A couple of years ago, two crime thrillers took over our culture like a fever.
At first it was Making a Murdere whose popularity not only helped Netflix home for real detectives, but also a few thousand reddit threads of amateur tracking dogs that talk about the innocence of Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey debated. Just one year later, our obsession was exacerbated by Serial Season 1, which ushered in yet another gluttonous Internet detective program.
But while these two sensations allowed the audience to enjoy the murder mystery of a real world, the following seasons in 2018 feel more like a moral reckoning at
Serial season 3 is no longer just a single murder case, but a whole courthouse from small to major offenses those who are explored week after week. Similarly, Making a Murderer Part 2 makes a sobering, more modest look at the bureaucracy associated with liberating two possibly wrongfully convicted men.
But because of what that looks like, this is undeniably boring history than the original – Making a Murder Part 2 feels like a meta-commentary on the ethics of the true crime phenomena as a whole.
Why do we love the real crime? Countless podcasts and documents claim that we are a people seeking justice in an unjust and corrupt system. But after you've spent over ten exhausting hours of the arduous labor that Avery and Dasse's legal representatives must undertake to correct this alleged injustice, you realize something.
That's a bunch of crap.
In we make a killer part 2, the veil falls, but not only on the flaws of our legal system. The veil falls down to show our own unfriendly reflection.
We are not in the middle of hearing endless reappearance when Teresa Halbach's car was found, or whether several different appeals courts can agree that Dassey's confession was forced. Nor are we, as both the prosecution and the serious lawyers of the Innocence Project suggest, doing so out of the duty to find justice for Halach's cruel death.
In Making a Murder Part 2, the veil falls, but not only on the flaws of our legal system. The veil drops off to show our own unfriendly reflection.
Parts of this connection feel like the filmmakers struggling to reconcile themselves with the phenomenon they have begun. The first episode enumerates the numerous criticisms that the original document has received: that the filmmakers have no evidence that makes Avery guilty, and that he does not care about the victim who has lost his life and the loved one, the They Survive, Respect
The most awkward is the intense coverage that followed the case since the launch of the Netflix show. There are scenes of rallies organized by supporters of Avery and Dassey and interviews with on-the-road spy-heads who make their own predictions about their innocence or guilt, as if talking about the outcome of a major sports game.
It tells that one of the frostiest moments in this documentary takes place in the background of a news interview with Ken Kratz, the controversial and disgraced District Attorney who indicted Avery for the murder of Halbach during the original murder trial
He's at CrimeCon, as the reporter says, and Kratz delivers his emphatic story about why Avery is a cold, unfeeling psychopath. You see a participant of the CrimeCon in the background, who uses the photo of the conference. While Kratz insincerely conjures up the poor, unhappy specter of the victim Halbach, the woman in the background happily lies down on a fake police outline of a dead body – probably for the "gram".
Whether the filmmakers intended it or not a disgustingly self-reflective moment. Are we her? Is it we who give a platform to men like Kratz (who wrote and sold a book on Avery after giving up his position after a terrible sex scandal with a customer), while at the same time enjoying and reveling in the deaths of real world victims ? 19659018] Lens is Making a Murder Part 2 a less well told story.
But perhaps this is for fans of Making a Murder and true crime in general (myself included.)
Objective Making a Murder Part 2 is a less well-told story History. Unlike Season 3 of Serial which still finds human history in the most contentious court cases, the reworking of the deeply moving Making a Murderer often fails to capture the monstrosity of its human operations Moment to moment, especially for most of the first seven episodes.
The reasons why are not difficult to understand. This is not the coherent story of carefully distributed information exploiting the countless twists of this case. The filmmakers clearly had less time and footage to work with, especially when it came to the devastating and heartbreaking influence these cases have on the parents of the convicted men.
Overall, there is less of a human gang for connecting the audience, which would make it easier if the legalese will take care of a bit much. It relies heavily on title cards that summarize legal errors and achievements along this path to reverse their beliefs rather than allowing the audience to experience it and watch the story unfold in real time.
Perhaps one of the biggest problems with Making a Murder Part 2 is that it feels authentic.
We feel obliged to observe it, as people who are obsessed with every little detail of the case. It feels as though the filmmakers felt obliged to show a more "neutral" (though questionable) perspective and to better understand the ethical criticisms of the original document.
And you can not help but feel that Netflix had a personal interest in seeing one of their greatest hits returned as quickly as possible, no matter what the quality loss. Does Part 2 need ten episodes, often over an hour long? Absolutely not. At the level of pure entertainment, it only really starts in the last few episodes, when Avery star lawyer (and dubious season protagonist) Kathleen Zellner stands up for who actually killed Halbach.
We return to the original discomfort of Making a Murderer as a Phenomenon .
But now we return to the original unrest of Making a Murder as a total phenomenon.
The first season positioned observers almost as amateur jurors and showed in their first episodes how vulnerable we can be to a compelling narrative prosecution narrative, despite very little substantive evidence. But she fought this story – like a defender – by providing us with an equally seductive narrative of grave injustice and institutional corruption from the cops.
I do not know how well I feel Making a Murder Part 2 is only going to be really good if it turns the tables on another man for Halbach's assassination. Even if the evidence is convincing, is not that the beginning of all this chaos?
It is disgusting to judge the entertainment value of a story dealing with the lives and deaths of humans.
In Making a Murder Part 2 there are much fewer bing-worthy twists. But if you're talking about the ruined lives of two potentially innocent men, should we have had to tell that story in a way that forces us to worry or ignite the mob mentality justice that characterizes amateur Internet detectives?
It should not. But we do.