“The Thin Blue Line” is a documentary that centers on “the truth.” It explores how the stories of witnesses of a crime had different stories and how some of them could not be true due to the variations. The main ethical issue is the use of reenactment in the film. With the different stories of each witness, the reenactment of the crime would change according to the story being described. So the over-bearing question in the documentary is: Did Errol Morris step over any ethical line by recreating the memories of the witnesses involved.
In my opinion, Morris did not cross any ethical line by using reenactment in his film. Being the film’s director, he had the creative control over how the film is shot and how certain events happened based off the recollections of the witnesses, even though it may not be 100% true. It’s acceptable to put your own style (director’s style) into a documentary that tells the “truth” if the visuals are based off of the subject’s opinions. Also, Morris has no idea of knowing how the events played out the night of the murder. All he has to go off of is the subject’s memories and assumptions of how the event happened.
The documentary “The Thin Blue Line” focuses on proving a wrongly accused man is innocent. Morris collects the accounts of the witnesses to the case. Then uses their reports to recapture the events of what occurred that night in 1965. The reenactments have small differences based on what the witness saw that night. Some of the witnesses in the case gave false testaments. Morris’ reenactments help prove which accounts are credible and which are false.
Morris’ documentary seemed to poke fun at the court system, where a person is innocent until proven guilty by hard evidence. I did not think that Morris crossed any ethical lines with his use of reenactments in the documentary. Morris’ use of reenactments helps viewers judge for themselves, what they believe is the truth.
"The Thin Blue Line" had a major focus on the truth and how it can be distorted. It used reenactments as a visual aid to help support its cause. I feel that this was not a tactic used to misinform viewers or to portray the characters in a negative light. These reenactments make the film more understandable. The reenactments seemed to hold true to what was being told and did not make impact viewer's opinions on the case.
Mighty Times: Volume 2: The Children's March also used reenactments. However, they made no distinction between the reenactments and actual footage. It is more of an ethical concern for viewers because they did display characters in a positive light throughout the film. Such accurate reenactments can be a bit misleading,but I feel the directors had their hearts in the right place. They were only trying to make the story easier to understand through the use of reenactments. I think they definitely should had made note of their use of reenactments.
In the documentary "Thin Blue Line" the filmmaker is focused on proving "the truth" or his version of the truth to the audience. Randall Adams is accused of the murder of a police officer in a small Texas community. Although throughout the film, Morris wants you to believe that David Harris is actually guilty through reenactments that were created to paint a picture for everyone watching the film.
The biggest ethical issue with the film is the reenactments because Morris could be showcasing the footage for us from a different standpoint that makes Adams look innocent. I do think there is a slight chance that Morris wanted us to see reenactments take place from his point-of-view but the footage could be accurately described by what was noted in the police report. We will never know. Personally, I don't think there is a problem with the scenario if, in fact, Adams is innocent. If he is really guilty then the director did an excellent job of proving his innocence and fooling everyone watching and giving statements.
"The Thin Blue Line" is a documentary by Errol Morris that focuses on the murder of a police officer and the attempt to convict the man responsible. It is not until the end of the film that the viewer discovers that the innocent man portray throughout the film was truly innocent and had been wrongly convicted. In the film, Morris used reenactments to show what happened the night of the murder. In my opinion, this tactic was not used to confuse viewers, but it was used to help them understand what happened and how often the "truth" changed throughout the course of the investigation. I didn't think there was anything ethically wrong with Morris using reenactments during the film because it did not alter the story that he was originally following.
Reenactments can be a good thing to add to a documentary when they are not altering the truth of the story, but they can also give a viewer false information if used improperly. For example, in "The Children's March," there were reenactments used that were not factual at all which lead the viewer to later question everything they had seen before. After winning awards and then facing criticism that some of the clips in the film had been actors doing reenactments, changed had to be made to the film so that it informed the audience when a clip was real or not. If a documentary is using reenactments I don't think it becomes ethically wrong until the audience gets taken advantage of with false information that makes them feel one way or another about the film.
"The Thin Blue Line" was a great example of finding the truth. As the film reenacts the supposed story about a cop killing in Dallas, Texas, it shows the different stories people say was the truth. In today's world the cops now have cameras on the cars, making it easy to see any situation, but this documentary is a great example of the struggles not only police went through back in the day, but the struggle of making a fair and truthful documentary. As the victim of the killing finally revealed the truth, so did the director with the right reenactment. But truth is a powerful thing. The only people that were there or "witnessed it" have different stories. I believe what makes this documentary truthful is the people in the documentary that told their stories.
