The documentary "Thin Blue Line" is different from traditional documentaries. It embodies the typical characteristics of the "new documentary": all fictional means and strategies can and should be used to achieve their goals. After watching this type of documentary, you will understand that the principle of authenticity in documentary is not limited to reality.
The film records a police shooting in Ladas in the United States in 1976. According to the investigation and identification at the time, the state court sentenced the 26-year-old Adams to death, and was later overturned by other judges and lawyers who were interested in finding clues. The sentence was finally re-judged in 1987, Adams was sentenced to life imprisonment, and David was sentenced to death (at the age of 16 in 1876).
The main method used in the whole film is interviews. Through interviews with Adams, David, David’s close friends, black and white couples in the jury, and police officers and lawyers related to the case, it gradually reveals the eyes of different people. Regarding this case, it is even the feelings of the two involved in the case.
The most subverted documentary stereotype in the whole film should be the virtual reproduction method. Whether it’s reproducing the shooting on the night of the crime, the female police officer’s memories of the vehicle involved in the case, or even the scene where Adams was taken to dictate, the actors will perform to reproduce historical events and make the original case more visible. .
The whole film is filled with suspense. The first question is who the murderer is, and the second question is why such obvious clues and evidence have become unjust cases. The way it is so unusual, that's why many people think this is not a documentary. Just from recreating the scene of Adams being arrested and questioned, the photographer grabbed his cigarette pinching hand, overlapping cigarette butts, rotating clock, refusing to hold a pen, etc., instead of just recording the scene.
From the interview with David’s close friends, we can understand that David is a mischievous bastard. From the perspective of his "great achievements" showing off to his friends, we can know that his heart is combative. It's a bit anti-social. Besides, he was only a 16-year-old kid at the time. What has puzzled me since seeing this here is why Adams (the man who keeps saying that he is innocent) will be the final sentence. I believe many viewers will feel this way, with both assault weapons (pistols) and witness statements, why did Adams be sentenced to death? This decisive factor appeared when the black-and-white couple who quietly passed by behind appeared.
The white woman identified Adams when she confessed to the guilty based on her detective dream and the fluffy appearance (hair or collar) seen in the vagueness. Other witnesses also identified him (including David), and sentenced in the court The identification on the spot that day: "It's him!" This identification became an important factor in Adams' conviction. We will only know when we interviewed other lawyers later that it turned out that it was because they needed the designated bonus, so they insisted on Adams with insufficient police evidence. But poor Adams had no one to speak for him.
But in the interview with Adams later, we can learn about it. State courts and state police officers don’t care who committed the crime. They are just keen on “killing” and convicting people. This is also the same as the final recording of David’s interview: “Who knows how many innocent people have been sentenced for so many years”. It can be seen that the police style has become the norm here. This case can be reversed, and Adams was saved from death because he was supported by the Supreme Court of the country.
From this point of view, why this case became an unjust case has been revealed. The police officer wanted to close the case as soon as possible (there were not enough clues and most complained about the female police officer who was accompanying), the black and white couple only wanted the bonus, and David wanted to find a scapegoat. All people and all parties have made choices and decisions that are different from the facts just to obtain benefits related to them. Although all this may be wrong, starting from the benefit, this is the answer they want.
In addition to virtual reproduction and real interviews, this film also uses other real evidence, such as newspapers.
This is a very clever point. Because the newspaper not only deepened the authenticity of this case, but also added people's subjective feelings. The appearance of the newspaper in the film is often combined with the interviewer's narrative and memories. Basically, the newspaper publication and the interviewee's narrative are consistent. Moreover, the overwhelming newspaper publications and reviews also showed that this case had a huge impact on the society and people at that time and attracted great attention. Shows the sociality and public opinion of this case.
The portrait is also the evidence.
We can also see this picture in many news nowadays (especially about the United States). This is a special product of the US courts in order to reflect the authenticity of the judgment scene. In the United States, each state has different regulations on whether to allow television stations to enter the courts. Some states absolutely don't allow it. In this case, neither video recording nor audio recording is allowed in court, nor even photographs. Therefore, TV viewers can only hear some brief introductions in news programs. This also provides a special career for a group of painters, because the news media always hires some artists to draw on-site sketches in order to make up for the TV audience's visual understanding of court proceedings.
This film uses such a special physical evidence to highlight its authenticity principle. The portrait is not intended to make up for the fictitiousness of the virtual reproduction of history, on the contrary, this method is also another means of virtual reproduction.
At the end of the film, the content of the last interview with David ends. The rotating tapes, the constant questions and ambiguous answers, are not only David’s feelings about such a judgment, but perhaps also how the director feels about such an unjust case and the Dallas area. He is hesitant to deal with such incidents in the future. He does not know whether there will be unjust cases going on here in the future. He does not know whether the state courts will still decide if there is insufficient evidence, and he does not know whether there will be more Davids like this. People let the innocent people be guilty and become poor scapegoats.
All of this is unknown to us, only time flows far away like a tape.
View more about The Thin Blue Line reviews
