How much truth is in the truth?

Title: How much truth is in the truth?

Name: Elizabeth Moll

Personal Response to Film:

                 Errol Morris directed a classic expository and interactive documentary in The Thin Blue Line that mimics a defense and juror relationship between the film and its’ audience. In general, I like documentary films or television shows. However, I was really indifferent to The Thin Blue Line. Part of what makes a documentary stand out from others is its ability to convey a message that’s important during a meaningful time. You have to catch the audience at just the right moment. For instance, Making a Murderer (a close in comparison criminal injustice-type story) was more interesting, but mostly because I’m from Wisconsin where the events had taken place. That same notion is true for The Thin Blue Line. The biggest reason I was interested in the film at all was because I used to live Texas, close to Vidor where one of the “characters” had come from. I felt more of a connection to the film, because I know what injustice looks like in that area. If I were to have watched this in 1988 when the documentary came out, it might have had a larger impact on me because pointing out the injustice and corruption in the legal system was less common during that time than it is now. So needless to say, I’m not really all that surprised that someone was wrongly prosecuted in the murder case of officer Robert Wood. This goes to prove that many documentaries are great in their time, but are not usually deemed timeless classics. 

                It’s hard to get past the slightly uninteresting topic of The Thin Blue Line, but when I do I really enjoy the film elements that Morris uses to expose to truth, or the sort of truth. There is this interesting subtextual purpose of developing the film. It’s easy to be drawn to the idea that Morris is trying to expose how the criminal justice system is flawed by using the murder of officer Wood as an example. But, it’s not what he’s trying to expose as much as it’s how he’s exposing it. He uses the

film in a way to make the audience feel like they are jury members. Morris being the defense attorney, defending Randall Adams. The whole film is setting Adams up as an innocent man. When the film was being taped, both Adams and David Harris (likely, but un-convicted actual murderer) were in prison. Yet Adams looked significantly more done up than Harris. Adams had on what looked like normal clothes. Closer examination revealed it was likely a white prison uniform due to his name above the chest pocket. However, my first time watching the film, I didn't even notice that. Harris, on the other hand, had a bright orange prison jumpsuit on. A clear iconic prison outfit. Already, in the first few minutes, we have visual clues that set up Adams as innocent and

Harris as guilty. Although nothing has been said that is “untrue”, there is a perception of truth being told here. That perception is continued throughout the film, which is exactly what Morris is trying to portray. Morris genuinely believes Adams is innocent, but he’s making a statement with his film technique and film noir elements. He’s saying that it’s easy to believe something when it’s set up so perfectly. It’s hard to stand up and question the “perception” of truth, when everyone else is following along with it.

                I connected the film noir techniques Morris uses with those common of supernatural recollection documentary shows like The Dead Files and Paranormal Witness. I have no aversion to using film noir elements in documentaries, but the recreation of events using those elements is clearly overdone and even a bit tacky at times. This adds to the lack of believability or at least adds to the indication that what is being watched is simply a perception of truth. I think if Morris really wanted to show the events objectively, he would have only included images and/or video from the actual crime scene or criminal evidence. This confirms my impression of the subtextual meaning

being linked to the way people perceive things and how that relates to the criminal justice system. Morris directed a solid documentary, if that’s what he’s trying to prove. It’s all the more reason we should remain critical of what we see, and question how much truth is actually in the “truth”.

Summary of Critical Article:

                 Lucien J. Flores wrote a critical analysis sweeping The Thin Blue Line for Morris’s hidden message that affects and examines mental constructs in his article titled “The Thin Blue Line and the Ambiguous Truth”. The article, short yet revealing, inspects Morris’ film for its presentation of the truth. Flores writes, “This ‘truth’ revealed by the end of the film is simply Morris’ interpretation and presentation of the events, yet, he successfully convinces audience members to believe him” (Flores, 2012, p. 3). This compelling statement discloses the criticism and praise Flores gives Morris on his ability to offer the facts in a way to “convince” the audience of one thing or the other. Flores gathers a plethora of evidence that Morris is not objectively creating this film, but using it to persuade others. However, even Morris “recognizes the pitfalls of the medium such as the fact that truth cannot accurately be depicted with film” (Flores, 2012, p. 3). Flores goes on to cite Richard K. Sherwin’s article about schemas and scripts within the realm of mental constructs. The suggestion, is that through careful examination of such mental constructs, there is the ability to see how multiple versions of the same story can lead to various conclusions and thus interpretations. Flores uses this information to propose that “Morris shows how subconscious mental constructs ‘predispose us to play out certain scripts, schemata, and setreotypes’ when interpreting any story” and therefore, “wants his audience to understand that these mental constructs exist while simultaneously appealing to these same constructs” (Flores, 2012, p. 4). This analysis by Flores, more simply put, implies that Morris used the same technique in his film that he was trying to expose. In revealing this, he is proving how it works, and that it works effortlessly, so that by the end of the film the audience was sure that Randall Dale Adams was innocent.

