Review: Who Killed John O’Neill? (2005)

Directed by: Ty Rauber | 100 minutes | documentary | Actors: Ryan Thurston

“Who Killed John O’Neill?” Is a project by Ty Rauber, who directs and produces, and Ryan Thurston, who plays all six (!) Roles and wrote the script. Thurston plays himself, or at least a neutral figure, assisted by six versions of himself. There is the paranoia version of the man; the cynic who does not believe in the conspiracies and would like to see the official version, as the US government has put him out, as the truth. In addition, Thurston plays the figure who represents history, the “laptop” and the philosopher. Through this literal split in personalities, the film shows what happens to someone who has spent months unraveling such an enormous mystery.

The beginning of the film, or rather ego document, does not immediately invite you to look further. The mixed voices, the strange image and the penetrating music are so overpowering and unpleasant that it looks more like a bad trip than a nice movie. The film is not pleasant either, but the film does have a point in terms of content. The theory starts roughly with the relationship between the CIA, the Pakistani secret service (ISI) and Al Qaeda. The first party finances the other, who in turn provides the third with money. In the film, the different characters tell the links between the many parties involved, using a simple diagram on the wall. These are mainly companies, banks and (private) security services that will sound unfamiliar to many viewers.

This is also the biggest problem of the film: after a while so many people and companies have been mentioned that would have played a role that the theory becomes inimitable. It is better to accept this and concentrate on what can be followed, namely the final conclusion that it was not about fundamentalist Muslims, or the destruction of the Western world, but mainly about drugs, money and power. But isn’t everything about these three aspects in world politics? And has this not been proclaimed more often in recent years? The question therefore arises whether this film really adds anything, apart from tons of information that is almost impossible to remember, let alone verify. Still, it is good that such films are made, if only to allow a different sound to seep through the established media.