Research Paper Draft 4/17
“In current studies of ancient history, a line from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar may function as a title or a motto; the pay may perhaps also serve as foil for a scholar’s own historical construction or ornament the introduction of a work. But the preoccupation of Caesar historians with Shakespeare rarely transcends such illustrative decorations” (Zander 59).
Thesis: The assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Julius Caesar are among the most famous 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 between each other. But what really is the difference between historical fiction and history?
*John F Kennedy assassination summary*
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 (Furtwangler 14).
There are no original accounts or evidence from the assassination of Julius Caesar, 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). Not only are the historical sources warped by time, but the information is further distorted by Shakespeare’s selective chronicling.
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). 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.
It is not unusual for Shakespeare to take drastic liberties with history. Historically, the contents of Julius Caesar span a period of two and a half years, however Shakespeare condense this time into his plot and does not given an impression that time has elapsed (Zander 7). Much 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 are over 600 books written on the assassination alone, not including the 17,000 page Warren Commission report filed with evidence and testimony (Bothmer 243). Not only is there an abundance of information, 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 (Toplin 173). Soon after, the Zapruder film became a culture phenomenon. A. Sturken believes that most will people in the future will see the film through Oliver Stone’s JFK (Vågnes 10).
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 of 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 (Toplin 85).
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” (Toplin 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 (Toplin 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” (Toplin 170). The audience’s minds are overwhelmed with information with no knowledge of what is history and what was created from Stone’s “dramatic license”.
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 (Bothmer 242). After numerous investigations, Congress found the accusations in JFK that multiple government agencies are withholding of evidence on the Kennedy assassination proved to hold 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 (Toplin 175). Despite its historical discrepancies, JFK is the reason for the myriad of historical information 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. 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 word “history” has two distinct sides: the story that is recounted and what is produced from that story. 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. *MORE*
After analyzing Caesar’s assassination, it may initially seem like the history surrounding Kennedy’s assassination is unbroken from the multitude of evidence an how recently the event occurred, but actually this assassination has a gap of its own. The gap is the conspiracy.
*Talk about the JFK conspiracy and even though there is so much original evidence people still argue about it*
In the cases of the Julius Caesar and John F. Kennedy assassinations, this differences between the fictional representations and the history 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?” (Toplin 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” (Toplin 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.
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 (Zander 59-60). In this sense, can we consider Shakespeare a historian? Although he skewed facts, much of what he did was because of the time period he lived in, which is exactly what all historians do.
*Would we know as much about the histories with JFK or Julius Caesar?*
