"The man you see before you is here by the grace of God. The fact that it took 12 and a half years and a movie to prove my innocence should scare the hell out of everyone in this room and, if it doesn’t, then that scares the hell out of me." -Randall Dale Adams
This film reminds me a lot of Capturing the Friedmans in the sense that the film lets the viewer know that someone is obviously lying, but it's left to the viewer to decide who it is who isn't telling the truth...and I like it for that. I thought that the reenactments supported the film's argument by displaying to the viewer how different each witnesses' accounts were and how it affected the investigation. From watching a variety of Morris' films, I really like how his voice and questions are never heard in the interviews, which gives the viewer an intimate story telling feeling.
Errol Morris's works are criticized a lot on whether they deserve the title "documentary films", and even though I personally may not like his stylized form I think we can all agree that his films at its essence are documentary films. I like to think of Morris as a documentarian and entertainer. He understands that he is labeled as a documentary filmmaker, but his films must compete against not only against documentary films but also fiction films, and therefore he caters to his audience with fiction film styles. He includes reenactments, fast editing, lighting, camera angles, etc to create an environment. I think all those crime solving shows like Forensic Files got their formats from Morris's style. I disagree a little with briddell1 in the sense that in Capturing the Friedmans the viewer is left not really knowing the verdict to the crime... we know the father was a pedophile, but did he really molest those students? The final answer is never really clearly given, but in Thin Blue Line we find out the verdict: Adams is innocent. Morris knows exactly what he is doing. He weaves the story for the audience. The viewer hears different witnesses and the reenactment changes to match the witnesses testimonies/interviews, and the viewer is caught in Morris's game. He wants the audience to be alert, but not original; he's in charge of the story and like a good murder mystery story he will take the audience down different avenues and then come to the conclusion when he is ready. Morris knows exactly how he wants his audience to "feel".
Before viewing The Thin Blue Line, I had expected something along the lines of what I had seen in his other films: stylized reenactments, dramatic music accentuating key "plot points" in the narrative and an overall entertaining experience. And that was essentially what I felt while watching it. But on the other hand, I felt that the way in which Morris used his techniques had a different a different effect in relation to his other films, especially the use of reenactments.
In Standard Operating Procedure, where there were very stylized reenactments that had slow shutter speed, high exposure cinematographs and dramatic sound effects, the viewer was presented cinematic renditions of what the soldiers experienced and their accounts. The same goes for The Thin Blue Line. That is, the viewer were presented with stylized renditions (of a noirish quality that evokes scenes that would be in Fargo or No Country) of key witness' testimonies. So, again, in that respect, I think one can see these two films as functioning the same way.
But I think what should be looked at particularly in The Thin Blue Line is the extent to which Morris repeats over and over again the same moment of when the officer was shot. We don't get that in SOP, where the reenactments functionned as only a visual and sometimes auditive support for the interviews. In any case, the fact that we get multiple renditions of what happened of that night of the shooting allows us to question, not conclude on, what really happended that night, thereby leaving us intellectually invested in the rest of the film. Moreover, because of this repetition, we no longer feel that the reenactments can be trusted as a credible source of truth. But it is only by repeatedly viewing and listening to every detail of the case that we ultimately reach the truth of the story. I was impressed by the extent to which I was not intellectually insulted by Morris's style, which I had expected having viewed Fog of War and SOP.
What I thought was interesting was that despite that Morris doesn't keep his documentary "pure", because he includes reenactments, the film still feels incredibly genuine. This is because the reenactments serve to enlighten the audience as to the stories that are being told rather than causing the audience to move further from understanding. It is the lies, or reenactments, that bring the audience closer to the truth.
"The man you see before you is here by the grace of God. The fact that it took 12 and a half years and a movie to prove my innocence should scare the hell out of everyone in this room and, if it doesn’t, then that scares the hell out of me." -Randall Dale Adams
ReplyDeleteThis film reminds me a lot of Capturing the Friedmans in the sense that the film lets the viewer know that someone is obviously lying, but it's left to the viewer to decide who it is who isn't telling the truth...and I like it for that. I thought that the reenactments supported the film's argument by displaying to the viewer how different each witnesses' accounts were and how it affected the investigation. From watching a variety of Morris' films, I really like how his voice and questions are never heard in the interviews, which gives the viewer an intimate story telling feeling.
ReplyDeleteErrol Morris's works are criticized a lot on whether they deserve the title "documentary films", and even though I personally may not like his stylized form I think we can all agree that his films at its essence are documentary films. I like to think of Morris as a documentarian and entertainer. He understands that he is labeled as a documentary filmmaker, but his films must compete against not only against documentary films but also fiction films, and therefore he caters to his audience with fiction film styles. He includes reenactments, fast editing, lighting, camera angles, etc to create an environment. I think all those crime solving shows like Forensic Files got their formats from Morris's style. I disagree a little with briddell1 in the sense that in Capturing the Friedmans the viewer is left not really knowing the verdict to the crime... we know the father was a pedophile, but did he really molest those students? The final answer is never really clearly given, but in Thin Blue Line we find out the verdict: Adams is innocent.
ReplyDeleteMorris knows exactly what he is doing. He weaves the story for the audience. The viewer hears different witnesses and the reenactment changes to match the witnesses testimonies/interviews, and the viewer is caught in Morris's game. He wants the audience to be alert, but not original; he's in charge of the story and like a good murder mystery story he will take the audience down different avenues and then come to the conclusion when he is ready. Morris knows exactly how he wants his audience to "feel".
Before viewing The Thin Blue Line, I had expected something along the lines of what I had seen in his other films: stylized reenactments, dramatic music accentuating key "plot points" in the narrative and an overall entertaining experience. And that was essentially what I felt while watching it. But on the other hand, I felt that the way in which Morris used his techniques had a different a different effect in relation to his other films, especially the use of reenactments.
ReplyDeleteIn Standard Operating Procedure, where there were very stylized reenactments that had slow shutter speed, high exposure cinematographs and dramatic sound effects, the viewer was presented cinematic renditions of what the soldiers experienced and their accounts. The same goes for The Thin Blue Line. That is, the viewer were presented with stylized renditions (of a noirish quality that evokes scenes that would be in Fargo or No Country) of key witness' testimonies. So, again, in that respect, I think one can see these two films as functioning the same way.
But I think what should be looked at particularly in The Thin Blue Line is the extent to which Morris repeats over and over again the same moment of when the officer was shot. We don't get that in SOP, where the reenactments functionned as only a visual and sometimes auditive support for the interviews. In any case, the fact that we get multiple renditions of what happened of that night of the shooting allows us to question, not conclude on, what really happended that night, thereby leaving us intellectually invested in the rest of the film. Moreover, because of this repetition, we no longer feel that the reenactments can be trusted as a credible source of truth. But it is only by repeatedly viewing and listening to every detail of the case that we ultimately reach the truth of the story. I was impressed by the extent to which I was not intellectually insulted by Morris's style, which I had expected having viewed Fog of War and SOP.
What I thought was interesting was that despite that Morris doesn't keep his documentary "pure", because he includes reenactments, the film still feels incredibly genuine. This is because the reenactments serve to enlighten the audience as to the stories that are being told rather than causing the audience to move further from understanding. It is the lies, or reenactments, that bring the audience closer to the truth.
ReplyDelete