Rush to Judgment

Emile de Antonio – 1967 – USA

Though never a big fan of Emile de Antonio’s films for the simple reason that he rarely shot anything, only re-assembled pre-existing footage, I have to admit that the few films he made were dead-on dissections of the most pertinent political issues of his time; McCarthyism, the JFK assassination, Vietnam, the Nixon administration, etc.  I’ve always believed that a blatant political agenda, which de Antonio certainly bore, is the kiss of death to art, and in my view this keeps him from qualifying as one of the most important documentarians.  He lacked the sense of humor of a Michael Moore or the willingness of someone equally contemptuous of the police-state mentality like Robert Altman to refrain from peachiness in order to allow his stories and characters draw allusions for him.  The only de Antonio film I really like a lot is Painters Painting (1972) because for once he dropped the agitprop, shot original footage, and made something about a subject he cared about.  Having said all that, Rush to Judgment has a certain power due to its relentless presentation of one point after another without any comment or adornment.  As a kind of companion to Mark Lane’s book of the same name, the film – (made in collaboration with Lane a couple years later) – is actually a sequel too; taking the opportunity to provide updates on developments since the book’s publication.  Lane himself appears as presenter and interviewer, revisiting many witnesses whose stories are in dire conflict with the pronouncements the Warren Report.  This is a prime example of film being far more emotionally effective than the printed word could ever be.  Reading the same comments, it would be easier to retain some skepticism and objectivity, but hearing these peoples’ real voices and seeing their body language, all of which is completely devoid of pretense and posturing, is almost overwhelming.  These are not public people.  They appear neither confused, nor devious, nor cynical, nor the least bit anxious for media attention.  So many of them were simply never called by the Warren Commission, or found their words altered or censored if they were questioned.  This, more than anything else, has yet to be adequately explained by those who are satisfied that there was nothing fishy at all about President Kennedy’s death.