Errol Morris (The Thin Blue Line; Fog of War) is one of the most influential directors working today. Before his death, Roger Ebert wrote, "After twenty years of reviewing films, I haven't found another filmmaker who intrigues me more...Errol Morris is like a magician, and as great a filmmaker as Hitchcock or Fellini.”
Write whatever you'd like, but please be sure to address your feelings about the way Tabloid utilizes the aesthetics of filmmaking to tell its story - Morris himself says Tabloid is in many ways a story about the way stories are told. Is the film authentic? Was the filmmaker responsible to its subject and main character? Would you have made it differently? If so, how?
Finally, do you think the film's main subject Joyce McKinney was right to file a lawsuit against Morris (article here) and travel around the country attending several screenings in protest (even more amazing article here)? Needless to say, this story is a hoot, Morris is a genius, and I look forward to discussing both with you in more detail when we next meet.
In the meantime, I hope you enjoy Tabloid and can't wait to read your thoughts about the film and its aesthetics - by no later than 9 am on Tuesday of course.
Visually the film mimics tabloid-style storytelling, including introducing our characters with headlines suggesting labels that apply to them. Less obvious things like the short fade-to-black transitions between takes of McKinney’s interview suggest her taking a breath, reorganizing her story or preparing for the next act. The choice to pair her romanticized accounts of what happened in England with scenes from classic romance films was especially effective for me. I have always felt a strange distance to classic love stories, seeing them as unbelievably unrealistic and kind of twisted. So in presenting her story with these scenes, I felt feelings of doubt and skepticism.
ReplyDeleteMorris states that Tabloid is a story about the way stories are told. The way I see it there are three major ways of storytelling being represented in the film: McKinney’s over-romanticized love story, the way tabloids and the media tell stories, and the way filmmakers can present other people’s stories.
McKinney’s account is a sanitized version. As Morris says, “if there were an academy award for best performance in a documentary she’d win,” and I think she has to be at least semi aware that she’s entertaining. She’s a smart woman, I think she played with the media to make her life a sort of romantic tragedy. I don’t think that she has grounds to sue, I think she would be unhappy with any film that presented both her and representatives of the media. Ever since she was young she was a romantic, and for her dying and living with a broken heart is preferable to settling down with one of her many suitors, and this is the only part of the story she wants to acknowledge.
The second story form we have is the tabloid version of her story. Whether the articles were siding with or against her they present a float picture of her, either good or bad. One of the reporters in the film says multiple time “the truth was probably somewhere in the middle,” but that isn’t what would sell papers. I think this speaks to a bigger issue in mainstream media. The idea that a clear cut black and white story sells better than a relatively neutral one because the consumers like not having to challenge an idea in order to hold an opinion.
The third story comes from the camera and Morris himself. He chose to edit the film in a way that resembled a tabloid piece, but he presents both sides. Like I said before she would have been unhappy with anything less than a romantic tragedy tale, I think Morris did his best to stick to his ethics. One of the many arguments McKinney uses in the lawsuit is that there is subliminal manipulation that “causes rogue views”. The article doesn’t include any specific images or moments that manipulate the audience’s “attention and perception [leading] to material being presented at the fringes of a viewers’ awareness,” but my theory is that it has something to do with her complaints about the misuse of home videos and “doctored” photos. I don’t think the photos were doctored and I think Morris tried to use the home videos in the proper context of her story.
