I need to clear my head-space!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmtp8XosVBE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiC9Eoe-dHI
I managed to find the Missiles of October movie in two parts on Youtube.com. I think it is a much better  historical reconstruction then Thirteen Days, which I found on the web using Divx. MOO (yes, moo) went for roughly two and half hours and addressed the the Cuban missile crisis in a day by day fashion, even introducing each day as they progressed and this was effective compared to TD's shorter more compacted depiction of what happened. I really liked how MOO opens with speeches from both President Kennedy and Chairman Khrushchev, it shows both perspectives in a political sense right from the start. The use of these speechs is sort of similar to our favourite historian Thucydides reconstruction method but this time the writers and directors actually know what was said and aren't just making it up while "adhering as close as possible to what was actually said" which doesn't even make sense. Unfortunately TD doesn't use speeches from both nations to display different perspectives, it has been constructed with only American speech's and reasoning BUT I will say this, TD is more open to the fact that the Russian missiles in Cuba where withdrawn as a trade for the withdrawal of American missiles in Turkey/ Italy while MOO is very quick to dismiss this. So, in some ways TD is a more accurate version of events but I would argue this is simply due to the context of each film, MOO(1974) was made so much earlier then TD(2000) and as such TD had access to more sources of information that was either known later or released at a later date.
Another cool thing about MOO is how it cross fades between the Russian and American Perspectives- One scene will end and displayed are the words "The Missiles of October" and two flags, the Russian and American.. and then the camera zooms into which ever nations flag we are going to be viewing in the next scene. It's a rather unused technique now and as such is not seen in the newer TD.
Although both are docudramas, I would say that MOO is more of a documentary then a drama and TD is more of a drama then a documentary.

 A problem I found with both of them is that they both simply did not display anything, or much of anything, in regards to the Cuban perspective.. There is mention of the reasons behind the crisis.. more so in MOO then TD but no events take place in each film in which Cuban has a political perspective or we see things from a Cuban viewpoint- In MOO it's mainly American and sometimes Russian and in TD it's almost always American.. So no Cuba?? It is after all the Cuban Missile crisis... I understand that the event is part of the build up from the cold war between Russia and America but still.. I think the limited perspective of the films, especially in TD which ignores Cuban and Soviet perspectives and SOMEHOW creates a series of events in which America is the Victim and America has to defend itself against the aggressive actions of Cuba and Russia, is just silly and serves to propagate the pride of American- I guess it is really a American Version of History and viewers should be aware- American where the initial aggressors towards Cuba, America had hundreds of missiles pointed at Russia, American had already tried to invade, sabotage and attack the island of Cuba due to their prejudice towards the Castro regime and Russian came to Cuba's aid to ensure no father harassment from America.. The missiles in Cuba where no different from the Missiles in Turkey.


Oh well, anyway.. So I think I should forget JFK(he was a good man how helped prevent what could have been WW3) as part of my question. It should be "The changing perspectives of the Cuban missile crisis" and I'm going to talk about how different views can seen from different nationalities, different time periods and different people depending on their opinions-culture-political view...ect ect... So, help a brother out!!! Tell me what I should be writing about or thinking about and all that jazz, I had some other stuff I was going to talk about but I've forgotten whilst typing. I'd appreciate you're input people!

Moving forward- I sound like a politician :D

 So under the wise guidance of the History Wizard I've decided that I well be using two films to create a comparison of the changing views and perspectives of JFK and his influence in the Cuban Missile Crisis or..something to that effect. I've already watched 'Thirteen Days'(2000) and I'm having trouble locating 'The Missiles of October'(1974). Thanks to Sir I'm moving forward with my project- Thanks, Sir! :) Edmodo post -They're films so I'm guessing both reconstructions aren't the most objective versions of what actually happened. Both have been constructed by directors seeing things from an american perspective and having the agenda to make the events as interesting as possible for viewing, probably dramatising the whole thing. They probably don't explain much of the causes and lead up to the crisis, like the bay of pigs incident, US Jupiter missiles in Turkey/Italy, Cuba's fear of invasion or attack from America and if they do its probably mostly bias in favor of the Americans. So, in my opinion, no they do not make 'good' history.. They offer an incomplete, bias to prospective, agenda driven, dramatised, subjective version of events. How can I compare them? I haven't seen them yet..BUT I'd say they each have been effected by there context differently and that the 2001 version probably has more sources of information - released at later dates and a broader 'revolutionary' view. They had different directors- each with different views/ideals?- Once again, any advice is welcomed with open arms and thanks.

Topic: John F Kennedy?

I have been reading into JFK and it seems there is a fair amount of historical controversy surrounding his life, presidency and assassination. Yeah, I know, obvious. So, I'm thinking I'm going to focus on his presidency and therefore aspects of his life but stay away from the assassination- Oh boy, those conspiracy theories are sure fun but his life is controversial enough (and complex) without his mystery death. Some pointers would be lovely and much appreciated ! 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/opinion/22thrall.html
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,314626,00.html
Blogger is not user friendly, it's hard to use.