Page 1 of 6: | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] |
Index | 60 reviews in total |
This is an extraordinary documentary in which film maker Errol Morris
shows how an innocent man was convicted of murdering a policeman while
the real murderer was let off scot free by the incompetent criminal
justice system of Dallas, Texas. The amazing thing is that Morris
demonstrates this gross miscarriage of justice in an utterly convincing
manner simply by interviewing the participants. True, he reenacts the
crime scene and flashes headlines from the newspaper stories to guide
us, but it is simply the spoken words of the real murderer, especially
in the cold-blooded, explosive audio tape that ends the film, that
demonstrate not only his guilt but his psychopathic personality. And it
is the spoken words of the defense attorneys, the rather substantial
Edith James and the withdrawing Dennis White, and the wrongfully
convicted Randall Adams that demonstrate the corrupt and incompetent
methods used by the Dallas Country justice system to bring about this
false conviction. Particularly chilling were the words of Judge Don
Metcalfe, waxing teary-eyed, as he recalls listening to the
prosecutor's summation about how society is made safe by that "thin
blue line" of cops who give their lives to protect us from criminals.
The chilling part is that while he is indulging his emotions he is
allowing the cop killer to go free and helping to convict an innocent
man. Almost as chilling in its revelation of just how perverted and
corrupt the system has become, was the report of how a paid
psychologist, as a means of justifying the death penalty, "interviewed"
innocent Randall Adams for fifteen minutes and found him to be a danger
to society, a blood-thirsty killer who would kill again.
This film will get your dander up. How the cops were so blind as to not
see that 16-year-old David Harris was a dangerous, remorseless
psychopath from the very beginning is beyond belief. He even took a
delight in bragging about his crime. As Morris suggests, it was their
desire to revenge the cop killing with the death penalty that blinded
them to the obvious. They would rather fry an innocent man than convict
the real murderer, who because of his age was not subject to the death
penalty under Texas law. When an innocent man is wrongly convicted of a
murder three things happen that are disastrous: One, an innocent man is
in jail or even executed. Two, the real guilty party is free to kill
again. And, three, the justice system is perverted. This last
consequence is perhaps the worst. When people see their police, their
courts, their judges condemning the innocent and letting the guilty
walk free, they lose faith in the system and they begin to identify
with those outside the system. They no longer trust the cops or the
courts. The people become estranged from the system and the system
becomes estranged from the people. This is the beginning of the
breakdown of society. The Dallas cops and prosecutors and the stupid
judge (David Metcalfe), who should have seen through the travesty, are
to be blamed for the fact that David Harris, after he testified for the
prosecution and was set free, did indeed kill again, as well as commit
a number of other crimes of violence.
The beautiful thing about this film is, over and above the brilliance
of its artistic construction, is that its message was so clear and so
powerful that it led to the freeing of the innocent Randall Adams.
Although the psychopathic David Harris, to my knowledge, was never
tried for the crime he committed, he is in prison for other crimes and,
it is hoped, will be there for the rest of his life. Errol Morris and
the other people who made this fine film can pride in these facts and
in knowing that they did a job that the Dallas criminal justice system
was unable to do.
(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut
to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it
at Amazon!)
The last few years have been a golden age for documentaries. For better
or worse, Michael Moore and his undeniable ability for manipulating the
cinematic medium have brought this endangered genre into theaters and
living rooms across the country. Most of today's casual moviegoers are
relatively new to the non-fiction feature. In the case of director
Errol Morris' The Thin Blue Line (1988), one film not only managed to
free an innocent man from a lifetime in prison, but it also elicited a
confession from the guilty party. After collecting dust on video
shelves for over fifteen years, this groundbreaking documentary has
finally arrived on DVD.
Unless you're a devout cinephile or a video store clerk, you have
probably never heard much about Errol Morris. As a member of the former
category, I've been a fan of his since first renting The Thin Blue Line
more than a decade ago. As I popped in that dusty VHS cassette and sat
back, I relished what many critics and documentary purists had been
hotly debating: Morris was taking the genre to exciting new places,
whether people liked it or not.
As with all successful movies, a good doc needs a good story. In 1976,
Dallas County police officer Robert Wood and his partner were
patrolling their district late one night. The two pulled a blue car
over to the side of the road, most likely to warn the driver of a
busted taillight. Moments later Officer Wood was lying on the ground,
fatally wounded by a series of gunshots. His partner quickly ran to his
aid, but was unable to accurately retain and recall certain information
about the killer's vehicle. Was it a Vega or a Comet? Did the driver
have bushy hair or a fur-lined collar? These and many other questions
emerged during the rushed investigation to bring the mysterious
cop-killer to justice.
