The Thin Blue Line is unlike anything else you'll watch in Critical Approach to Cinema. As the sole documentary this summer, it's also an artistic spin on the otherwise familiar genre. It takes chances, and director Errol Morris makes some really bizarre creative decisions in crafting his argument. What made it similar to other documentaries you have seen? What makes it different?
This documentary single-handedly helped shape the fate of Randall Dale Adams. It brought to light several questionable elements in the trial, including five counts of perjury by supposedly reliable testimonies. In the movie's aftermath, a reexamination of the evidence against Adams was conducted, and the courts finally released him after twelve years of imprisonment.
The Thin Blue Line has a lot of components which makes it very hard to follow for casual viewers. The director made the strange choice not to include names with each of the interviewees, so when the witnesses gave testimonials about certain people, it was harder to mentally relate the names with the faces we saw. How long did it take you to figure out who was Harris and who was Adams?
Errol Morris is a prolific documentarian, and has had a successful career digging out human interest stories and making them relatable to the public. He led the charge in non-fiction films during the 1980's, gaining critical acclaim and awards. When his first two films failed financially, he worked as a private detective for six years, using the skills he learned on that job to create incredibly detailed films like The Thin Blue Line.
Errol Morris directs the documentary almost like a crime thriller, with several reenactments of the murder and a multitude of strange characters with hidden agendas. He also adds a bit of art flair to the picture by including images like the over-popped popcorn, the dangling clock, and the flying milkshake. What do you think of his directing style?
David Ray Harris, the villain of the story, is a fascinating character both on and off the screen. Several people who have taken this class relate him to Hannibal Lecter, because like the cannibalistic serial killer, Harris has a sort of elegance that makes people believe him. In Harris' case, it's a farm boy innocence. Adams, on the other hand, is very annoying to listen and relate to. This increases the shock audience members receive when Harris is exposed as the actual murderer. What did you think of Harris and how he compares to Adams?
Morris' final talk with Harris, the tape recorder sequence, was actually not supposed to happen. The camera broke the day of filming the interview, so Morris improvised by recording the conversation on a tape recorder. This creates an accidentally eerier effect, but some people have their reservations about it. What did you think about this ending sequence?
The Thin Blue Line is one of those documentaries that you have to see at least once in your life. It packs a powerful message about exposing the truth. A man spent twelve years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. In a way, this is more haunting than anything else we watch in this class. What would your reaction be to this movie if you were involved with the real-life case?
The sequence style of this documentary is what makes it novel to me. There is no narrator or explicit interviewer, it is just a series of interviews that overlap to create this patchwork quilt of a story. It took awhile into the story to distinguish who was who, since there was no subtitle underneath introducing the interviewee. This was interesting artistic choice by the director, by choosing to not name the person, he made the viewer focus on the story rather come in with a prejudice against the person.
ReplyDeleteThe ending sequence was haunting, and worked better audio form than it would have in visual form. The eerie effect combined with the dramatic shots of recorder made the confession more private, as if it was a interview that was not meant to be aired.
I do not know what would have happened if I was involved in a case like this in real-life. I feel like it is something you can understand if you experience it.
To me, this movie was a little over dramatic. It felt like one of those true crime detective tv shows, especially with the dramatic retellings. The shot of the milkshake flying through the air made it so unbelievable and seem fake compared to the rest of the sequences. That part of the story telling I didn’t like. I agree that it was necessary though, because it brought to life the crime and made the viewer more engaged. But the way it was directed was overplayed and made the acts committed cheap in retrospect.
ReplyDeleteCompared to other documentaries, I think this movie was pretty similar. The way the questions were answered, the focus was on the person and not the director asking questions. This style of interview with retellings is common to documentaries, or the ones I’ve seen anyway. What is uncommon is the murkiness of it. I feel like other documentaries have a clear message, while this one is up to interpretation. People could say that Harris confessed in the end, but no one could say for sure. I think it was better in this way because the message wasn’t shoved down the viewers throat.
