Essay \"Case Study If Netflix Series Making a Murderer\" - Grade 69 PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Study if Netflix Series Making a Murderer...

Description

Assessment Two: Case Study- “Making A Murderer” The documentary series Making A Murderer directed by Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos was first available to stream exclusively on Netflix on December 18 th 2015. Since hitting the Internet, much controversy and discussion has come from the series. Making a Murderer tells the story of Manitowoc County resident, Steven Avery, who in 1985 served 18 years in prison, wrongly accused for rape and attempted murder. Released and cleared of his name in 2003, the story follows as he attempts to file a $36million lawsuit against Manitowoc County, then, in 2005 to be accused and arrested for the Murder, rape and imprisonment of Teresa Halbach. Also accused in assisting the crime, his 16-year-old Nephew, Brendan Dassey. Centering on such a strong and sensitive topic, this Expository documentary formed a strong divide between its viewers, causing mass social commentary as viewers debated the innocence of Avery and Dassey in the case. Filmed over the course of Ten years, film makers Ricciardi and Demos filmed back and forth in Manitowoc county and New York City, getting to know and earn the trust of the families involved, creating a very personal and detailed perspective of the drama for the screen. Ricciardi and Demos attempt to present an un-biased and observational, objective style of documentary to convey their chosen message in the series; with no on screen involvement and exposing the story, simply viewing it through the camera. However, using many discreet modes of addressing the viewers, it is clear to depict the stance the filmmakers took, and wanted to suggest subjectively for the expository documentary; Steven Avery’s innocence. Ricciardi and Demos used plain and simple white on screen text, placed on a black background to act as the narration for majority of the documentary. The viewer sees the text as an un-biased and factual source. Though its simplicity and lack of humanization, the on-screen narration is seen as an omniscient figure to be trusted. Meaning that any slight choices in wording and which specific information the text displayed, as fact, subliminally swaying the position of the audience, to that of the filmmakers. As well as this, the documentary featured interviews almost entirely with those who also believed in Avery’s innocence; including his lawyers, family members and even himself. Hearing the story from the perspective of the family and watching the emotional effect the case had on them as a family along with Steven Avery’s past of wrong conviction, presents the Avery family as hopeless and belittled amongst the huge judicial system. Backing this up, the series describes the Avery’s to be “detached from the community”, “not perfect”. Thus, making the audience even more so empathetic towards the Avery’s and consequently, to Steven’s innocence. The show, since being released has been bashed for it’s focus on the Avery side of the story, the filmmakers have been accused of not attempting to evenly portray the side of the supposed victim, Teresa Halbach and her family. However, Ricciardi and Demos have released statements saying they attempted to get interviews with the lawyers and the family of Teresa Halbach, requests which were denied. The filmmakers stand by that Making a Murderer is a well-rounded, un-biased source. Yet, through the missing evidence against Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey, later released online and not shown in the series it is clear to see their expository style of documentary. This stance, taking the side of the Avery’s, however arguably un-ethical, matches with the theme of

most social concern documentaries of today as it proposed a lasting and controversial question. Powerfully questioning the viewers trust in the system, the series worked superbly to entice and rile-up nearly all viewers as they watched supposedly innocent Steven Avery, be framed, accused and detained by the police force and government that viewers of all ages are inclined and taught to trust. Released exclusively on Netflix with the first episode aired free to watch on YouTube, this documentary series is primarily aimed at the younger more technological age range, 15-30. Making the decision to split the documentary into a series of ten episodes, forty-five minutes to an hourly long was a great decision to entice the younger viewers. Ending nearly every episode on a cliffhanger of the details of the case, viewers are left intrigued by the details, wanting to watch the next episode. Working with the contemporary broadcasting environment today, the series on Netflix lets viewers decide when they want to watch, with no advertisements and freedom to pause and rewind however many times they like, fitting with the rise in technology and generations today. This freedom of viewing is a pivotal aspect of this documentary series in regards to the generations of today; If the documentary were to be aired all as one feature length, the overload of information and monotonous court room scenes would baffle and bore viewers of today. If aired on TV, the use of cliff-hangers would not be as vitally engaging, as viewers wouldn’t have the freedom to watch the next episode straight away. Knowing you have that freedom, to find out the details of the captivating case whenever you wish, gives viewers a sense of self-discovery, as though they are investigating and finding out the details of the case themselves, leaving them to form, what they believe an un-biased opinion. This factor also influenced viewers to outbreak onto social media; enraged at the injustice they believed that had taken place in the 2005 case. The series went on to even influence a petition made by the public, addressed to the White house for the release of Steven Avery, gaining over 128,000 signatures. As the discussion of the series became increasingly viral, the advertisement and therefore popularity of the series naturally rose. Many viewers are seeing this documentary as the truth, and therefore evidence to the Avery and Dassey case. Much like the reaction from, "The Thin Blue Line" by Errol Morris (1989), which also focuses on misjudgment in a trial and un-fair conviction. The Thin Blue Line was one of the first documentaries to uncover a wrongful conviction. Taking note from the outcry from this controversy, Making a Murder, from its suggestive title down to the specifics of tight framing on the empathetic characters, has questionable motives to its production, whether Ricciardi and Demos were truly seeking to make an informative and educational film, alike The Thin Blue Line, or whether they focused purely on questioning the corruption, to entice and stun viewers, for shock value and ratings. The family of the victim, Teresa Halbach, expressed their shock and disgust at the possibility of a company taking their nightmare and turning it into entertainment. Today, however shocked into a belief viewer may be initially after watching a documentary, not much harm is truly caused. In this modern age, every viewer can figure out his or her own truths, searching the Internet to find the reliability of the

source of the documentary, so the past fears of Expository documentaries raising propaganda are quite unlikely in the western world today. Making a Murderer simply raises the question of possibility. Ricarddi summed up the purpose of the project, defending it in an interview with The Guardian “We’re not prosecutors, we’re not defense attorneys, we do not set out to convict or exonerate anyone, we set out to examine the criminal justice system and how it’s functioning today. It would have been impossible for us to include every piece of evidence submitted to the court. So we took our cues from the prosecution, what they thought was the most compelling evidence. That’s what we included.” Personally I believe Ricciardi and Demos truly created an intense, inquisitive and intriguing documentary, which fulfilled the aims of an Expository documentary, mildly swaying the audience in favor of the filmmakers view, Steven Avery’s innocence, and ultimately posing the controversial question of corruption within the trusted American system. The documentary, as the case is still running today, will have a continued vast following of viewers eager to find out the new emerging details, whether this be through a second series, or even simply online. This documentary made a strong controversial statement, enticing its viewers incessantly; it will continue to be apparent and prevalent as long as Steven Avery’s sentence ensues.

Bibliography Nigel M. Smith. (2016). Making a Murderer directors defend series: 'Of course we left out evidence'. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/jan/17/makinga-murderer-netflix-steven-avery. Last accessed 17th January 2016. Jack Shepherd. (2016) Making a Murderer: All the evidence presented in the Steven Avery trial the Netflix documentary missed out Available: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/making-a-murderer-allthe-evidence-against-steven-avery-the-netflic-show-missed-out-a6807961.html Last accessed 17th January 2016. Last I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I Seth Abramovitch. (2016) 'Making a Murderer': Nancy Grace Details Why Steven Avery is Guilty (Q&A) Available: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/making-amurderer-nancy-grace-856328 Last accessed 17th January 2016. Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos. (2015) Making a Murderer. Available: https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/80000770 Last accessed 17th January 2016. Making a Muderer, 2015, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5189670/ Last accessed 16th January 2016....