I think the big theme in Tabloid is, the truth. What we think it is based on evidence from personal perspective, how we tell the truth, how we protect ourselves from the truth, or how we lie to protect our egos. Tabloid is immensely fascinating because the entire story is told from Joyce McKinney’s perspective. And this is a story that has big potential to get her in serious trouble, this is a story with scandal and danger. Being aware of this fact, which I’m sure Errol Morris’ audiences are, it makes the possibility of her lying to be much, much greater. So once you understand the story being told you automatically become skeptical of...McKinney’s intentions. She may be lying right through her teeth to forever clear her name. However Morris chose to make Joyce the subject of the movie more so than the story she tells. Joyce is introduced as this sweet, innocent, religious good girl who would never imagine kidnapping and raping a boy, much less a boy she was supposedly in love with. Because Joyce is the first person introduced and she is so charming and sweet and funny, maybe as a character maybe as a “real” person who really knows, either way we’re drawn to her and we’re inclined to like her. Did Morris do this intentionally to...help persuade the audience towards her side? I don’t really know. He could’ve chosen to open the film with footage of the news reports and trail during the scandal which easily could’ve made his audience dislike her from the start but he didn’t and there has to be a reason behind it. Does he really believe her? Or does he enjoy her as a character and want to help her push the story that she wanted to be told?
ReplyDeleteTabloid is authentic in that, I truly believed that Joyce McKinney meant everything she said from the bottom of her heart. I think Joyce is definitely a little crazy and that is definitely some of the appeal towards her story. I think Tabloid was trying to focus on how the truth can be swayed based on who’s telling it and on how they tell it. Joyce will make you laugh and cry and that makes you feel for her, maybe even feel bad for her and what’s happened to her.
The end of the movie focused on Joyce’s life post the scandal and the unusual story about being the first person to get her dog cloned. Morris could’ve left that story out and could have continued to understand the story of the scandal from other peoples perspectives, but he didn’t which again makes me believe that this story is about Joyce as a person and the bizarre things that have happened to her. It does make you think though, did she bring this “bad luck” upon herself or is everything that happened to her a strange, sad stuck of karma. Regardless you end up loving her. I don’t really know what I believe in terms of what really happened in 1977, because Joyce does a really great job at defending herself at times then at other points in the movie her evidence or lack of...was either too outlandish or there wasn’t enough evidence to make me believe her. But I still WANTED her to be a good person, I still wanted her to be “right.” Joyce made me feel sad for her and happy for her and she made me want good things to happen to her! Because of that emotional pull, I am more inclined to believe Joyce in this situation.
The fact that Joyce sued Morris and went to screenings to protest the movie proves that she’s bat shit crazy but in return makes you feel sorry for her even more! She was obviously unhappy with how the movie came out and she probably felt like the movie portrayed her has crazy and wrong. But to answer the question no I don’t think Joyce had the right to sue Morris she clearly agreed to this movie and was more than excited to tell her side of the story.
would not post, submitted it to moodle.
ReplyDeleteJames Hesch
ReplyDeleteTabloid
I really enjoyed this film. I felt the style it was put together made it very interesting. using the articles and pictures from them. The way it all played out was interesting. She seemed a little crazy but everyone seemed a little crazy that was involved in any part of it. So it gave it a very equal playing field. It was a very interesting story. I thought it was crazy the things this women did to just find him and how she never let him go, but I guess thats true love in its finest. I found my self wondering if this is really true love or a obsession. I felt he did a great job with the story, I am not sure if I would of been able to do it any differently. It kept you wondering and curious the whole time with plenty of answers.
In the film “Tabloid,” the director Errol Morris chose to look at the life of ex-beauty queen, Joyce McKinney. There are scenes that I respect, but also scenes that I did not. What I respect was the wonderful camera angles to capture the characters in the documentary. There was black and white photographs of Joyce’s life as well as some in color. Her home videos were used, which made the story more interesting. I like the scene where there are trees and bushes in the background, and she was reading from her book, “A Very Special Love Story.” The background music added to the fairytale that she was reading. She had an enthusiastic voice while being a narrator. Sadly, later on in the documentary, there were sections of newspapers slandering her name. What partly makes me like the character of Joyce is that she believes in love and does not want to spend eternity with any partner.
