Jun 30 2008
RFK Must Die reviewed
I recently reviewed RFK Must Die: The Assassination of Bobby Kennedy over at Film-Forward. So I thought I’d provide a link to it.
I couldn’t help but notice the similarities (in subject matter, timing, and approach) to Robert Stone’s documentary on the JFK assassination Oswald’s Ghost (which I also reviewed at the same site). But the major difference was that Robert Stone really explored all of the conspiracy theories throughout the bulk of the film, without providing much bias. He attempted to reveal the reasons why people believe any of the many theories on the assassination. But by the end of the film he begins providing the reasons why Oswald may have actually done it by himself. This is where his bias is revealed (I wouldn’t try to argue that the film lacks bias).
There is a similar approach at the beginning of RFK Must Die. Director Shane O’ Sullivan seems to be exploring different theories on the assassination. Where it begins to differ is that the viewer becomes aware that you are really following Sullivan’s personal journey through the assassination. And that there has been a bias all along, because it has such a personally exploratory approach. It is an interesting method he has chosen, and it’s effective in it’s own way. Many of the questions the viewer may develop throughout the film seem to coincide with the questions Sullivan is asking as well. In that way he draws the viewer into his own experience and you almost go on the journey with him. But this is clearly a flawed approach. And by the end of the film I become frustrated with the lack of gumption on his behalf to question his own ideas. He never really explores the possibility that Sirhan Sirhan did do it, by himself, sans conspiracy. Whether not he (or I) believe that is irrelevant, because it is a question that needs to be asked. Similarly it seems reasonable, it such an exploration, that the filmmaker needs to not only criticize the LAPD and FBI investigation of the assassination, but to try and reason if there is a possibility of human error in their investigation, or whether they actually came to the conclusions in their respective reports. Sullivan never attempts to do this. He mentions the investigations, but only to say that they were flawed. Even for the sake of clarity he never, not for a moment, supposes that maybe there was a real investigation and not a cover-up. In this sense the film ultimately fails to be convincing, there are too many simple questions that go unasked. It’s really a very interesting, well researched film, I don’t want to insinuate that it was terrible because I have a problem with aspects of Sullivan’s investigation. But there are holes in his approach, and that keeps the film from ever becoming great.
