This movie reminds me why I don't watch the news. I can't afford to be this angry that often, because I'd end up having a brain anurism or something. I suppose ignoring the news because it makes you too angry is a bad thing, closing your eyes to injustice and all that, but I just can't stand listing and watching while people act so god damned stupid. Then at the end when it turns out that the innocent man is still in prison despite the tape recording of the guilty man confessing...I almost kicked in the television.
As for the technique used in the film. I found it to be only so-so. Maybe I've just grown accustomed to this style, but it seems like a copy of most documentaries regarding court cases or mysteries. Perhaps the one's I've seen are copies of this one though. I don't know.
One thing I did like what the lack of the narrator/anouncer figure. There was no one asking questions, just people answering the questions the viewer is asking themself. I think it would be really hard to do a film like this without having someone to voiceover and fill in the blanks. I hate it when they have a deep voiced person in the back ground talking about whats going on like it's a movie.
The ambiguity of who actually commited the crime is pretty interesting, though by about half way through the movie the viewer pretty much knows who the real culprit is. If, in the end, it had really turned out to be the man in the white shirt despite everything, i think that would have been interesting, but we have to deal with the facts in works of nonfiction, so overall I think they did a fantastic job of keeping my interest.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment