![]() |
Image Source |
When I hear music in a movie, it is key to determining whether I enjoy the movie or not. I will always have something to say about the music pieces accompanying the film. Trust me, I have seen some badly matched films.
Having this sort of background, I could tell that the documentary on "How To Make A Murderer" used the music accompaniment to their advantage. Music has this unconscious impact on us all. The documentary's music made the audience empathize with Steven Avery. When he was describing the cat incident in a "I regret what I did" tone, the instruments were teasing your ears to feel for this guy.
Which brings up another idea-was the documentary bias? I personally would say yes. It came from Steven Avery's perspective. We do not know all the facts and nothing was really in there to show what the police department was thinking. It is really hard to see where the scale of justice would land in this case because we only have some of the details. The details presented in the documentary were very persuasive and but to determine if the police department was a hundred percent wrong is impossible. We were not in their shoes. Maybe at the time, they thought this was right.
So in honesty, I feel like I might have been a bit too rash in the last post. I was blindly seeing all the wrong that the documentary pointed out without stopping to think that their side of the story was not being presented from their perspective.
So I urge you, no matter how tempting the orchestra is and how convincing one side is, stop and take a step back to look at all the information from different sources. Not just one.
On a side note, there is a petition floating around in the United States that you can find out more about it here. I do not know who is signing it but it seems like the documentary has stirred a bit of social unrest. People are outraged but my question is did they look into it further than the documentary or is that their only source?
No comments:
Post a Comment