The film itself opens more than ten years after the murder took place.
Randall Adams, an oddly charismatic good ol' boy sits before the
camera, revealing what happened that unfortunate evening in late 1976.
He admits to having shared a ride with a young kid named David Harris.
The two apparently attended a drive-in double feature, where they both
drank beer and smoked marijuana. Shortly thereafter, Adams claims to
have been dropped off at his motel for the evening. Meanwhile, Morris
shows us the aforementioned David Harris, now in his mid-20s, talking
cryptically about that night's events. This real-life Rashomon
confronts viewers with several versions of "the truth." It's unclear
whether Morris instinctively knew the truth was still out there when he
decided to pursue this project, but his previous experience as a
private investigator seems to have paid off as we witness his off-
camera interrogation of these two men.
Adams, responsible or not, was determined guilty by the courts and
sentenced to death. Despite having a police record as long as his
shadow, David Harris became the primary witness against Adams in the
case. His testimony alone might not have hung Adams, but at the last
minute a trio of eyewitnesses to the crime emerged to corroborate his
story. In the world of Errol Morris, people are a truly strange lot,
and his greatest technique is to simply let his subjects talk and talk
until their inherent weirdness becomes painfully evident. Such is the
case with the three last-minute witnesses in the Adams case. The more
we hear them speak, the greater that uneasy feeling in our stomach and
chest becomes. We are bearing witness to a catastrophic miscarriage of
justice.
Morris employs a bottomless bag of tricks in this landmark film. While
much of the film does rely on the presence of talking heads, he adds
other elements to the mix, such as old movie footage, a haunting score
by renowned composer Philip Glass, and the granddaddy of documentary
no-no's: dramatic re-enactments. The latter tends to be the most
challenged aspect of The Thin Blue Line, but Morris uses it fairly and
wisely. He tells this twisted tale in ways few people could. A shot of
a swaying timepiece or a concession stand popcorn machine suddenly
amount to much more than what we're simply seeing on the screen. All of
these pieces are being put together, little by little, in the hopes
that by the end we will see the bigger picture.
When this movie was released in 1988, it was marketed as a non-fiction
film, because the word "documentary" was thought to scare off
ticket-buyers. The studio's attempts to pass it off as a murder mystery
failed, but the movie made a minor splash once it hit video. It picked
up plenty of awards from festivals and critics groups, but the Oscars
didn't even bother nominating it. In fact, the Academy didn't so much
as nod in Morris' direction until early 2004, when they nominated The
Fog of War, his powerful, relevant look at former U.S. Secretary of
Defense, Robert McNamara. That film and Morris' two previous
masterpieces, Mr. Death and Fast, Cheap & Out of Control have been
available on DVD for some time. His first three films, Gates of Heaven,
Vernon, Florida, and The Thin Blue Line, were recently made available
either individually or in a 3-disc box set. All six of these films are
unique, intriguing portals into Mr. Morris' strange universe, which is
not so distant from our own. If it's dramatic situations, reality TV,
or simply a great movie that you want, look no further than The Thin
Blue Line. As one of the greatest documentaries of our time, it is all
these things and so much more.
Rating: A
Along with 1996's Paradise Lost, The Thin Blue Line should be mandatory viewing for those who believe that the criminal justice system eventually convicts only the guilty. It is a stark and shocking look at one man behind bars and the truckloads of evidence that point toward his innocence. Documentarian Errol Morris indirectly argues that, at the very least, this evidence should have presented a "reasonable doubt" to the jury, and near the end of the movie, the audience has little choice but to accept his unbelievable findings. And the film ends with a single scene of just a tape recorder and voices that should be recognized as one of the most powerful endings to a movie, ever. A documentary masterpiece.
I grew up in a society that strongly believes in the death penalty - a
religion injunction based on the Islamic code of justice. I remember
being told a story (don't know if its true) of how the US President
visited Saudi Arabia and on the last day of his visit he was treated to
some public be-headings. When he questioned the morality of it, his
host informed him that the handful of criminals punished represented
the entirety of the criminal population for the past one year. The
moral being that harsh punishments prevent crimes and caring too much
about the aggressor leads to high crime rates. I personally lost faith
in the prison system many years ago after reading about the Milgram and
Stanford Prison Experiment findings. A harrowing Australian movie,
Ghosts of the Civil Dead made me detest the prison system even more. In
recent years Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have left a bad taste in the
mouth. So, is the answer really the death penalty and other physical
measures that can't be reversed? After seeing The Thin Blue Line I just
don't know. This film has really affected me.
