The Thin Blue Line is a film about the murder of a Dallas police officer and the spiderweb of versions from different witnesses that paints a complicated, ever-changing picture. Some witnesses seem more coherent and reliable than others, and it is up to the audience to decide who to trust. While it becomes painfully obvious who is guilty and who is innocent, director Errol Morris decides to never just come out and say it. He trusts that the evidence is clear enough and the audience is smart enough to figure it out.
Morris uses interviews with David Harris and Randall Adams, the two men suspected of involvement in the crime. Adams was pointed to by Harris as the murderer. Harris was a juvenile at the time, while Adams was a legal adult and could be given the death penalty under Texas law. This could be why evidence plainly pointing to Harris was ignored. The community wanted justice, and eye for an eye. But how could everyone ignore the fact that Harris lead officers to the murder weapon and the car involved? Could this be because it would have been harder to prosecute Harris? Society tends to overlook bias and prejudice in order to close a case, and this case was no exception.
The way the film was made was quite interesting. I felt it to be documentary style, but many people disagree because of the use of reenactments and dramatizations. I felt that the central story and interviews do qualify this film as a documentary. The scenes reenacting different versions of the story punctuate the story, building tension and a feeling of distrust. This method had me uncomfortable at the idea of trusting any witness' story. Terrence Rafferty put it best in his article "True Detective" when he said, "Morris seems to want to bring us to the point at which our apprehension of the real world reaches the pitch of paranoia- to induce in us the state of a detective whose scrutiny of the evidence, whose search for the connections between stubbornly isolated facts, has begun to take a feverish clarity of hallucination." This is exactly the tone that Morris' film gave off to me. It is a true story that seems fictionalized. Details are added gradually into the equation, which one would think would make the case easier to solve. However, this just further complicates the story, making it harder to differentiate lies from reality.
In the end, David Harris bluntly confesses to the murder in an interview with Morris. Harris says he said what was necessary to save himself, even if it meant blaming a perfect stranger.
"Is Randall Adams an innocent man?" Morris asks Harris.
"I'm sure he is."
"How can you be sure?"
"Because I'm the one that knows."
This chilling conversation made me slightly angry and frustrated. Harris basically confesses to the murder, but cannot just come out and say, "I did it." We as the audience know that this is a confession, though, because who else would be able to tell?
The story goes on even after the film ends. Randall Adams was given a retrial in Dallas County due to the publicity over the film. The district attorney's office declined to prosecute again and Adams was released in 1989. This film saved a man's life. How's that for cinema and social change? This film had such an impact that a sentence was overturned and an innocent man walked free. Justice seems to be served in more than just that one way... David Harris was executed in 2004 for an unrelated murder in Beaumont, Texas. Personally, I felt a sense of satisfaction upon hearing this. Even though he was not punished for the murder of the police officer, at least he is not a free man today. Nothing bothers me more than people who get away with heinous crimes, especially when an innocent person takes the blame. Adams was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. I think this is the point that Morris was trying to get across. All that really matters is where you are and when you are there. That determines everything in life. Timing determines whether you end up in one place or another. In an example as drastic as this, that means the difference between prison and freedom, between life and death. It's an odd thought that keeps me conscious about what situations I am putting myself into.
Overall, this film had an impact on society as well as me personally. It was innovative and professional, a combination that promises a unique, entertaining film. I enjoy true life mysteries, and I hope to see more like this in the future.
Terminology:
Grandiloquent: Pompous or extravagant in language, style, or manner, especially in a way that is intended to impress.
Palimpsest: Something reused or altered but still bearing visible traces of its earlier form.
No comments:
Post a Comment