I was looking forward to watching The Thin Blue Line because I quoted Errol Morris in my reflection from a reading a couple weeks ago. Here’s the quote: “I investigated a murder with a camera – an oddity in and of itself, it was not telling a story about a murder investigation, it was the investigation – and evidence was accumulated with that camera”. After watching, it is easy to see how to some, this can read as just another murder investigation show, but what made it different for me was intentionally watching it with a particular eye for production and post-production choices. There were elements that made the film more artistic than any murder investigation show you would see on television today. For instance, the X’s at the end of the statement Randall Adams signed were highlighted by a close up of the X on the typewriter. This illumination of a key on a typewriter insinuates a human is in fact responsible for pressing that key. It breaks down the inhuman, overly broad, ‘not to be reckoned with’ category, “the officials”, normally brings to mind; “the officials”, being one general persona of many actual people who were both inadvertently and directly prosecuting Adams. To further that point, the X’s additionally serve to represent and highlight the murder itself, and potentially spell out the sentence that will be Randall Adams fate.
Another notable aspect of this doc was their way of introducing the suspects. They are both in prison uniforms so we know they are charged, however Adams is still defending his innocence and David Harris seems so nonchalant that neither of them seem like criminals. After learning that Adams was guilty, as the audience I immediately started to doubt my judgment about his character. Harris’ demeanor affirmed my suspicions of his innocence (although initially I thought they were both innocent and they got the wrong car). The police who interrogated Adams were introduced careless and disinterested as to whether or not Adams actually committed the murder, just wanting to quick close the case by calling him the criminal. Once I learned how Adams’ was being treated by police I began to question their authority and their ability to honestly and thoroughly do their jobs. This also made me question how many innocent people are treated this way and it highlighted how one person can cultivate a following of people who believe one thing over another. Then I began to be suspicious of David Harris once again, hearing of all the strangeness of him, of his criminal history, of his potential motive for murdering the cop, etc., and it seemed more clear that he was the perpetrator, in the interview still recalling the events of his innocence from that night. I was left to wonder why he was now in prison if they called him innocent and Adams guilty. I suspected he was not actually innocent and that they had picked him up for another crime. My suspicions were confirmed and then we hear of what potentially contributed to Harris being a criminal and I felt for him and could begin to understand why “the officials” wanted not to prosecute his regardless of evidence pointing his way. After all, they did say they didn’t want to convict a young boy, yet it got another man murdered.
Overall, the film was a bit dull, but it did take me on a rollercoaster of questioning and investigating the case at hand given all the evidence. It paralleled KJ’s discussion of power as the cameraperson, in this case as part of the post-production process, when choices are made as to how to introduce new information across the sequence of the film. This definitely gave me food for thought.