I actually disagree with the article. In the article it says that a documentary is trying to persuade the audience rather than tell the truth. And while this may be true in some cases, like Fahrenheit 9/11, the majority of documentaries sole purpose is to give the real side of the story. While it calls it an "expressive art", I believe it is a truthful art. Documentaries are there to give the audience the real side of the story. Whether it be reenactments or not, it is there to share the truth.
Much of the power of film lies in its ability to portray events visually. When you read a book, or a play, your imagination allows you to create your own interpretation of what happens, and what things look like. If you see the film adaptation, your vision is replaced by the events you see on screen. The director’s vision determines everything. You take what appears on screen as the truth of that universe.
This, to me, is the ethical issue in using recreation with real events. People have trouble watching a story based on true events and understanding that the recreation may not be an accurate representation of what happened. This is particularly true of The Thin Blue Line, where artistic license is clearly taken. CU’s of frightened eyes and countless gunshot cutaways detract from what the story is trying to get across.
The recreations no doubt make this a more entertaining film, but there is an ethical issue in recreating these moments. To film events based on what interviewees say misrepresents the truth. It creates a false reality where the viewer sees as real a story that could be entirely fabricated by the person telling it. The way the scenes of recreation change as the film progresses and based on who is telling the story makes this more ethically redeemable, but there’s still an issue with it. It's not the most dire ethical problem, but if a documentary filmmaker has an obligation to the truth he shouldn't recreate events that don't accurately reflect reality.
In the film "The Thin Blue Line" we are in the search for "truth" in the case of a wrongly accused, and persecuted, man. Although the reenactments were annoying, it did help us see everyones side of the shooting. I really liked this film, especially because I like murder mysteries, so it kept my attention. The only ethical issue that comes to mind is the fact that the director can make the audience believe what is the truth through editing. I really liked all of the people that he interviewed, all of them having different versions of the story.
In the end, I really liked this film. And although the director could make us believe whatever he wants us to through editing, I still think that the man was wrongly accused.
I really enjoyed this film, first and foremost because I love anything and everything about Dallas Texas, even if someone is wrongfully convicted of capital murder and later put on death row, to be released right before he was to be put to death.
I also really enjoy this film because it is made in such a way that we are literally seeing what the people who were interviewed were describing, it was a spot on reenactment of what they perceived and were saying, not necessarily what ACTUALLY happened but overall the film was one of the better ones of the semester and it had my attention the entire film.
“The Thin Blue Line” is a documentary that centers on “the truth.” It explores how the stories of witnesses of a crime had different stories and how some of them could not be true due to the variations. The main ethical issue is the use of reenactment in the film. With the different stories of each witness, the reenactment of the crime would change according to the story being described. So the over-bearing question in the documentary is: Did Errol Morris step over any ethical line by recreating the memories of the witnesses involved.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Morris did not cross any ethical line by using reenactment in his film. Being the film’s director, he had the creative control over how the film is shot and how certain events happened based off the recollections of the witnesses, even though it may not be 100% true. It’s acceptable to put your own style (director’s style) into a documentary that tells the “truth” if the visuals are based off of the subject’s opinions. Also, Morris has no idea of knowing how the events played out the night of the murder. All he has to go off of is the subject’s memories and assumptions of how the event happened.
The documentary “The Thin Blue Line” focuses on proving a wrongly accused man is innocent. Morris collects the accounts of the witnesses to the case. Then uses their reports to recapture the events of what occurred that night in 1965. The reenactments have small differences based on what the witness saw that night. Some of the witnesses in the case gave false testaments. Morris’ reenactments help prove which accounts are credible and which are false.
ReplyDeleteMorris’ documentary seemed to poke fun at the court system, where a person is innocent until proven guilty by hard evidence. I did not think that Morris crossed any ethical lines with his use of reenactments in the documentary. Morris’ use of reenactments helps viewers judge for themselves, what they believe is the truth.
"The Thin Blue Line" had a major focus on the truth and how it can be distorted. It used reenactments as a visual aid to help support its cause. I feel that this was not a tactic used to misinform viewers or to portray the characters in a negative light. These reenactments make the film more understandable. The reenactments seemed to hold true to what was being told and did not make impact viewer's opinions on the case.
ReplyDeleteMighty Times: Volume 2: The Children's March also used reenactments. However, they made no distinction between the reenactments and actual footage. It is more of an ethical concern for viewers because they did display characters in a positive light throughout the film. Such accurate reenactments can be a bit misleading,but I feel the directors had their hearts in the right place. They were only trying to make the story easier to understand through the use of reenactments. I think they definitely should had made note of their use of reenactments.