ReplyDeleteKirk Anderson followed behind Joyce in a car until she allowed him to get to know her. She has an IQ of a 168 and many men were attracted to her. When Joyce met her partner, her emotions extended for him. It was discussed in an interview how Keith entered a room to see Joyce and Kirk participating in sexual activities. I felt like that personal scene did not need to be mentioned.The actual bed where they slept together was shown in a black and white photograph. If the photograph was in color, the audience probably would see sexual evidence hidden in certain areas. A photograph of their house was shown to represent them showing commitment and living together. She would cook his favorite foods, but I think that she should not had always cooked for him, because he could share that responsibility as well.
She made Kirk happy, but his religion frightened him away from her. He was psychologically being controlled by the members of the church. What bothered Joyce, his sex drive was controlled as well as the types of foods he wanted to eat. Joyce wanted children from him. He did not want to be excommunicated from his church for participating in sexual activities with her before marriage. Even worse, it got to the point where they wanted to get married, but he was worried about what his Mormon mother would think.
ReplyDeleteThe opinion of Kirk’s mother did not matter in order to stay in a relationship with her, but it seemed as if her dislike of Joyce brought shame to him. He was then reported of being a victim of kidnapping. Only because of his religious background, I think the others assumed he would not participate in what the church does not teach.
The older version of Joyce narrated with a light shining on her and a dark background to represent her popularity. She was placed in prison for the kidnapping. There was then a scene where was seen talking on an old television after the accusations of the kidnapping. I saw an ugly, green wall with diamond patterns in the background. In details, she explains being wronged because of her innocence of not trying to slander Kirk. She felt humiliated for being put in jail.
I think that Kirk is guilty of stupidity for lying on Joyce in order to not abandon his faith. If he wanted to leave the church to get married, it is not in his desire to remain in the church. It was questioned if she raped Kirk, but she spent 3 months in prison. Pictures of her shocked face in newspapers showed her looking out the back of a police van. What makes me dislike Joyce was that she participated in nude pictures. She was still wrongfully labeled as a “whore,” which is a word that should also be used for some men in the world. It was said that Keith had an obsession with Joyce, which makes me not like how she was associating herself with him.
ReplyDeleteBecause two women who worked at a pharmacy did not like her, she suffered the loss of her dog. I got interested in the details on how she explained her pit bull harming her. Her dog got attacked by a bee, which led to her getting the dog the wrong prescription. Thus, the dog attacked her. The exciting part was when the dog amputated her left arm, tore off three fingers on her right hand, ripped her intestines out of her stomach wall, and shredded her right kneecap to her ankle. Afterwards, she got a new dog, “Booger.” As a heroic event, Booger saved her life, and she had him for 10 years. After Booger died, she replaced the dog with 5 clones. It was depressing how she grew up lonely and unmarried. I think that the dogs helps her live throughout alone without a partner.
This doc was WEIRD and I loved that. It was funny when I went to watch it, because turns out I had watched the first 10 minutes of it a few months ago (because all I do with my life is watch Netflix documentaries) and given up on it, but I’m glad I gave it another chance…not that I had much of a choice. But really, this was such an interesting film for a few different reasons. The topic, first of all, was just a bizarre one. And if there’s something I love in a documentary, it’s a crazy topic. Secondly, it was cool that the title was “Tabloid”, the story had a lot to do with tabloids, and the story was told in a sort of tabloid way. I also really liked how it kind of kept you a bit confused about what was really happening. Just like the media portrays things, you’re unsure what is truthful and what isn’t, which I thing relays to the theme of “media’s portrayal of truth isn’t always truthful”. I was being given information, “facts”, “evidence”, etc of these opposing sides of the story and it was fun to try to figure out what I thought was the truth. I’d be thinking one thing, then I’d suddenly be given new “information” that would shape my opinion of the story, followed by even more information! It was a constant battle of “what is true and what is bs?” It was very much like real media and tabloids. It was a cool choice to make the film centered around this idea because Morris could have gone about it completely differently. Instead, he really stepped out of the box and makes you feel like you are in the story back in the 70’s, experiencing it first hand and trying to decide what is the truth and what is the media’s lies.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I think this documentary was a little scattered. It has the audience thinking it’s about this weird sex story, then it’s about hiring and saucing that pilot, next is kidnapping and rape, then fleeing and disguises, on to dog cloning. Though it was unfocused, I think the director really just wanted to keep you guessing. Maybe it’s because I’m not a film connoisseur, but I didn’t understand why the screen kept changing from the TV border to the little box to regular widescreen. It did nothing for me and left me confused. If it changed with the image they were showing and it was consistent then maybe it would have worked but they showed Joyce’s interviews in the TV and in widescreen and then home footage and images of old movies in the tiny box with black border. I just didn’t think it was necessary.
ReplyDeleteAuthenticity in this film comes from what you as the audience takes out of it. Is the movie authentic by telling what really freaking happened? No. But does the movie show what these people honestly think happened? Yes. If you are getting the “this is about the truth” side, maybe it’s not authentic but looking at it from “this is about a bunch of versions of the truth,” then yes it is authentic. (Hope that made sense.)
Joyce’s escapades across the country to protest the film just make her look crazy. At least while watching the film you could give her the benefit of the doubt because you kind of want to route for her. Reading the articles though, it gives a different light to the story. When I read that Morris said, “if there were an academy award for best performance in a documentary she’d win,” I honestly thought back to how fake Joyce was. By opening my eyes to all she has done since the documentary came out, it inadvertently changed my opinion of her.
So in a round about way, what I’m trying to say is, Joyce had no right to sue Morris because she’s obviously crazy and is lying about all this stuff she’s suing him for. I don't believe for a second that an academy award winning director didn't get a release form signed or forced her to sign it. Sure she can go to as many screenings as she wants ‘cause it’s a free country but it’s just putting her in bad light.
I think that one of the most fascinating theme of “Tabloid” surfaces towards the end of the film when Joyce states, “It would be nice if all we had to deal with was God, but it's not... we have to deal with people.” Morris does not seem to seek the “truth” about what really happened in the Joyce McKinney story, but rather he explores the disparity that often takes place between that which we are and that which we are represented and perceived as.
ReplyDeleteMorris' aesthetic style has its foundation in first-hand accounts of the McKinney story from Joyce and other participants. Though (obviously) edited, virtually the entire film is carried by interview dialogue, punctuated by tabloid collages and flashes of headline-style titles. The film's authenticity seems to be based in Morris' statement that the film is “a story about the way stories are told.” We cannot trust any account to be totally truthful (though we do see gray areas of potential truth in the stories' overlaps), but we can observe the ways in which characters tell their own stories, how they are presented to the world, and how they respond to that representation.
Talk about a strike of bad luck, a strike that is never ending. Tabloid didn’t initially hook me, and I don’t think I would have finished watching it if it wasn’t assigned. I didn’t understand why I was suppose to care, or get involved with the story being told until about half way through where things began to unravel, and I guess became “juicy”. I think each story being told was its own form of authentic, what each story thought to be true. It’s hard to tell as a whole what’s true and what’s not because that’s the nature of the story being told. There is the truth of Joyce, the truth of the tabloids, and then the directors way to narrate it all.
ReplyDeleteThere were a few different techniques used in the film to aid in a certain style Morris was trying to achieve. The use of “tabloid snapshots” appearing over one another as a new subject was introduced was very distracting. I couldn’t read the clippings fast enough, and I became tuned-out from what they were saying while trying to recollect the few glimpses of words that I saw. If I was to re-do this, I would have the clippings appear a bit more staggered, stay on the screen longer, and not have the subject begin speaking right away. That is, if the clippings were important. If not then I would cut them out completely. Another technique I didn’t really like, and only began to understand at the end of the film was the archival footage. I wasn’t sure if it was real footage I was watching, or just footage to simulate what they were actually talking about. When they initially showed Kirk in this archival footage, I wasn’t sure if I was actually looking at him or just some man. I don’t know if that was only confusing to me. Also to go along with this, the old romantic movie footage confused me. At first I thought maybe it was Joyce acting, since after all she was a model and it wouldn’t be unheard of for her to have old footage of herself like that. I did like when they had the words “ropes” and “chains” come up on the screen with silly little sound effects. It made a serious topic more playful, which made me as a viewer feel like this whole story was more comical than something that seriously happened, or should be taken serious at all.
