Mystery and murder documentaries always tend to catch my eye, so watching “Thin Blue Line” was exciting because I had never seen it before, and, because it was produced in 1988, was different from many I have seen. Adams had a unique personality that I think drove the film, because from the start I felt as if I was on his side. This film started a little slower than most, but picked up with the extensive interviews and visual reenactments of the crime. While the story itself was engaging enough, the reenactments of the shooting were crucial to the film; without them, it would be easy to lose viewers, as there were few other strong visuals.
As Natalie stated in her post, this film was very similar to the documentary “Making A Murderer,” that became a Netflix hit upon its release. These two storylines drew several parallels, and the usage of interviews is prevalent in both films.
This documentary reinstated the power that comes with this form of storytelling. I had never heard of this case before, and this film, like “Making A Murderer,” exposed several aspects of the criminal justice system that go unnoticed. Adams deserved to have his story told, and I’m glad this documentary did just that.
I agree that reenactments made this documentary more watchable. I didn’t know how to feel about them at first, because the only reenactments I had previously seen used in documentary were in the relatively dull films we watched in middle school history classes. I was so used to those being monotonously voiced over that I saw the first reenactments that Morris used and was afraid I would be bored. However, after only one or two of these shots, I was actually more intrigued by the film. They are active reenactments, slow and well illustrating what actually occurred.