Response to Critical Article:

I am pleased to see that Lucien J. Flores found a similar subtextual meaning within The Thin Blue Line that I did. Flores’ article was easy to read and efficiently produced his point of view in a straightforward, candid way. I feel that Flores and I picked up on the same idea that Morris constructed his film to reveal more than the corrupt criminal justice system, but also show how people can be easily persuaded in either direction of interpretation. Although our ideas were comparable, Flores laid his out effectively as he pulled from various parts of the film to add proof to his standpoint that “Morris engages in a form of reality-making” (Flores, 2012, P. 2). Many of these that I hadn’t thought of.

                One of the big choices that Morris made, that Flores points out, is his “sequencing and editing decisions that make [Emily] Miller seem unreliable and unbelievable” (Flores, 2012, p. 2). This was really interesting to me because I felt that Emily Miller kind of proved that she was

unreliable on her own. I didn’t think she really needed any help with that. However, Morris made certain filmmaking decisions to extend that argument even further, leaving the audience shaking their heads at Miller. Some of those include how the interview with Mr. Miller depicted a rather bizarre Mrs. Miller, and how (as Flores points out) Emily Miller was introduced with her obsession of crime shows. Flores even dwindles down to amplify the smaller details like the how “typical murder-mystery show music that has a circus-sounding childish quality to it” played while Miller was on screen (Flores, 2012, p. 2)

Flores deepens his analysis by dipping into the idea that Morris showed a version of the truth, or as I put it, a perception of truth. I really enjoyed how he brought up the amount of people Morris talked to and interviewed. The number of people he talked to tops over 200, interviewing 24 (Flores, 2012). Yet, we only viewed a handful. That confirms how the audience only has a partial truth. This partial truth leaves unanswered questions that the audience really doesn’t even consider. This basically strengthens Morris’ subtextual meaning that “every story is a construction, whether it is the prosecution’s interpretation of the events or that of The Thin Blue Line” (Flores, 2012, p. 3).

Flores gave a solid argument with substantial evidence to show his point of view on Morris’ film. Still, Flores didn’t really criticize Morris, but praised him; and by doing so, Flores exposes how all documentaries are really only partial truths. And I completely agree. This doesn’t mean that it is a bad thing for documentaries to be a perception of truth. It’s just revealing how so many people perceive them as whole truths; and instead, suggests that audience’s should view them understanding that they are not reality, just reality making.

Consideration of Critic’s Use of Critical Frameworks/concepts:

                Flores’s article uses the formalist approach as a foundation for a gripping analysis. He looks at many aspects of the film including the “characters”, point of view, patterns, music, etc. He encouraged viewing the film for its elements in order to perceive the hidden meaning that Morris is portraying. However, his second to last paragraph proposes that his earlier formalist approach is only the tip of the iceberg and that finding the subtextual meaning is through a deeper look into Richard Sherwins article on mental constructs. This supplements his already impressive analysis that has tangible evidence to discover Morris’s motivations behind making the 1988 film.

Film Analysis:

                In merely 15 seconds, Morris uses certain film elements to portray Emily Miller as an unreliable eye witness as Flores noted in his article on the film. I was interested in this aspect and searched for a scene that presents concrete evidence of Flores’s point of view. This scene is placed near the end of Mr. and Mrs. Miller’s recollection of events. The music, is very film noir-like and compliments the underwhelming yet eccentric Emily Miller, all the while hardly being noticed. Mrs. Miller is recalling how she was able to get a better look at the suspect, rather than her husband, saying “This is how I got such a good look”. At that moment, the camera straight cuts to an extreme close up of Miller’s eyes. By doing so, Morris is almost making a mockery of her statement and then straight cuts to a recreation of the event, giving a fairly clear image of the supposed driver that Emily Miller proposes was Randall Adams. What’s interesting here is that in this view of the driver, the person is clearly a man with curly hair, a testament that was boggled from the series of misinformation, and likely a major aspect of Adams conviction. Though, other portrayals of the same scene, different recreation, purposely hide the face and hair from the viewer. Morris seemingly uses the number one eye witness and careful represents her and her statement using elements that give the audience uncertainty. This is an aspect of his filmmaking decisions that address his subtextual meaning. Even a little doubt in her statements will go a long way. Pair it with the other interviews and multiple other facets of filmmaking elements that show Emily Miller as erratic and untrustworthy, and not a single audience member will side with her story.

References:

                Flores, L. J. (2012). “The Thin Blue line and the Ambiguous Truth.” Student Pulse, 4(05). Retrieved from http://www.studentpulse.com/a?id=640