An innocent hitch-hiker, and from what I saw in the documentary a
decent man, is caught at the wrong time in the wrong place - a former
sundown town called Vidor, Dallas County. He is implicated in the
murder of a cop and is obviously innocent of the crime. The entire
legal system of Vidor is bent to prosecute him. The reason: the real
killer is a 16-year old and there's no benefit in finding him guilty
because he can't be given the death penalty. Randall Adams, in his
20's, can and must be punished because he's a stranger to these
small-minded bigots and someone must pay! Shocking that people can
think that way. It makes The Ox-Bow Incident and issues it raised 70
years ago valid even today. This was no more than a judicial lynching.
Fortunately, in this case Randall Adams' case was reopened and he was
acquitted and released, in large measure due to this documentary and
the scandal it caused. The story is exceedingly well told and the end
with the tape recorded last interview with David Harris is chilling. I
can't say that after watching this I still have a clear opinion of what
punishment should fit a crime, but it has certainly made me question
the validity of the mentality present in so many Muslim countries. Who
is to say there can be no similar travesty of justice there?
I can imagine a lot of people sort of nodding off at the idea of a
"documentary." High schools show too many, on subjects like the life
cycle of the loggerhead turtle. I see people snoozing at the thought of
yet another educational non-fiction film.
Well, I guess there was a period when they carried a bit more chic than
in recent years. Flaherty made some money. And Mondo Cane, of course,
if that was a documentary.
But the whole field seems to have been revolutionized lately by Ken
Burns and Errol Morris, the former with "The Civil War" series on PBS
and the latter with this film. Morris had made an earlier movie, mostly
about an animal cemetery, but the subject seems to have had limited
popular appeal.
"The Thin Blue Line" however is about the shooting death of a police
officer and the subsequent conviction, imprisonment, and death sentence
of an innocent man.
The movie really IS innovative. There is no narration, for one thing.
For another, the talking heads we see aren't labeled at the bottom of
the screen -- "Chester Smith, Accountant at Robbin, Cheatham, and Frisk
Law Firm." Instead, Morris shows us close ups of newspaper clippings
and other printed materials which just happen to mention the name of
the person we are about to be introduced to. It's a small thing, true,
but I can't recall the device's ever having been used before. It's
unobtrusive and effective. (That's the sort of thing I mean when I call
this film "innovative".) The events are restaged and presented again
and again from different points of view, the whole being carefully
constructed, like a jigsaw puzzle, but a jigsaw puzzle for children,
easy to comprehend.
And it's easy to see why Morris latched on to this topic. Not only is
it interesting per se, an investigation into the justice system in
Texas, in which almost all the authority figures seem intent on
extinguishing forfeited lives, but the actual performers we see on
screen are remarkably at ease in the presence of the camera. They smile
conspiratorially, practically winking at the camera. They look
dramatically towards heaven and say things like, "It's crazy." But all
in a pleasant Texas drawl. Nobody gets excited. Nobody breaks down and
sobs. (There's innovation for you!) Nobody get angry and shouts at the
camera. It's all very smooth.
But although the performances are good, they are still performances. No
one seems to admit having made a mistake. Everyone enters his house
justified. Randall Adams, the innocent guy who was railroaded into the
slams because he was 28 years old and could therefore be given the
death penalty, has been in jail long enough to know what he's about
when he presents his case. He has a practiced, wounded appearance and
manner, although he describes his experiences as if they happened to
somebody else. You pick up things in jail, along with the tattoos.
David Harris, the actual perp, smiles and shrugs disarmingly, and he
keeps saying "I guess" and "whatever." As cool as an ice cube in
Sweetwater. He is, in fact, a textbook-perfect example of what used to
be called a psychopath. He's pleasant looking, charming, and utterly
without any conscience.
In some ways the most interesting character is the spaced-out blonde
who claims to have eyewitnessed the killing and identifies Adams as the
murderer in court. She's the most interesting because her motives are
the most obscure. Everyone else's goals are clear. Adams wants to save
his neck. The prosecutor wants another conviction. But this babe is
really something.
She's constructed an old TV detective program with herself as the
central figure.
Two additional points. One is that the psychiatrist known as "Doctor
Death" spent only 15 minutes with Adams in prison before testifying
that Adams was an incurable murderer. I'm laughing as I write this.
