|
Jarecki is not a good fiction filmmaker.
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jan 15, 2025 20:00 |
|
|
Just watched Thin Blue Line. It's ok? Nowhere near as good as jinx
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Well, it depends on how you assess "as good as." First, you have to concede that in terms of craft you're comparing a low-budget doc feature from the 80s to a reaalllly well-funded doc miniseries for prestige television in 2015. Thin Blue Line's stylistic influence on The Jinx, as well as a healthy chunk of documentary stateside and abroad, is undeniable. Morris completely changed the game with his narrative style, committing to the elusive notion of 'truth' without worrying about some cold delivery of 'fact.' The beauty of his re-enactments as documentary tools is that they're all lies. They work together to prove the inconsistencies of the Randall Adams case. The Jinx follows suit and it's pretty incredible. I don't know if comparing the two in terms of 'quality' is as interesting as understanding them as part of the same nonfiction discourse in presenting true crime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Kull the Conqueror posted:Thin Blue Line's stylistic influence on The Jinx, as well as a healthy chunk of documentary stateside and abroad, is undeniable. I'd be prepared to argue that documentaries as we know them today probably wouldn't exist without The Thin Blue Line. We would probably still be watching talking heads in an interview format. There were plenty of great documentaries before it, but perhaps with the exception of Grey Gardens and F For Fake (but that's not really the same thing), documentaries didn't use cinematic stylings effectively until The Thin Blue Line came along.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
InfiniteZero posted:documentaries didn't use cinematic stylings effectively until The Thin Blue Line came along. I think there's too much history to effectively toss that wide of a net in an American context and especially so in a global context. Thin Blue Line was, doubtless, a game-changer, but it was also part of a long tradition of documentary filmmaking over the decades working independently to experiment with form and content.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Kull the Conqueror posted:I think there's too much history to effectively toss that wide of a net in an American context and especially so in a global context. Thin Blue Line was, doubtless, a game-changer, but it was also part of a long tradition of documentary filmmaking over the decades working independently to experiment with form and content. Well, outside of F For Fake and Grey Gardens, can you provide examples of documentaries that were doing cinematic style reconstructions and specifically cinematic camera techniques throughout prior to Thin Blue Line? The only exceptions I can come up with are the first couple of documentaries Morris made before Thin Blue Line but I don't believe those had cinematic recreations in them. Also obviously before that you wouldn't see the interrotron technique because Morris literally invented that device so his documentaries would have a sense of direct address rather than a traditional two way interview style. Even Werner Herzog changed up his documentary style as a response to Morris (as well as having to eat his own shoe). I believe that the style of Thin Blue Line is the origin of the style of most modern documentaries (of course there are still traditional style documentaries, which aren't nearly as popular, and also the confrontational Michael Moore style which is its own thing and unrelated to The Jinx in most respects as well). InfiniteZero fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Mar 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
InfiniteZero posted:Well, outside of F For Fake and Grey Gardens, can you provide examples of documentaries that were doing cinematic style reconstructions and specifically cinematic camera techniques throughout prior to Thin Blue Line? Can you be more specific? I think I'm following you with regards to the re-enactments but I'm not sure what you mean by 'specifically cinematic camera techniques.' Nanook of the North (1922) was almost entirely made up of reconstructions of authentic events. Man With a Movie Camera (1929) brought modernism to documentary technique. Chris Marker's entire career happened before 1988. Night and Fog was 1955. There are a zillion examples.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
When you discuss bring cinematic style to documentaries, are you referring exclusively to re-enactments? As Kull mentioned, Vertov (and other Soviets) and the city symphony filmmakers all had employed mobile cameras in the silent era. Robert Flaherty, for whatever criticisms you may have of his documentary ethics, was shooting in a way that would have passed the studios' demands. The Thin Blue Line is still, of course, incredibly important.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