Since Morris made those playful decision I think I felt more for Joyce as a viewer. I felt bad for her that whatever happened in her life was blown up this much because of the media. Even if she was this sex and chains monster, I felt bad that it was still haunting her, and that she had her photos exploited like that. I believe Morris was just in telling Joyce’s story. It seemed that everything he told was already told through the media, but she now had a voice to go hand and hand. I was surprised to hear that she filed any sort of lawsuit because I actually felt bad for her in the film. I think if anything this film should have brought the public to understand how harsh the media was on her in the way they exploited her. I believed to an extent what she was saying and thought maybe everything was just a bit mixd up and blown out of proportion. One guy in the documentary even pointed out that there is the tabloids story, Joyce’s story, and a mixture of the two. After reading the articles about the lawsuit and her showing up at screenings, I began to have seconds thoughts about her. Maybe she is just a very smart, manipulative person. I thought I had a good dynamic view of her from the documentary, and formed my own opinion on liking her, until I read those articles.
As I read through some of the other responses, I noticed that several people thought that McKinney was performing, or just plain crazy. I personally found that I could relate to her. I know what it feels like to be in love with somebody but not have anything you can do about it – it can drive a person absolutely mad. Her story, of course, was on a much more extreme scale. With this being said, I can imagine that she was stretching the truth a bit in order to appear more innocent. I do believe that she loves Kirk though, and that the media put her through absolute hell. I have a soft spot for people that get torn apart in tabloids. I strongly feel that it’s wrong to expose someone’s personal life, no matter what they may or may not have done. It can ruin an entire lifetime, which nobody deserves. Because of this, I am grateful that Joyce was able to tell her side of the story in this film, whether or not it is completely honest, because at least there will be some people out there who will switch to her side. My heart hurts for the pain she has had to face the majority of her life, and although I do think it may seem silly to pay so much to clone your pet, she felt Booger was all she had, and I commend her for doing what makes her happy.
ReplyDeleteThe style of the film was quite appealing. I thought that even though the majority of the film was shot interview style in front of a basic background, it never lost my interest like many of the documentaries we have watched this semester. I was very engaged in the story and found that the archival footage helped to break it up a bit as well. The quick snippets of black throughout the interviews were a little distracting at first, but I got used to them eventually. I also thought that the shots were really beautiful – almost like portraits. This is another choice that normally bores me, but considering the topic matter, I was captivated entirely. I also loved the many references to tabloid headlines throughout – it was obviously very fitting to the theme of the story, which to me was “Don’t always believe what you hear.” This could potentially be a metaphor for the entire documentary itself, telling you not to trust what Joyce is saying because media can manipulate words and stories very easily.
Overall, I think that the filmmaker was fairly unbiased in the sense that he got several different perspectives on the story, and allowed the main subject to tell her story completely without making her seem a certain way.
This week’s viewing definitely had me scratching my head towards the end. For the most part, it was an entertaining piece given its somewhat whimsical nature due to the loopy soundtrack, comical motion graphics, and corky editing style. But there was a point where I began to get agitated with the film, because I felt like it was taking me for a ride without allowing me to emotionally invest fully in Joyce’s story. I found this to be unfair. Now up until recently, I have been of the opinion that the only responsibility that a filmmaker has in terms of their work is to find their own sense of truth through their artistry. So normally, I wouldn’t have a problem with this filmmaker’s portrayal of Joyce as the crazed, obsessive, self-involved hopeless romantic that she seems to be. I totally get that, and it certainly makes for an interesting film. My problem with the film, however, is that this portrayal is overtly scornful of Joyce’s story. She isn’t treated as a person, but more of a circus act to be poked fun at. We see this in the editing, we see this in the storytelling with the juxtaposed accounts and the heavy handed opinions of the other subjects towards Joyce, we see this in the way in which the filmmaker’s chose to make light of some of Joyce’s darker life moments, while exhibiting the amusement of the other subjects (such as the portion of the film where Joyce expresses her desire to jump from the hotel room balcony). I’m sorry, but there are moments in this film that I found to be handled in poor taste, and I don’t say that often. I’m all about controversy and pushing boundaries, but not at the cost of disrespecting or even degrading (to some degree) the subjects of your film. I’m all for finding your own sense of truth as an artist, but not at the cost of invalidating someone else’s.
