Paul Giamatti, Billy Bob Thornton and Jacki Weaver have signed on for Parkland, a film about the John F. Kennedy assassination. Playtone partners Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman are producing in association with Exclusive Media, which will also be financing. As part of the deal, Exclusive Media has optioned the rights to the book that the film is based on, Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy, by Vincent Bugliosi. Peter Landesman penned the adapted screenplay and will direct Parkland in his directorial debut. Parkland tells the true story of the chaotic events that occurred at Parkland Hospital in Dallas on the day President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. The film, to be shot in Austin, Texas is set for a 2013 release around the 50th anniversary of the assassination.


This book claims Oswald was the lone shooter. Ask yourself these three very simple questions….
1. If Oswald has a clear, clean shot at the President coming right TOWARD him on Houston Street, why does he wait for the car to turn on Elm Street and the shot is now GOING AWAY FROM HIM, THROUGH TREES?
2. How does Lee Harvey Oswald, a “former Soviet” just HAPPENS to get a job at the Book Depository six weeks before the assignation?
3. Why is Jack Ruby, a local hood/strip club owner and former Sam Giancanna bag man, “compelled” to kill Oswald?
4. Why is someone making yet ANOTHER movie about the JFK assassination?
1) Who knows, maybe he wasn’t ready. Maybe he figured it would make his position too obvious and he’d be trapped in the building. The trees then weren’t anything like they are now, remember. They were much younger and less of an obstacle.
It doesn’t make any difference though.
2) It was a warehouse. Do you think they were running a nat’l security background check on prospective employees? To move boxes of books around?
3) I don’t know that he was “compelled” to do it, I just think he felt (stupidly, but there you go) that it would get him style points with nearly everybody if he killed the guy who killed Kennedy.
Bugliosi is a compulsive prosecutor and his book is a prosecutor’s brief. It doesn’t tell the real story and Bugliosi’s “facts” would never have passed muster in anything but a kangaroo court.
I know Giamatti, Thornton and Weaver would give outstanding performances, but I hope they reconsider. In the end, history is not being reclaimed by Bugliosi – his tome is merely the refocusing and reasserting of the officially sanctioned version of history. There is a BIG difference.