tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post8254722123973638310..comments2024-03-12T12:38:23.542-04:00Comments on The Kind of Face You Hate: 210 Has a Good Attitudebill r.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-58864059789009628162013-01-11T16:22:24.418-05:002013-01-11T16:22:24.418-05:00Yeah, I guess I am. Or rather, I'm saying that...Yeah, I guess I am. Or rather, I'm saying that since it's impossible to include absolutely everything lawyers bring up in a long, involved trial in a single documentary, even a long one like THE STAIRCASE, the best you can hope for is that the omitted stuff isn't all that important. No documentary is perfect.<br /><br />You know, to some extent I agree with you, though. I've always said that you'll find more truth on the fiction shelves in your local bookstore than in the nonfiction section, because 99% of all nonfiction is biased one way or another. Nonfiction is just some schmuck's narrative that links all the known facts about a case (or at least all the known facts the author wants you to know). That being said, I can't say nonfiction (or documentary film) is of no value at all. You simply have to view the material with a certain skepticism, and perhaps engage with the material outside the frame -- on the Internet, say -- to make up your mind about it. <br /><br />As I said, there may have been perfectly good reasons for leaving out the evidence you cite. Clearly Peterson's trial had more than its fair share of failures. To wit: right now (at this moment) Peterson is out of jail on bond awaiting a new trial, so ordered because a judge agreed that Peterson's original trial included deliberately misleading incriminating testimony. Peterson will get his chance to persuade a jury he's innocent once again, and the original filmmaker Jean Xavier de Lestrade has vowed to cover the new trial too, for THE STAIRCASE 2.<br /><br />So, you know, get excited and stuff. :)C Morrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-73488335879006548892013-01-11T12:33:19.735-05:002013-01-11T12:33:19.735-05:00You don't think that a filmmaker leaving incri...You don't think that a filmmaker leaving incriminating evidence out of a film about a man accused of murder, a man who even you admit the filmmaker portrays as innocent from his point of view, is not doing something horribly unethical and dishonest?<br /><br />The fact that I had questions after watching it isn't a tribute to Lestrade, but an indication that he's a bad liar.bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-24900745234461887502013-01-11T10:46:41.380-05:002013-01-11T10:46:41.380-05:00By definition all documentary filmmakers must choo...By definition all documentary filmmakers must choose which information to include in their films and which to exclude. The fact that some possibly incriminating evidence was omitted from THE STAIRCASE, then, is not necessarily proof that Peterson is guilty, or that the filmmakers were deliberately trying to stack the deck for the viewers. There may be perfectly good reasons why that information was left out. <br /><br />Along similar lines, over the years Joe Berlinger was accused many times of omitting incriminating evidence in his PARADISE LOST films -- and on Internet forums many people took these omissions to be evidence that the WM3 were in fact guilty and that viewers had been duped. A careful examination of the omitted info, however, shows that Berlinger excluded these pieces because they were for a number of reasons less persuasive than other facts, and, well, you just can't include everything.<br /><br />Errol Morris's recent book about Jeffery MacDonald is another case in point: Morris is persuasive that MacDonald is innocent, but a host of other writers and documentarians were equally persuasive otherwise. Who can say for sure who is right?<br /><br />I enjoyed THE STAIRCASE, and I agree it's hard not to come away with the impression that the filmmakers thought Peterson was innocent. However, after viewing it, I was left with nagging questions, too, and ultimately felt that I couldn't decide one way or another about his guilt. If the best documentary is an unbiased documentary, then I suppose this reaction is about the best one could hope for, under the circumstances.C Morrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-84503917722546362742013-01-09T14:06:44.992-05:002013-01-09T14:06:44.992-05:00Strange that I remember Peterson coming off as rea...Strange that I remember Peterson coming off as really creepy in "Staircase". Since I'm local to the case I might have mixed it up with the tone of news coverage.silberpetenoreply@blogger.com