ReplyDeleteTabloid is definitely one of my favorite films we've watched this semester. The characters are are so extremely fascinating, especially Joyce. From the second I pressed play I knew that I'd fall in love with this documentary. I didn't read the description before I started this film and once the full story was revealed I couldn't even wrap my head around it.
ReplyDeleteFirst I couldn't believe that Joyce was once a former beauty pageant winner or a model. She just seemed a bit off and as the doc progressed I realized there is no way this woman could be sane. She falls in love with a man she barely knows then kidnaps and rapes him. And has spent her whole life in denial avoiding the truth. The film is set up like a tabloid news report/story. We get different views of what happened, Joyce's, the pilot, and the Mormon fellow. Occassionally we're shown newspaper clippings with the important words in focus for us but we never see the full article and in this film we never get the full story because we are lacking kirks side of it.
In regards to Joyce boycotting the film, I think she did that to have another chance in the limelight. She is obsessed with attention. After she tried to live off radar she goes and gets her dog cloned which she would have know that if the cloning was successful the media would be all over it. She claims that her signature was forged on the contract when this shooting this film and that she was unclear of what the footage would be used for but I believe is that after the whole Sex in Chains Mormon scandal she wanted to be on camera. She wanted to be placed back in the public's eye. I think she's completely ridiculous and that she went about suing Morris for a last chance at 15 seconds of fame.
Tabloid is a documentary that deals with the finding truth or even figuring out what is truth in a story. From start to finish I was siding with Joyce McKinney the whole way. She’s in an interesting subject/character/plantiff. The film starts off with Joyce reading something from her book about her being in a fairytale love affair and also concludes with this stock footage of a “princess” who lost her morman prince.
ReplyDeleteThe tabloid clippings that were shot and clicked whenever a new character was introduced were very fast and hard to keep straight.
Is this a trick question if the film is authentic? I sure feels that way but at the end of the film I am lost in what is the truth. I suppose that is what the filmmaker wants to me to feel confused and sidetracked. If that’s the case then sure this film is authentic.
“The truth is somewhere in the middle.” This is said by somebody during the film regarding what actually happened with Joyce Vs. the tabloid media. As a viewer I literally feel in the middle between the truth. While I don’t doubt that Joyce loved Kirk but she is obsessive. With Joyce being this obsessed with Kirk she lacks the sensibility that she did anything wrong to him and his religious stance. Despite this fricken Joyce McKinney story being 30 years old I never heard of it and to this day the dispute is not over.
I feel that the directed was responsible to his main character. I was rooting for Joyce the whole time. She is a strong person to survive a media hellfire AND a dog attack! Those damn cruel pharmacists how awful. Side note Booger is a terrible name for a dog. The only reason I second guess myself about how truthful she is because of the other people interviewed know more about her than me and have actually seen her true identity. I have only seen her on-camera personality.
I read the article about her trying to sue the filmmaker and I hope we discuss this more in class. I’m glad the case got dismissed. I just don’t know what to make of what allegedly went down.
Tabloid is one of the most entertaining documentaries that we have seen thus far this semester. The way that Morris tells this story was quite fun and intriguing. I didn’t think that the aesthetics of filmmaking that he uses were detrimental to the story or negates the truth. But wow, what a hell of a story is going on here. The quick edits, the animation style with the “cut outs” of the newspaper articles, along with the past footage made for a whimsical way to tell the story.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, unrequited love can make a person do some strange things and certainly this portion of the story is strange. But on the other hand, the Mormon Church definitely has some distinct differences in their belief systems than to other Christian religions. It wouldn’t be too far fetched to believe some of the accounts that the Mormon Church could be manipulating the truth in this particular situation. However, what the truth is in this part of the story is just baffling to me without the side told from the Mormon lover.