Anyway, Dr. Death gave Adams two tests. The first, which Adams
describes as a lot of circles and squiggly lines, is the Bender Gestalt
Test which was originally designed to measure brain damage. In the
second part of the examination, Adams is asked to explain the meaning
of a couple of adages. "A rolling stone gathers no moss," for example.
It used to be thought that schizophrenics were given to "concrete
thinking" and that they had trouble reasoning abstractly enough to
interpret these old sayings. It's not used anymore. One thing always
bothered me about it anyway. One of the items is "A new broom sweeps
clean", and I could never figure out EXACTLY what that was supposed to
mean.
The second point is that Adams was given a new trial and released after
this film was shown. In other words, Errol Morris saved Randall Adam's
life, which would otherwise have been spent in prison. So what does
Adams do after he's out of prison? He sues Errol Morris for having
taken advantage of him! In TV interviews explaining his suit, Adams
uses exactly the same bewildered expressions and gestures of
helplessness that he does in this film. At least those eleven years
weren't a complete waste of time because he obviously learned
something, or whatever.
Randall Adams was a drifter who was picked up by runaway teenager David
Harris when he ran out of petrol. The two men hang out for a while,
drank some beer, went to the movies, smoked some weed. At this point
Adams says he went his own way to his motel with his brother, watched
TV and went to sleep. Alternatively, Harris says the two men stayed
together were stopped by the police when Adams took out a gun and
opened fire on a police officer before driving off. This film follows
the court case which charged Adams for the murder of a police officer,
with the underage Harris (who was ineligible for the death penalty) as
one of the main witnesses against him.
I do enjoy a Perry Mason film because, after a solid hour of red
herrings and question-marks, it always come down to the big reveal with
Mason demanding "isn't it true? ISN'T IT?" as everyone gasps, the
guilty confesses on the stand and justice is done. Sadly this is not a
documentary but a basic TVM series and what the Thin Blue Line does so
effectively is to get passed all our ideas of how justice works from
films and presents a near-unquestionable miscarriage of justice. At no
point does the "guilty" person get totally exposed (although the
suggestion is very clearly there as to who it was) but instead Morris
goes after the idea of reasonable doubt (which, if there is any, then
the charged should not have been convicted). Starting at the very start
of the fateful evening, Morris uses interviews and some reconstructions
to tell the story of what happened from various points of view
initially with a focus very much on the events as the courts saw it.
From here he then uses these same contributions to inject a huge amount
of doubt into the vast majority of the case for the prosecution. If you
want to find it, there are things in here that could be taken as
anti-death penalty but for me the film is pro-justice as opposed to
anti-anything as it is essentially reinforcing the importance of
reasonable doubt. By virtue of doing this, everyone involved looks bad
and Morris wisely doesn't need to pick on anybody in particular
directly. It is fascinating as a film but I can understand the
occasional claim of it being "dull" I cannot agree with it but I can
understand because, in a world where excess is the norm (style, action,
violence, opinion) anything that is actually restrained and even handed
could be taken as "dull".
This modern moaning aside though, The Thin Blue Line is a well made
film that simply and matter-of-factly condemns the justice system as it
applied to Randall Adams. One of Morris' best films and worth seeking
out.
I first saw this film not longer after its initial release some 20 years ago and images and scenes from it have stayed with me ever since, so that it was with considerable anticipation that I re-watched it again recently. Down the years I can still recall Randall Adams drawling in his unforgettable voice "The kid scares me", the ever-revolving red light on the cop-car and most of all Philip Glass' wonderful, hypnotic music. The depiction of the fateful night of the cold-blooded murder of the policeman is shown from, almost literally, every possible angle, conveyed in a highly stylised way with almost every speculated remembrance of the doubtful list of every dubious (and are they ever dubious!) witness played out on the screen, the effect, in so doing, to completely explode their fantasist recollections, as was no doubt the director's aim. The reconstructions are set alongside filmed interviews of most of the main protagonists (with the main exception of the second cop in the car who witnessed the killing). As you watch these, the centrepiece clearly becomes the contrasting testimony of the almost-certain murderer David Harris with the wronged Randall Adams, the first coming across from the start as duplicitous and uncaring, the latter as bemused but reasoning. I was particularly taken with the eruditeness of Adams, who suppresses his inner rage with admirable restraint as he points the viewer time and again back to the evidence. As an indictment of the American criminal justice system, it hits home hard; it appears that investigation standards head for the hills especially when the law has a cop-killer to nail. Thankfully the miscarriage of justice was eventually resolved although it makes you grateful for the coincidence which led director Morris to change the subject course of his original project to instead highlight Adams' case culminating in his release soon after the film was first shown. The film however is more than a crusading documentary and there is much for students and admirers of the film-makers art to enjoy. Unforgettable, really, almost haunting, and proof if needed that truth really is stranger than fiction.
