JFK's Cinematography: Did Oliver Stone Go Overboard?

Okay, film nerds, let's talk JFK (1991). I've been rewatching it for my class, breaking down the visuals, and I'm having a major internal debate. On the one hand, the cinematography is undeniably striking. That blend of documentary footage with the slick, almost hyper-realistic recreation of the Kennedy era is super effective in creating this sense of paranoia and 'truth' being hidden in plain sight. The way they switch between formats also keeps you constantly off balance, which I think really reflects Garrison's own disorienting journey down the rabbit hole. But…did Oliver Stone maybe go TOO far with the stylistic choices? Like, there are points where the rapid cuts, the grainy film, and the deliberate use of jump cuts feel almost overwhelming. I get what he's going for – creating a sense of chaos and showing how fragmented the evidence is – but sometimes I found it distracting. I mean, that scene where Garrison is talking to 'X' (Donald Sutherland) on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial is iconic, but the stark lighting and close-ups also make it feel almost too theatrical. Did anyone else feel like some scenes border on being manipulative, visually speaking? Specifically, I'm thinking about the recreated Zapruder film footage. Stone uses it repeatedly, showing different angles and interpretations. While it's powerful in highlighting the ambiguity and conflicting accounts, does it also potentially cross a line into presenting a particular narrative as undeniable fact? I guess I'm wondering where the line is between effective storytelling and cinematic propaganda, if that makes sense. What were your thoughts on the editing in this film? Any scenes in particular that stood out -- either positively or negatively?