I found this film very interesting and I appreciated Morris's artistic style. However, I felt that it was slow at times. Because of the large amount of interviews, there was a lack of camera movement and faster paced cuts were not necessary. I was not surprised by Adams' personality versus Harris's personality. Harris had a smirk on his face and showed no remorse for anything while Adams gave off a more frustrated mood. Throughout the film I felt annoyed and disgusted by Harris. I felt that it made sense for Adams to seem high strung and frustrated, because he was innocent.
ReplyDeleteI appreciated the creativity of the ending sequence and never would have guessed that that was not the original intent. The close up of the tape intensified the importance of the dialogue whereas, a shot of Harris would have de-emphasized it.
I did not enjoy this film as much as the others surprisingly, as I usually enjoy documentaries. I did not like that it was supposed to be a mystery met with drama, however, you can guess from the start that Adams is guilty. However, I did enjoy that it explored themes of objective and subjective truths and was more like art than it was a factual documentary.
ReplyDeleteI thought that this was a really interesting documentary. The way that Morris used visuals and re-enactments was a really nice improvement over the two hours of Ken Burns effects that you see in a lot of older documentaries. It definitely took me a while to figure out who was who at the beginning of the movie, which I think did take away from it somewhat because at times I was much more focused on figuring out who each person was than I was on listening to the stories. however, I did appreciate the evolving reenactments of the crime, because it made it much easier to see how different people's stories evolved and showed how subjective witness testimony is. I really liked the decision just to show the tape recorder playing at the end, even if it was an accident. It's much eerier this way, and it differentiated it from all the other shots of Harris speaking. I wasn't distracted at all by his appearance or mannerisms, and it put much more weight on the dialog and showed how important this moment was.
ReplyDeleteI am a big fan of documentaries, however I have not seen any that are similar to The Thing Blue Line. What this documentary did remind me of was “Dateline” the crime show that is on TV. That is what the documentary reminded me of the entire time I was watching it. What made this different from other documentaries was the constant reenactment of the crime that was the subject of the film. To me, I thought the amount of times it was show was excessive. But I also know and understand that the director did that on purpose.
ReplyDeleteI figured out immediately who was Harris and who was Adams. Mostly because “Adams” was written on his white shirt, but he also appeared much older than Harris.
I did not trust Harris as soon as he began speaking about the night of the crime. When he was recounting his story he was constantly looking up and to the right. That is a strong indicator of someone telling a lie. I could tell that he was a man who was incredibly manipulative, and knew how to work people (incredibly similar to Hannibal Lecter). Adams he seemed “normal” in the sense that he (at least to me) was speaking clearly and truthfully. I found him believable from the beginning, and in the end he turned out to be telling the truth the entire time. Harris appeared incredibly sinister, and was spooked by the ending interview.
The ending revealed the true manipulation and sociopathy of Harris. The documentary did a very good job creating an eerie like feel throughout the entire film. But the end showed how this man, at just 16 years old, was able to lie despite a man getting a death sentence for something that he did. You could hear the lack of remorse in his voice, and even the manipulation. He would not say “I killed him”, instead he revealed it in a way that was almost taunting.
My stomach would be in knots if I watched this film as someone involved in this case. It would break my heart that an innocent man had 12 years of his life taken away and the real killer is the man who accused him. It would also make me wonder how many other instances this had happened. Everyone thought justice was served, when in reality it was not.
I thought this a very interesting story and liked how the director included the different recounts of what happened and what was going on for each party involved (Adams, Harris, lawyers, detectives, witnesses). The story was told in a very compelling way through interviews, re-enactments and media where each piece fit together and you could see how things were told and perceived, which led to the unjust conviction. I thought it was a bit longer than needed -- the re-enactments were helpful the first few times and I understand that in addition to aiding as a visual for the story, they also lend for drama and emphasis. The re-enactments were a bit repetitive to the point where it somewhat lost the drama while watching the film. Overall, the film truly demonstrated the truth of our court system and how we hide, disregard or manipulate the truth for one's benefit, even if that's destroying someone else. It also is a testimony to the structure of our court system and how the system to an extent already perceives those who are guilty or innocent based on certain, easy and convenient factors.
ReplyDelete