In the documentary "Thin Blue Line" the filmmaker is focused on proving "the truth" or his version of the truth to the audience. Randall Adams is accused of the murder of a police officer in a small Texas community. Although throughout the film, Morris wants you to believe that David Harris is actually guilty through reenactments that were created to paint a picture for everyone watching the film.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest ethical issue with the film is the reenactments because Morris could be showcasing the footage for us from a different standpoint that makes Adams look innocent. I do think there is a slight chance that Morris wanted us to see reenactments take place from his point-of-view but the footage could be accurately described by what was noted in the police report. We will never know. Personally, I don't think there is a problem with the scenario if, in fact, Adams is innocent. If he is really guilty then the director did an excellent job of proving his innocence and fooling everyone watching and giving statements.
"The Thin Blue Line" is a documentary by Errol Morris that focuses on the murder of a police officer and the attempt to convict the man responsible. It is not until the end of the film that the viewer discovers that the innocent man portray throughout the film was truly innocent and had been wrongly convicted. In the film, Morris used reenactments to show what happened the night of the murder. In my opinion, this tactic was not used to confuse viewers, but it was used to help them understand what happened and how often the "truth" changed throughout the course of the investigation. I didn't think there was anything ethically wrong with Morris using reenactments during the film because it did not alter the story that he was originally following.
ReplyDeleteReenactments can be a good thing to add to a documentary when they are not altering the truth of the story, but they can also give a viewer false information if used improperly. For example, in "The Children's March," there were reenactments used that were not factual at all which lead the viewer to later question everything they had seen before. After winning awards and then facing criticism that some of the clips in the film had been actors doing reenactments, changed had to be made to the film so that it informed the audience when a clip was real or not. If a documentary is using reenactments I don't think it becomes ethically wrong until the audience gets taken advantage of with false information that makes them feel one way or another about the film.
"The Thin Blue Line" was a great example of finding the truth. As the film reenacts the supposed story about a cop killing in Dallas, Texas, it shows the different stories people say was the truth. In today's world the cops now have cameras on the cars, making it easy to see any situation, but this documentary is a great example of the struggles not only police went through back in the day, but the struggle of making a fair and truthful documentary. As the victim of the killing finally revealed the truth, so did the director with the right reenactment. But truth is a powerful thing. The only people that were there or "witnessed it" have different stories. I believe what makes this documentary truthful is the people in the documentary that told their stories.
ReplyDeleteI actually disagree with the article. In the article it says that a documentary is trying to persuade the audience rather than tell the truth. And while this may be true in some cases, like Fahrenheit 9/11, the majority of documentaries sole purpose is to give the real side of the story. While it calls it an "expressive art", I believe it is a truthful art. Documentaries are there to give the audience the real side of the story. Whether it be reenactments or not, it is there to share the truth.
Much of the power of film lies in its ability to portray events visually. When you read a book, or a play, your imagination allows you to create your own interpretation of what happens, and what things look like. If you see the film adaptation, your vision is replaced by the events you see on screen. The director’s vision determines everything. You take what appears on screen as the truth of that universe.
ReplyDeleteThis, to me, is the ethical issue in using recreation with real events. People have trouble watching a story based on true events and understanding that the recreation may not be an accurate representation of what happened. This is particularly true of The Thin Blue Line, where artistic license is clearly taken. CU’s of frightened eyes and countless gunshot cutaways detract from what the story is trying to get across.
The recreations no doubt make this a more entertaining film, but there is an ethical issue in recreating these moments. To film events based on what interviewees say misrepresents the truth. It creates a false reality where the viewer sees as real a story that could be entirely fabricated by the person telling it. The way the scenes of recreation change as the film progresses and based on who is telling the story makes this more ethically redeemable, but there’s still an issue with it. It's not the most dire ethical problem, but if a documentary filmmaker has an obligation to the truth he shouldn't recreate events that don't accurately reflect reality.
In the film "The Thin Blue Line" we are in the search for "truth" in the case of a wrongly accused, and persecuted, man. Although the reenactments were annoying, it did help us see everyones side of the shooting. I really liked this film, especially because I like murder mysteries, so it kept my attention. The only ethical issue that comes to mind is the fact that the director can make the audience believe what is the truth through editing. I really liked all of the people that he interviewed, all of them having different versions of the story.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, I really liked this film. And although the director could make us believe whatever he wants us to through editing, I still think that the man was wrongly accused.
I really enjoyed this film, first and foremost because I love anything and everything about Dallas Texas, even if someone is wrongfully convicted of capital murder and later put on death row, to be released right before he was to be put to death.
ReplyDeleteI also really enjoy this film because it is made in such a way that we are literally seeing what the people who were interviewed were describing, it was a spot on reenactment of what they perceived and were saying, not necessarily what ACTUALLY happened but overall the film was one of the better ones of the semester and it had my attention the entire film.