A Thin Blue Line

3 Pages 771 Words

A Thin Blue Line

Documentary filmmakers I think are first responsible to themselves to produce a documentary that they are happy with. Second they are responsible to their audience t o produce an informative documentary. A Thin Blue Line was a good documentary I felt that it was very truthful, there was no voice over which, I, feel looses credibility and In a film like this it is very important to be credible because the audience has to decide for themselves that Randal Adams was innocent.
The film A Thin Blue Line almost fits all five of Michael Weinberger requirements for it to be a documentary. Its does not satisfy the first requirement “It must attempt to tell a true story in a non dramatic fashion” this is why the film was made- to tell everyone what really happened that night and Morris did it in a dramatic way. It was everyone telling their side of the story, what I like was the way that they just came straight out to the viewers and tell the viewer that this man was wrongly convicted then backs it up with evidence.
This leads to the second requirement “ it must attempt to do so by presenting only factual information” he does a good job re-creating the facts. I think that this was hard to do for a movie like this because they are only interviewing the people who were involved and it is their point of view so the director does not know what is factual and what is made up.
The third requirement “ it must not attempt to re-create the truth” the filmmakers did not follow their rule all the way. At points in the movie they cut to a flash back of what that person said had happened for example the recreation of the many ways that the officer was shot. They had different views different actions and I fell that since they re-created these scenes they were trying to re-create the truth for the viewer. These re-creations I think were necessary and were also used to give us the viewer a picture of what was being said by t...