Secondly, the additional story of Joyce being some sort of kinky sex worker was a facet of the story that made me scratch my head on what I had just seen. Was this girl really just interested in saving her lover from a Church that had brain washed him or was she lost in another escapade that had gone wrong?
Thirdly, the part with the cloned dogs was even more baffling. If she didn’t want to be in the headlines, why would she be part of something that would definitely make news like cloning dogs? She could have easily let the company show the cloned dogs without her in the press conference then taken the dogs home. In my opinion, Joyce has a need for attention, despite her saying to the contrary, and wants to be in the new.
On whether the film is authentic or not, it certainly showed various points of view on the story of Joyce and Kirk given from the accounts of various people that were immediately involved with the story as it was unfolding. To each of them, they were being authentic in telling their points of view of the story. I think that Morris was leaving it up to the audience to determine what they thought about Joyce.
The theme? Perhaps it is that you can’t always believe what is said, that the truth of a matter can be manipulated into whatever someone wants it to be. Or is it crazy is what crazy does. I get this feeling that what is lurking underneath all of this is that despite Joyce’s supposed high IQ, she is mentally ill and mental illness is something we don’t fully understand. I think that when she filed a lawsuit and flew around the world to protest the film showed just how mentally disturbed this woman is and how she cannot keep from having someone give her some sort of attention.
First Post got deleted :(
ReplyDeleteI absolutely loved how this documentary was told. The theme of media and tabloids was continuous throughout. From the animated news clippings to the headings to introduce the different subjects, it was very entertaining to watch.
Regarding authenticity, I believe the film was authentic, however because there were so many various viewpoints from different subjects regarding the story, who's to say what's authentic and what's not? But as a viewer, as far as I'm concerned it was authentic.
The style in which the story was being told did help me understand the theme with all the little extra things it would do such as important phrases flash across the screen and interview clips shown on the little television, it all correlated very well.
The only responsibility I feel the documentarian had was to just tell the story in an ethical manner. He wasn't responsible for what the subjects said or what they did, he was just their to get their side of the story.
I wouldn't change anything about this documentary, everything was done amazingly and it was quite entertaining.
Regarding the article on McKinney suing Morris, that is a bunch of bull. First of all, this woman had a controversial story to begin with and I believe when she was approached with I don't believe there was any intent to "clear her name" but rather an opportunity to tell her side of the story. The way I see it it, you are taking a risk anyway by being on film. This documentary wasn't to make Joyce look good, it was to bring attention to her story and let her tell her side and allow for the audience to formulate their own opinions about her.
All in all I liked this documentary more so for the way the story was told than the actual story itself. Although the story was quite juicy.
What a bizarre film. Everyone in this film, INCLUDING filmmaker Errol Morris, is a strange character. Morris allows Joyce McKinney to tell her side of the story FINALLY, without obvious judgement. He just watches and urges on the subjects in the film, all while conducting the interview in that “Interrotron” device of his. The pairing of Joyce’s account with the contradictions and/or the reaffirmations of the other interviewees was really fascinating. For example, Joyce, with a twinkle in her eyes, starts lovingly describing Kirk: Beautiful blue eyes, sexy smile, clean skin. And then all of a sudden, without warning, Peter Tory swoops in and shatters Joyce’s description of him. In his harsh, critical British voice, Tory says “Kirk Anderson was a very big, rather flabby, 300 pound, 6’3”, not athletic or attractive looking man in the accepted sense of the word, who had a very shuffly kind of walk.” Talk about disillusioned.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the stylishness of the film, very vintage and “National Inquirer” like. It was as much a telling of Joyce’s love story as it was a satire on the system of tabloid journalism. Besides the stylish editing on the film and the projection of footage evidence into television screens, what I noticed was the very sudden cuts, the unexpected blackouts. It was very much like taking snapshots with flash. The choice in cutting the interviews up like that, it also added to the oddity of the film and the direction of storytelling that Morris was going for. The anticipation that the blackouts created for the audience, it was like Errol Morris was saying, “If you think this shit is weird, wait until you get a load of this.”
