Erol Morris' documentary "The Thin Blue Line" is the quintessential film when discussing the power of film to change reality. It is the most famous and literal case of a film impacting someone's life, because upon it's release, it promptly lead to Randall Adams' being released from jail.
The interesting thing about "The Thin Blue Line", however, has not been the impact it has had on Adams' life. Instead, it is the way in which Morris tells the story that has had people talking for 22 years now.
According to Terrence Rafferty in "True Detective" published in The New Yorker in 1988, Morris became obsessed with Adams' case after doing interviews for a documentary on Dr. Death, the psychiatrist who helped put so many people on death row. Morris, who had worked as a private detective began doing research on his own and developed the belief that Adams was in fact an innocent man who had been wrongly convicted. The interesting thing about the documentary is Morris ability to lead us on a journey in which his logic makes complete and total sense. Rafferty attributes this to the fact that "although Morris himself does not appear in ‘The Thin Blue Line’, he is the films true detective", thus through the hypnotic and repetitive style of the film "we trust the logic as we become entranced; everything makes sense because we are in someone else’s head," we are in Morris' head.
The case that "The Thin Blue Line" follows, that of the murder of officer Wood, is something that happened in the past, so there is no documentary evidence of the event, which leads Morris to do several reenactments as a way of telling the story. Many people question whether this is true to the idea of truth in documentary, an issue that warrants further examination on both an intellectual and personal level, but will never yield a clear truth.
In "Mirrors without Memories" Linda Williams raises some very intriguing ideas about documentary truth. She states at one point that “we do better to define documentary not as an essence of truth but as a set of strategies designed to choose from among a horizon of relative and contingent truths.” This gives merit to the idea constructed in "The Myth of Objectivity in Journalism: A Commentary" in which Richard F. Taflinger argues that there is no objectivity in journalism because it is not attainable by the human mind. To further support this, Williams argues that “coincident with the hunger for documentary truth is the clear sense that this truth is subject to manipulation and construction by docu-auteurs who, whether on camera or behind, are forcefully calling the shots”. Every film, every article, every news segment is created by a human being, and that human being has a point of view whether they are willing to acknowledge it or not. In cases like "The Thin Blue Line", the filmmaker's point of view and heavy handed direction becomes more apparent because Morris must create visuals that help explain the evidence of past events. While some documentary filmmakers have the luxury of editing together footage shot of their subject during quintessential events, giving the viewer a false sense of reality, Morris had to get creative in his visual explanation of facts. This does not make the film any less credible, it simply makes it more artistic, especially since Morris chose to keep his reenactments ambiguous.
In "Recovering Reality" an article published in the Columbia Journalism Review by Michael Meyer, Morris acknowledges that "usually visuals are designed to stop us from thinking, not encourage us to think". It is this observation that leads him to conclude that his visual representation of the facts is more pure to documentary style because instead of trying to inhibit independent thought, it promotes it. In Morris' mind, his ambiguous reenactments are as close to actually seeing what happened as the audience can get without being blatantly shown the accounts of those present. He allows the human mind to build the events because he believe this is how all events in the world are experienced.
Furthermore, Morris argues in "Filmmaker Probes Millennial Change of Life" by Mike Tanner that "the lines between fact and fiction are less distinct. ‘In every kind of filmmaking there are elements that are out of control, and elements that are in control’." This offers more of a justification by Morris for his use of reenactments, because he argues that there is a certain level of control on the part of all documentaries, his is simply more obvious than other filmmakers. This, to me, seems to be a much more acceptable form of intervention, because I would rather have a filmmaker acknowledge their own interference in the story than try to hide the fact that they are guiding the visual and audio components to construct their own viewpoint. I would like to know when I'm being presented with someone's opinion, rather than have it quietly thrust upon me.
The title of the film "The Thin Blue Line" has an interesting connotation when thought of in terms of how it was used in the film and why it became the title. In the film, the prosecutor describes the police as "the thin blue line between anarchy and rule of law". In Morris film, the media takes on this role after the police and judicial system seem to drop the ball. Without this film, there would have been no acknowledgment of the fact that an innocent man was put on death row, which leads to the conclusion that without the interference of filmmakers like Erol Morris, the wrong people could be convicted based more on convenience than evidence, leading to less of a fair judicial system and eventually more anarchy.
The refreshing thing about "The Thin Blue Line", especially after watching "The Film is Not Yet Rated" is that it is very subtle in it's opinion. It is clear that Morris had a motive for making the film (he wanted to free Harris because he believed he was wrongfully imprisoned), but he does not attempt to stir up emotions using overly dramatic actions in the film. Morris also keeps himself visually hidden from the audience so that they can disagree with him. Instead of appearing on screen and screaming that he is right and the judicial system in Texas was wrong, Morris shows the evidence that supports his point and ultimately lets the audience come up with their own conclusion, without the fear of being judged by the angry talking head on screen. This more subtle and cool headed approach, to me, is more successful because I find myself less inclined to disagree with the filmmaker simply because he annoys me or is too transparent in his attempt to guide my thought process. I like that I can think about the facts presented by Morris and go back and forth on what I think happened without the filmmaker telling me exactly what to think.
To me, a great prosecutor is one that presents the facts, the true facts, in a manner that is not sensationalized or heavy handed. Whether the prosecutor is a filmmaker or a lawyer, a great prosecutor can use the facts to subtly present a case without calling the jurors or audience stupid for disagreeing. They also acknolwedge all of the facts and give them equal weight in the overall decision. The most important thing, however, is that they do not make up their mind about the outcome before all of the facts are gathered and examined, and they allow this same luxury to the audience.
New Terminology:
Adams is described by Terrence Rafferty in "True Detective" as "a wan, ghostly, soft-spoken man". The word wan is one that I here occasionally, but do not know the precise definition of, so I decided to look it up for this weeks new terminology.
Wan is an adjective meaning "of an unnatural or sickly pallor; pallid; lacking color. Showing or suggesting ill health, fatigue, unhappiness, etc. Lacking in forcefulness, competence, or effectiveness".
Looking at these definitions, it seems that third one is the most appropriate. Rafferty accuses Morris as painting Adams as a man seeming unable to hurt a fly, because that is exactly how he comes across, and this is most likely for a reason. Morris portrays Adams as he sees him, a man incapable of the murder he has been convicted of.
No comments:
Post a Comment