The Thin Blue Line is a "non-fiction" film that investigates the murder of a police officer in Dallas, TX. Throughout a series of interviews, the audience is given different perspectives and in the end is left unsure whether the right man was convicted.
There are plenty of topics embedded within this film and through the reading. There is the issue of arresting the wrong man, the death penalty, arresting someone (Adams) at the age where they can be given a "deserved" punishment (age 28) rather than the minor (Harris at 16 years old). Not only can I discuss topics having to do with the actual case, but I can also explore how Errol Morris created this film. Did he have a right to decide whether to "subjective" or "objective" while telling this story? Why did he choose to label this film as non-fiction rather than a documentary. Did he expect to reopen the case and set Adams free?
I thought the topic of how to label this film was a fascinating topic. What is the definition of documentary, anyway? I had a discussion in my intro to documentary class and we came up with a few different techniques that were used in documentaries, but could not come up with a solid definition.
Dictionary.com said that the definition of documentary is: Movies, Television. Based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements.
The Thin Blue Line could be said to do this. It focuses and re-creates an actual event. So, why did Errol Morris decide to call his film "Non-Fiction?" He took himself out of the running for many awards that he could have won if he put "documentary" as the genre. The article said that there was some controversy to whether it was alright for Morris to hire actors to reenact the events of the shooting within The Thin Blue Line. I feel this was a strong decision, because not only did he trust the audience to realize that this was, in fact, a reenactment, but he allowed them to visually see the story that the interviewees were telling. So, did Morris label his documentary because he truly believed it "non-fiction," or to avoid confrontation on his choices to make his movie if he used the term "documentary."
I had never heard the term “thin blue line” before I entered this class. Polina stated that this term refers to the idea that "police officers (in their blue uniforms) are the only barrier between brutal anarchy and a civilized society." Again, this topic can be widely discussed. James Madison said "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. I think this is true within our justice system as well. Though sometimes corrupt and unfair, our police force was created to protect humanity to the best of their ability. Even with this intention, as we saw in The Thin Blue Line, mistakes are still made. I think Errol Morris choose The Thin Blue Line as the title of his film to make a point that even though the police exist to protect from anarchy, we cannot fully trust this line to stay solid through all situations. We are human, and not angels, after all.
In the article "Mirrors Without Memories" there is great discussion to the arguments concerning the way certain directors choose to create their documentaries or Non-Fiction films. Michael Moore described himself as a "partisan investigator." He states that his film is "told with a narrative style." The argument was about "where documentarians should draw the line in manipulating the historical sequence of their material. This, again, goes with the topic of whether directors of documentaries should be "objective" or "subjective." Since the term documentary is so hard to define, who can say whether a director is or is not allowed to tell their perspective of a story?
DAVID HARRIS:
"I've always thought if you could say why there's a reason Randall Adams is in jail, it might be because the fact that he didn't have no place for somebody to stay that helped him that night... landed him where's he's at... That might be the reason. That might be the only, total reason why he's where he's at today."
This tape recording was the conclusion of a very mind boggling film. David Harris, the 16 year old that gave Adams a ride to his hotel and then accused him of the murder left us wondering if the accusation was out of spite and fear. The tape was definitely a good way to end because it forced the audience to question whether the right man was convicted. What a wonderful way to screw with the viewers! At the time, what would they do if they believed Adams was innocent? That means an innocent man was convicted! This may also bring up questions of whether the death penalty is morally right AND if all cases are truly ended when the judge makes his decision.
Polina told us that Harris was executed for some other crime and Adams was released after 13 some years of being in jail. This film resurfaced a "closed" case and ended up freeing a man who pleaded innocent as was not convicted that way. Thus, proves the fact that media can effect social change. Doubt me?
Would Adams ever have been released otherwise?
NEW TERMINOLOGY RESEARCH- Definitions found on dictionary.com
Partisan-An adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
Verite- Truth
Vertigo- A sensation of dizziness or abnormal motion resulting from a disorder of the sense of balance.
Agitprop- An agency or department, as of a government, that directs and coordinates agitation and propaganda.
Topiary- Trimming or training of trees or bushes into artificial decorative animal, geometric, or other shapes.
Autonomous- Self governing; independent; subjecting to its own laws only.
Amalgam- A mixture or combination.
Voyeuristic- A person who obtains sexual pleasure or excitement from the observation of someone undressing, having intercourse, etc.
*All images were found on google.com
No comments:
Post a Comment