Using transcripts from the Warren Commission Report, this film documents the workings of the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.Using transcripts from the Warren Commission Report, this film documents the workings of the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.Using transcripts from the Warren Commission Report, this film documents the workings of the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
I saw The Commission at a Warren Commission conference. The film was disappointing even though there are some interesting elements of value in the movie.
The acting performances were good in many places and the switches from one shot to another with interesting changes in camera angle were extremely good. But some of the more significant scenes for the thesis of the film, particularly Martin Landau as Senator Richard Russell, were stiff and halting as if there were no underlying aesthetic momentum. I got the impression in these places that more takes might have smoothed out the film.
I was reminded of Landau as Bela Lugosi in the Ed Wood biopic and it was difficult not to laugh.
The director sticks to the dialogue generated by the Warren Commission hearings and report and some of the stiffness results from this particular choice. And the director has a particular bias about the Warren Commission which is not substantiated at all by the historical record so that a perspicacious viewer is put off by the film because it seems jury-rigged and preachingly hokey. There are also some serious misinterpretations of conversations between Russell and then President Lyndon Johnson which are historically weak and unperceptive again in the service of the director's thesis.
Some of the hard-core evidence refuting the director's thesis is simply left out. For example, the exchange between Arlen Spector and Governor Connally's doctor, Dr. Shaw, in which Specter develops some iron clad facts about Connally's wounds vis-a-vis the single bullet theory, doesn't appear in the film despite its significance in the commission's work itself. This elision gives a false and seriously misleading impression of the conceptual texture of the Commission and might be seen by some as a striking moral failing.
The major problem with the film then is its rather frightening disregard for the real evidence in the JFK case.
The acting performances were good in many places and the switches from one shot to another with interesting changes in camera angle were extremely good. But some of the more significant scenes for the thesis of the film, particularly Martin Landau as Senator Richard Russell, were stiff and halting as if there were no underlying aesthetic momentum. I got the impression in these places that more takes might have smoothed out the film.
I was reminded of Landau as Bela Lugosi in the Ed Wood biopic and it was difficult not to laugh.
The director sticks to the dialogue generated by the Warren Commission hearings and report and some of the stiffness results from this particular choice. And the director has a particular bias about the Warren Commission which is not substantiated at all by the historical record so that a perspicacious viewer is put off by the film because it seems jury-rigged and preachingly hokey. There are also some serious misinterpretations of conversations between Russell and then President Lyndon Johnson which are historically weak and unperceptive again in the service of the director's thesis.
Some of the hard-core evidence refuting the director's thesis is simply left out. For example, the exchange between Arlen Spector and Governor Connally's doctor, Dr. Shaw, in which Specter develops some iron clad facts about Connally's wounds vis-a-vis the single bullet theory, doesn't appear in the film despite its significance in the commission's work itself. This elision gives a false and seriously misleading impression of the conceptual texture of the Commission and might be seen by some as a striking moral failing.
The major problem with the film then is its rather frightening disregard for the real evidence in the JFK case.
I saw a screening of this movie in Dallas on 19 Nov. I've always been a Warren Commission skeptic, but this film goes way beyond confirming my suspicions. I hope this film gets wide distribution so people can finally begin to understand the ways we were manipulated.
Mark Sobel, working primarily from the real documents that back up their work, and from recordings of the president's conversations, makes a compelling case for abandoning any notion that the Warren Commission conducted anything like a serious inquiry into the death of JFK. Their job was to certify a report written by the FBI, who also did not investigate JFK's death.
See the movie when you can and draw your own conclusions, but please, see this movie.
Mark Sobel, working primarily from the real documents that back up their work, and from recordings of the president's conversations, makes a compelling case for abandoning any notion that the Warren Commission conducted anything like a serious inquiry into the death of JFK. Their job was to certify a report written by the FBI, who also did not investigate JFK's death.
See the movie when you can and draw your own conclusions, but please, see this movie.
I see this movie as being more like a living document. Something in the vein of a Ken Burns documentary. What is extraordinary about it is that is does not pose any theories. Just gives you the facts, especially the ones missing from the final report, then lets you make up your own mind about it.
The performances are mostly good, though some of the smaller roles seem very stiff, as though he was using non-actors. Sam Waterston is great as he comes off with a full personality. And, of course, it's always great to see Joe Don Baker.
Definitely a movie worth seeing.
The performances are mostly good, though some of the smaller roles seem very stiff, as though he was using non-actors. Sam Waterston is great as he comes off with a full personality. And, of course, it's always great to see Joe Don Baker.
Definitely a movie worth seeing.
This documentary should be seen by any citizen who cares about the future of this country. With everything in the film taken from the historical record, the Warren Commission reveals itself to be the public relations snowjob many have long suspected it was. The director lets the historical characters speak for themselves, and the result is devastating. All the performances by this first-rate cast (all of whom participated without pay, simply because they believed in the project) are excellent. It is crucial that this film be released theatrically. Americans need to reclaim their own history; nothing has been the same since November 22, 1963.
10juntla
What a fascinating movie!
I loved the style and information. I saw the short version and hope to one day see the longer version. What even the most ardent supporters of the lone-gunman theory cannot say about this film is that it was made based on conspiracy beliefs. On the contrary, every bit of dialogue is based on actual testimony and telephone recordings of the persons portrayed.
Director Mark Sobel is neither a lone-gunman theory supporter or conspiracy/truth theorist. Sobel has taken quotations from the historical record and organized them into an outstanding film.
I loved the style and information. I saw the short version and hope to one day see the longer version. What even the most ardent supporters of the lone-gunman theory cannot say about this film is that it was made based on conspiracy beliefs. On the contrary, every bit of dialogue is based on actual testimony and telephone recordings of the persons portrayed.
Director Mark Sobel is neither a lone-gunman theory supporter or conspiracy/truth theorist. Sobel has taken quotations from the historical record and organized them into an outstanding film.
Did you know
- TriviaWas filmed around the different actor's schedules over an eight year period. As new documents were declassified, more scenes were added to make the film a more complete representation.
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime
- 1h 42m(102 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content