|
Hmmm, final seconds aside I don't know that I liked that last episode, especially given the timeline issues. The first four and a half hours of the show were great because of how, well, balanced they were. It was pretty clear that this was a weird guy but he pretty much painted himself as a psychopath which Jarecki balanced out by giving him the benefit of the doubt and letting him tell his side of the story and secondary details of events. It was everything that the tabloid version of the story wasn't. As soon as they made the jump in episode five from telling the story in that way to Andrew planning a caper with bank vaults and chalkboards I was worried and this episode was basically all that. Sure, it maybe pays off, but that doesn't mean its not still cheap dramatization wrung from what had previously been a classy and subtle examination. I don't know what else they could have done, but making the final episode - the episode that everyone was going to jump on the bandwagon to see, the episode that was going to go viral and hit the tabloids - all about Andrew and his dilemma and his worries seems really self-servicing to me. I was impressed that the manipulative and misaligned filmmaker of Capturing The Friedmans had evolved but now I wonder if maybe that wasn't all a ruse. I don't know. Overall it was still a great show, I just think I can probably see someone coming out in a few years with a similar expose about the lies and tricks that went into the telling of this.
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2025 21:08 |
|
|
The question has never been whether or not he's innocent, but if you can prove that he's guilty. It's inherent to the title of the show. There is evidence that links him to all of these people, evidence that points to him having motive to kill all of these people but very little in the way of incontrovertible evidence that he did, in fact kill anyone. His argument is, essentially, that he's just a Jinx, that bad things just happen to happen to those around him. We can say, well ok one false accusation, maybe that happens, but three is too many to write off. Our common sense says that he is guilty, and it says that if he is guilty of one then he is cumulatively guilty of all of them, but what can we prove? Even with the letter and confession I still don't see that you can prove anything except that he is an occasionally creepy motherfucker. I have some issues with the idea of reasonable doubt though, because I have the kind of cynical imagination that can doubt just about everything to some extent, so I don't know how any crime really gets certifiably proven. Is he guilty because he seems guilty? Because the press all says he is guilty? Or because we have facts that say only he can be guilty?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
They were only as much a part of the story as they wanted to be though. I mean, certainly you would have all of those conversations, but you only choose to shoot them, to shoot you saying 'The number one priority is Justice' and then editing an entire episode around that if you want to be a big part of the story, if you want to be having morning show interviews, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 05:47
|
|