One thing we can say for sure, Errol Morris made some fantastic beer commercials.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Did he make the beer blowjob commercial?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Mike_V posted:Robert Flaherty, for whatever criticisms you may have of his documentary ethics, was shooting in a way that would have passed the studios' demands. Flaherty also deserves somewhat of a pass since the concept of the documentary film as we understand it today didn't quite exist yet. He still made some sketchy choices, sure, but Nanook is more of a proto-documentary IMO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Did he make the beer blowjob commercial? Not familiar with that one, his ads are very...Errol Morris-y: http://www.errolmorris.com/commercials/miller.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
InfiniteZero posted:Well, outside of F For Fake and Grey Gardens, can you provide examples of documentaries that were doing cinematic style reconstructions and specifically cinematic camera techniques throughout prior to Thin Blue Line? The only exceptions I can come up with are the first couple of documentaries Morris made before Thin Blue Line but I don't believe those had cinematic recreations in them. Cooper and Schoedsack's Grass from 1925 qualifies. Awesome movie too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
InfiniteZero posted:Also obviously before that you wouldn't see the interrotron technique because Morris literally invented that device so his documentaries would have a sense of direct address rather than a traditional two way interview style. TIL that Autocue is a brand and not the name of a piece of equipment. This sort of movie making stuff is fascinating. I couldn't think of anything more awkward than talking straight into a camera, especially one without a person behind it. Is this the same sort of technology that HBO uses for the Hard Knocks/Winter Classic talking heads bits where they are staring straight at the camera but not quite?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
I definitely had the impression Durst thought he could put his version of events over in the interviews because of what an incredible tool Jarecki comes off as. I mean even the 'smoking gun' letter for comparison was handed to him on a platter. If not for Sareb, this documentary would've ended with a big unsatisfying wet fart.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
Just finished this after 3 nights of binging hard, and gently caress. I knew something was up from watching Real Time with Bill Maher a week or two ago and him being like "these guys actually caught him with their show, go HBO!" but man.... that final hot mic scene was really disturbing. It was like listening to the demon riding around on his soul bubble up from within and growling about what an idiot he'd been. That was loving dark.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
AwkwardKnob posted:Just finished this after 3 nights of binging hard, and gently caress. I knew something was up from watching Real Time with Bill Maher a week or two ago and him being like "these guys actually caught him with their show, go HBO!" but man.... that final hot mic scene was really disturbing. It was like listening to the demon riding around on his soul bubble up from within and growling about what an idiot he'd been. That was loving dark. He was literally having a conversation back and forth with himself and responding to himself, the guy is nuts. And that burping thing when Jarecki first brings out that irrefutable evidence. Durst is trying to make excuses and he's choking up and burping into the mic... that was probably the most uncomfortable 20-ish minutes I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Lots of people talk to themselves. In fact most people do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
^^^^ Most of us do talk to ourselves, but why the hell wouldn't he get out of there first. Go to the bathroom, and get the gently caress out. Do not stick around, it's time make a quick escape. I'm not even sure it hubris as much as it's just not understanding the situation and knowing when to retreat. Go home and talk to yourself. Literally, take 10 seconds and get out of the room and then you can talk to yourself all you want. Ave Azaria posted:It was a "Don't do it. Think of our son" kinda thing. His mother's suicide definitely stood out to me as the oddest thread that wasn't explored. Perhaps there just wasn't much more to be said about it, but it seems drat strange that the father would wake up his son to wave to mommy. Perhaps the father really was trying to talk her down...but I don't know anyone who would bring a child into that situation. The way Bob told the story the whole situation sounded strangely calm, you would think that people would be freaking out. Instead, it sounds like the whole ordeal lasted for some time before she jumped/fell. All of this goes back to what Bob's nephew says, it's this WASP attitude of "we don't talk about unpleasant things, just ignore them and pretend they didn't happen" that deeply bothers me. And I will echo the point that others have made, the bathroom "confession" feels like it could be debated by a truly skilled defense attorney. When he says "Killed them all, of course." I definitely did not take it literally. More telling to me were the facts that Bob almost pukes on himself when he's confronted with the letter (he saw it coming, but by then it was too late) and his statement of "There it is, they got you." in the bathroom. Like someone else said, if this had been a movie the last six minutes would have caused some serious eye rolling because it just seems too convenient. I shotgunned this show and my thinking on Bob