips further contribute to the “intellectual pollution” (Kurtz 170). The audience’s minds are overwhelmed with information with no knowledge of what is actual history and what was created from Stone’s “dramatic license”.

Oliver Stone picked Jim Garrison as the protagonist of the film, therefore skewing history in order to paint Garrison in a good light. Stone was mostly influenced by On the Trail of Assassins, the 1988 book by Garrison. Although Garrison’s court case lacked credible evidence, Stone portrays him as a hero and skilled investigator who dives into a complex pool of conspiracy (Giglio). Stone was criticized for putting Garrison on a pedestal, considering Garrison used some devious methods in gathering information such as truth serum and hypnotizing witnesses (Roberts 85). 

However, Stone was very successful in renewing interest in events of the assassination. He inspired numerous books, articles, and a movement to declassify thousands of assassination-related documents (Von Bothmer 242). After numerous investigations, Congress found the accusations in JFK that multiple government agencies were withholding evidence on the Kennedy assassination are true to this day. The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 was passed and established an Assassination Records Review Board, or the ARRB. After six years of identifying and releasing assassination reports, the ARRB released a final report acknowledging Oliver Stone for arousing enough interest to get Congress to pass the legislation (Kurtz 175). Despite its historical discrepancies, JFK is the reason for the myriad of historical information released to the general public and brought people closer to the truth behind the assassination. 

Both Oliver Stone and Shakespeare changed historical facts in order to better their plots. Robert Brent Toplin says, “Writers and directors such as Oliver Stone invent scenes, dialogue, and characters; compress the time in which events occur; collapse several personalities into a few representative figures, and participates in other manipulations that compromise truthfulness in order to make their stories dramatically compelling” (6). Toplin’s generalization of Stone’s writing is actually the same major criticisms for Shakespeare’s historical plays. Shakespeare made a two and a half year period seem like just a few days in Julius Caesar, along with changing the historical importance of characters (Zander 7). They each choose protagonists, Jim Garrison and Julius Caesar, and in the process of doing so change the characteristics of the actual person. The writers need to change historical fact in order to create an image for their characters that they want to portray. 

The differences between the fictional representations and the history of the assassinations are often made unclear. Robert A. Rosenstone says, “Normally we think of the difference between fiction and history as this: both tell stories, but the latter is a true story. The question is, what kind of truth?” (33). Before we can answer “what kind of truth?”, we must answer what kind of history? The simplest way to describe the words “history” is a telling of the past as it actually was. Looking deeper, however, history is really just “the attempt to recount, explain, and interpret the past, to give meaning to events, moments, movements, people, periods of time that have vanished” (Rosenstone 28). From this angle, JFK and Julius Caesar can be considered history. Shakespeare and Oliver Stone not only successfully interpreted the past, but they have vastly contributed to the meaning of their respective events. The ARRB’s recognition of Oliver Stone was for his portrayal of history: he reinstated meaning and understanding into a period of time. Because of his film, the Kennedy assassination has been recounted numerous times. JFK can be considered history not just from the facts in the film but from the significance of the film itself. 

Much like Stone, Shakespeare has inspired a wealth of historical works. “In current studies of ancient history, a line from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar may function as a title or a motto; the play may perhaps also serve as foil for a scholar’s own historical construction or ornament the introduction of a work” (Jehne 59).  Although they may not refer to Shakespeare directly, historians studying Julius Caesar often take similar approaches as Shakespeare did. Many of the themes of Julius Caesar, such as the legitimacy of Caesar’s rule, are questions that are researched to this day. Essential questions about the assassination have been answered differently throughout history because of distinct cultures and ways of thinking (Jehne 59-60). Although he skewed facts, much of what Shakespeare did was because of the time period he lived in, which is exactly what all historians do. In this sense, can we consider Shakespeare a historian?

The word “history” has two distinct sides: the story that is recounted and what is produced from that story, and between these two poles lies a “gap” (Price 119). In the case of Julius Caesar, the gap is created by the absence of original assassination evidence and artifacts. The ancient writers did not know Caesar, Brutus, or anyone involved and therefore their experiences have been lost. The gap continues to broaden through every translation and interpretation, including Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. 

But gaps in history are not just gaps in factual evidence. After analyzing Caesar’s assassination, it may initially seem like the history surrounding Kennedy’s assassination is unbroken from the multitude of evidence and how recently the event occurred, but actually this assassination has a unique gap. The gap is the conspiracy. Since the assassination, people have believed that Lee Harvey Oswald did not actually kill the President. There are so many different conspiracy theories that blur the truth. To describe it simply, JFK was about Jim Garrison’s hunt for truth though he did not succeed. Even with the Warren Commission report, the Zapruder video, and the ARRB’s recollected evidence, we will never be able to close the gap.  Naturally, history has gaps; and although fictional representations contribute to this gap, the contributions are minuscule compared to what was lost in time. 

Gaps aside, Stone and Shakespeare completely shaped the way most people think of these historical events and contributed to history. Steve Sohmer says, “Shakespeare’s Roman tragedy has run through more editions, and more copies than any play in any language. It has introduced generations of school children to Shakespeare. Unique in the canon, Julius Caesar has never been out of vogue” (Zander 3). Julius Caesar has survived through time and continuously produced worldwide. Because of JFK, Stone has sparked many discussions about the politics and rebooted interest in the recent past (Toplin 19). The choices made by historians, and for this matter the choices of writers such as Shakespeare and Stone, determine what we know of history and are just as important as the actual choices made by the historical figures they are studying. Writing about history creates more history (Price 78).

Though history can never be completely defined, fictional representations of history can often bring us closer to a definition, especially in the cases of Julius Caesar and JFK. Friedrich Nietzsche said, “All historians speak of things which have never existed except in imagination” (Price 48). Part of Nietzschean philosophy says that all histories are constructed metaphorically (Price 78). Through metaphorical representation, it becomes easier to understand the past. Representations of the past help us understand and view the past. There is no denying that Shakespeare and Stone created more history. History is not just a recording of past events, it always involves reshaping (Zander 93). When writing historical entertainment, there will be “gaps”, as there is in writing a history book. Through my research, I have encountered an abundance of articles and books containing criticisms of the historical inaccuracies of JFK and Julius Caesar. Though it is true that there are inaccuracies, I do not believe that Stone and Shakespeare deserve the amount of criticism that they have received. To call them historians might be a stretch, but they should be given credit for contributing to history by giving us a look into the past. The word “history” may not be definable, but Stone and Shakespeare offer an entertaining and vicarious view at the past.

Works Cited Chernaik, Warren. The Myth of Rome in Shakespeare and His Contemporaries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Print.

Furtwangler, Albert. Assassin on Stage: Brutus, Hamlet, and the Death of Lincoln. Urbana & Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1991. Print. New York: Routledge, 2005. Web. April 2015.

Giglio, James N. “Oliver Stone’s JFK in Historical Perspective.” American Historical Association. April 1992. Web. April 2015.

Jehne, Martin. “Julius Caesar and Current Historiography.” Julius Caesar: New Critical Essays. Ed. Horst Zander. New York: Routledge, 2005. 59-71. Print.

Kurtz, Michael L. “Oliver Stone, JFK, and History.” Oliver Stone’s USA. Ed. Robert Brent Toplin. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2000. 166-187. Print.

“November 22, 1953: Death of the President.” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. n.d. Web. April 2015.

Palmer, Scott. “History Schmistory - Caesar is a Play about Power.” Bag & Baggage. 3 July 2013. Web. April 2015.

Price, David W. History Made, History Imagined. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1999. Print.

Roberts, Randy. “A Sacred Mission: Oliver Stone and Vietnam.” Oliver Stone’s USA. Ed. Robert Brent Toplin. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2000. 66-90. Print.

Rosenstone, Robert A. “Oliver Stone As Historian.” Oliver Stone’s USA. Ed. Robert Brent Toplin. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2000. 26-39. Print.

Thomas, Vivian. “Translations, Transformations, and Intertextuality in Julius Caesar.” Julius Caesar: New Critical Essays. Ed. Horst Zander. New York: Routledge, 2005. 91-110. Print.

Toplin, Robert Brent. “Introduction.” Oliver Stone’s USA. Ed. Robert Brent Toplin. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2000. 3-25. Print.

Vågnes, Øyvind. The Kennedy Assassination Film in Visual Culture. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2011. Web. April 2015.

Von Bothmer, Bernard. “Oliver Stone’s JFK: Political Asassination, Kennedy, and Vietnam.” War, Literature, and the Arts: An International Journal of the Humanities (2005): 242-251. Web. April 2015.