And thus, Dallas County, Texas, in 1977, successfully prosecuted
Randall Dale Adams, a lowly hitchhiker, for a crime Adams did not
commit.
Adams was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1976 murder of a
Dallas cop. "The Thin Blue Line", by Errol Morris, is a documentary
that recounts this infamous case, by way of interviews and
reenactments. It's the story of a terrible injustice, one that almost
cost an innocent man his life.
What is so frightening is the fervor of Dallas officials to inflict the
death penalty on someone ... anyone ... They weren't about to let the
cop murder go unpunished. Adams was the most convenient target.
Eventually, the truth would come out. But Adams would spend twelve
years in prison, some of those years on death row. After his release,
Adams never received any monetary compensation, or even an apology,
from the State Of Texas, for that injustice. Interestingly, more than
one Dallas County official associated with the Adams case was also
associated with the aftermath of the JFK assassination, thirteen years
earlier.
Morris' documentary would have been easier to follow had it had
subtitles, to indicate the name of the person being interviewed. Also,
some of the film's material consisted of irrelevant flashback footage
and repetitive reenactments. Further, the narrative presentation was at
times confusing. Nevertheless, the main issue here is the powerful
true-life story.
If you can get around the technical weaknesses of this film, "The Thin
Blue Line" is a gripping documentary about a real life case of American
injustice, in a city that is notorious for its history of botched
criminal investigations.
Having seen two other Errol Morris documentaries, I expected that there
would be a Philip Glass soundtrack, some flashy camera work, and
perhaps some reenactments during 'The Thin Blue Line'. I have long
struggled with my opinions on Morris' work, mainly because I am more of
a purist when it comes to documentaries. I want to see footage,
photographs, interviews, etc. that are going to back up a strong story,
not a lot of camera angles, stark white backgrounds, and a
post-modernist score.
'The Thin Blue Line' had the latter presentation, so I immediately was
slightly turned off until the subject of the film was presented. The
location is Dallas, and it is the 1970's. Late one night, a squad car
pulls over a car that does not have its lights on, but as soon as the
policeman reaches the driver's side door, he is shot several times and
murdered. The car pulls away before the policeman's partner is able to
ascertain the license plate number or even the exact make and model of
the vehicle. What follows is a veritable witch hunt for the killer (or
killers) that ends with one man in jail who is professing his
innocence, and another man, a career criminal who gets away veritably
scot-free. Through various interviews with the players involved;
detectives, alleged eye-witnesses, the accused themselves, Morris seeks
to find out the truth in a case that comes down to a 'he-said/he-said'
situation.
'The Thin Blue Line' is expert film-making in the investigative sense.
Morris does his job in presenting as many facts as possible. The case
finally came to a head a couple of years after the film was finished,
but it is documented as being instrumental in the reexamination of the
facts. I still don't necessarily care for Morris' style, but it cannot
be argued that 'The Thin Blue Line' is an excellent documentary, and
that he definitely has an eye for picking very compelling subjects.
--Shelly
Regarding the issue of manipulation, lets face it people, all documentaries
are manipulative - every documentary filmmaker is attempting to make a
point, whether or not they care to admit it. It is the documentaries that
give the impression of being "objective" that are, in fact, the most
manipulative. In the case of "The Thin Blue Line" the purpose of the
documentary is clear, and the viewer is not tricked into believing that they
are watching something objective. Instead, it is quite upfront about its
purpose, and therefore is a much more honest piece of work. People should
never accept anything they see in a documentary as fact, it's important to
understand that documentaries are simply an attempt to present the
director's perspective of a real-life situation. It is the great
documentaries that present their perspective in a convincing manner, and do
so without boring the viewer to sleep. Here "The Thin Blue Line" succeeds
very well: it is powerful, it is engaging, and it's extremely convincing.
Does that mean that everyone should be convinced? Lets hope not. However,
it certainly should give everyone something to think about.
The only real problem with the film is its over-use of re-enactments where
they are not really that necessary. For example, there is an image of a
clock, representing the futility of time, which is too long for its own
good. The milkshake scene was also (intentionally)annoying. However, this
is a minor problem, and not one that should bother most people. Overall:
great film, and highly recommended.
Page 1 of 6: | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] |
Plot summary | Ratings | Awards |
External reviews | Parents Guide | Plot keywords |
Main details | Your user reviews | Your vote history |