evolved eventually to the conclusion that he's dumb like a fox. The first few episodes he just seems so clueless and spacey, not to mention meek, that murdering three people seems pretty crazy. But then as the series continued I began to think that a majority of it was an act. He definitely had issues and I don't think he was a genius, but he almost certainly had a strong education, comes from an intelligent family, and seems like he was a legit competition for his brother until Bob's obvious craziness pushed Doug into the #1 slot. Here's an easy comparison: In episodes 1-3 I was thinking he was Fredo to Michael Corleone, but from episode 4 on I think he's closer to Sonny Corleone. Fredo legitimately was not very smart due to being clearly handicapped, Sonny (Bob) was smart but undone by his hot headed nature, Michael (Doug) was very intelligent and had ice in his veins. SpitztheGreat fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
When people talk about Bob being charming, for me part of the charm was how not-smooth he was. He's not like a super manipulative guy you would never ever guess is a serial killer and leaves no clues. He says and does the wrong poo poo all the time. "Why would your brother hire a bodyguard to protect himself from you?" "Because he's a pussy." "What I thought I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." "Everyone but me blinks weird." If he were not guilty and just unlucky, then it'd funny that such bad luck would happen to someone who would basically incriminate themselves based on how oddly they behaved. He's not too obsessed with getting people on his side and I thought that, in a way, made him more relateable than some guy who had a perfect, logical, amicable response for every accusation. Also when watching, I was pretty sure Rob was guilty but not 100%--at least early on when there was time to reveal more suspects and stuff like that. But I can't believe I never caught on to Bob calling the guy's body he cut up a 'cadaver' and the note about the dead woman's house having a 'cadaver.' It stood out as weird both times but I didn't make the connection. Though I guess the investigators must feel pretty dumb for never really looking for Bob Durst's block letters to compare to the letter. Though I definitely thought they matched, I didn't think they were 100% super-the-same like some people on the show seemed to. The Ls were different and stuff (but the distinct Ns should have given him away a bit and led to further investigation at the time if they had any basis for comparison around.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
Metropolis posted:He's not too obsessed with getting people on his side and I thought that, in a way, made him more relateable than some guy who had a perfect, logical, amicable response for every accusation. (I mean, other than money and racism.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
Metropolis posted:But I can't believe I never caught on to Bob calling the guy's body he cut up a 'cadaver' and the note about the dead woman's house having a 'cadaver.' It stood out as weird both times but I didn't make the connection. Wow nice. Kathie's friends called that language out with regards to the letter, but I didn't connect it to the Galveston trial footage until you just said it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
I watched this movie The Barber the other day. It stars Scott Glenn and he had to be basing his performance partly on Durst.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
I just watched this and the story is compelling but the filmmaker is slimy and uses some really hacky on-the-nose editing at certain points that don't do justice to the weightiness of the material he's working with. He's lucky he stumbled on to something big because otherwise it would have been poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Regarding Durst's mother's suicide, his brother Douglas has said it didn't happen quite that way. He said all the kids were woken up but were taken to a neighbour's house instead. If that's true, possibly Bob was conflating the real experience of being woken up to leave with the news of his mother's death. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2015/01/8561332/durst-says-brother-lies-about-mothers-death-hbo-show
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 10:00
|
|
|
cenotaph posted:I just watched this and the story is compelling but the filmmaker is slimy and uses some really hacky on-the-nose editing at certain points that don't do justice to the weightiness of the material he's working with. He's lucky he stumbled on to something big because otherwise it would have been poo poo. I feel like a lot of good documentaries happen by accident. Dear Zachary, for example, is amazing and something insane happens while the director is driving across the country and filming people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
When I think back on Dear Zachary, I always remember two things. How crushed my soul was at the end of the thing and how silly the high pitched courtroom testimony was with the cut out mouths like something out of South Park.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
It was silly, and it's one of the elements that reflects the creator of 'Dear Zachary' couldn't even attempt to conceal his own hyper-emotional hatred, frustration, bitterness and anguish about losing his best friend which basically violates the cardinal rule about good impartial documentary filmmaking. That being said it actually sort of works because of the chaos of the story and how insane he must have been going filming, sorting, cataloging, and editing those hundreds of hours of footage that had to be intensely gutwrenching to him. To me, the part where he most lets his restraint dissipate is during the 3rd act reveal with what amounts to a sudden primal scream encapsulating all his rage without warning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
DumbWhiteGuy posted:I feel like a lot of good documentaries happen by accident. Dear Zachary, for example, is amazing and something insane happens while the director is driving across the country and filming people. So I decided to try this movie on a whim because of you and holy gently caress. That was one of the most profoundly disturbing and moving things I've witnessed. I mean god drat, dude. Thank you so much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Friendly Factory posted:So I decided to try this movie on a whim because of you and holy gently caress. That was one of the most profoundly disturbing and moving things I've witnessed. I mean god drat, dude. Thank you so much. I'll never forget that I was watching it with my wife and she was kind of half paying attention, half playing on her phone when that one part happens and she was like "uh was that real, did that just happen??" Also there is a small follow up video on YouTube that kind of wraps up the ending if you are interested. It's probably worth the watch too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Mind linking it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
cenotaph posted:Mind linking it? My bad, I was on mobile earlier. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR2o8-0bMlc
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
DumbWhiteGuy posted:My bad, I was on mobile earlier. That's a pretty great positive end result from the film. Doesn't change the past, but could help prevent what had happened from occurring in the future. That's one of the things that I was so surprised by in the Durst case with Morris Black. His apartment is full of blood and he's living in disguise under a fake name and they still allow him to post bail? Noticed Adam Yauch in the special thanks and thought, MCA? Nah, probably a different guy with the same name. Nope, it is the Beastie Boy himself. Other special thanks include Dan Berger and David Fenkel from MCA's independent film distributor, Oscilloscope Laboratories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscilloscope_Laboratories
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Just caught up with this show. Having heard that there was supposed to be a shocking conclusion, I was sure the twist was going to be that the goatee guy is actually the murderer. Bob is of course a dumbass for doing the interview, he really should've listened to the lawyers who get paid big bucks to keep him out of jail. However it seems like he could still get out of it unless LAPD have dug up something serious.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Did you not watch the 4th and 5th episodes? It's the letter, which matches the letter at the scene of the crime. The one that made Bob start to throw up in his mouth.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
When they showed the limbless torso it took so long to work out that that was what I was looking at I just found it weird. Being on the jury for a brutal murder case must be awful
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
When Bob was talking about the timeline of his travels through California in December 2000, he seemed to dismiss the idea that he could have been in LA at the time of Berman's murder, saying that the timeline didn't account for him needing to be back in northern california again (at the place he rented the car from) and thus was impossible. I don't remember this being part of the show's sequence of known events, so am I right in assuming it was just some weird thing he made up to handwave the question? If so I find it a little odd it went unchallenged or asked about further.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Blasmeister posted:When Bob was talking about the timeline of his travels through California in December 2000, he seemed to dismiss the idea that he could have been in LA at the time of Berman's murder, saying that the timeline didn't account for him needing to be back in northern california again (at the place he rented the car from) and thus was impossible. I don't remember this being part of the show's sequence of known events, so am I right in assuming it was just some weird thing he made up to handwave the question? If so I find it a little odd it went unchallenged or asked about further. He said something like "I would have had to leave Northern California and be back like 2 days later! Ridiculous"
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
"What would even be the point of going somewhere for just two days? Murdering someone? Pfffft..."
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jan 15, 2025 20:00 |
|
|
Also he just got married. So what do you do when you get married? Take a trip by yourself to somewhere you've never been for a couple of weeks.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:28
|
|