I enjoyed the fact that Errol Morris didn’t just show the peculiarity of Joyce McKinney, but also the trashiness of the gossip columnists Peter Tory and Kent Gavin. One thing that stood out for me during Tory’s interview was when he was recounting the “details” of Kirk Anderson’s kidnapping. He said that he said McKinney “chained” Kirk, rather than “tying him up with rope,” because “chains sound better.” Kirk was also “spread-eagled, which is this wonderful bondage word.” This guy is twisted, and Morris doesn’t skip a beat in showing how despicable he is in manipulating words to better fit the story he wanted to sensationalize. Morris has him repeat “spread-eagled” many times. Morris actually uses repetition throughout this film, and it adds even more to the quirkiness. There were times when I thought, “is Netflix glitching? What is going on.”
To be very honest, I’m not sure who to believe in this case. Just as one of the articles state, the evidence of the kidnapping was not definitive. And it didn’t help that Kirk Anderson refused to be interviewed and tell his version of the story, or that Keith May died back in 2004, leaving Joyce alone with her truth. All the characters in the film certainly took liberties in omitting and adding in parts of the story, and I don’t think we’ll ever truly know. We are left bearing witness to the obsession of the characters, and still searching for the real truth, which I believe is what the theme is. Errol Morris definitely has a fascination with history and uncovering the unknown. His other films, the Fog of War and the Thin Blue Line also deal with that same theme, Morris wanting to know the person behind the Vietnam War, and whether or not Randall Dale Adams really did kill a police officer. I don’t think it was right for Joyce to have pressed charges of defamation against Morris. In my opinion, Morris just observed. He let Joyce do all the talking, and let her tell, essentially, her love story.
DeleteMy perception of Joyce? She’s strange. There are these moments that just strike me as, what am I hearing right now. When she describes her first encounter with Kirk, she compares it to Romeo and Juliet. I have the subtitles on, and the subtitles during that part read “When Juliet looks at Romeo and it’s… [IMITATING GUNSHOT] That’s how it was.” How grim. She just also seems like she belongs in a fairy tale rather than here in our harsh world. The beginning of the film starts with her reading aloud from her book, and she starts describing the most beautiful princess in all the land. “Her hair was long and blonde and her eyes were as brown as the dark waters of the river, which ran by her castle.” In my notes, as I was watching this, I wrote, “Is she describing herself?” and then in the next line, after Joyce elaborates that it was from the book she had penned, I scribbled “SHE IS.” What’s eve better is at the end, she compares herself to Narcissus and says that she is dying of a broken heart. Narcissus didn’t die of a broken heart, he drowned because he fell in love with his own reflection in a pool. But I really did appreciate Errol Morris’ choice in leaving in the part about Booger and her clones. Joyce really needs to focus her obsession of love on someone that will readily accept it. Society will certainly look down on obsessive love and stalking, but they can accept the love an owner has for her dog.
I absolutely loved this film. Joyce McKinney was absolutely phenomenal. There was never a boring moment when she talked. I believe the way Morris told this story was very well done. He created a mesmerizing narrative with more than one voice. In response to the filmmaker being authentic and responsible, I believe Morris was. You can hear him talk to his subjects in his film while interviewing them and sharing laughs. I believe the reason Joyce filed a lawsuit against Morris was because this film resurrected her past, which she was trying to cover up. In the film, Joyce told one of the men that she would never pose nude, not knowing that this man had around a thousand pictures of her modeling nude. Throughout the film, you start to get a sense of how much Joyce likes to lie or twist the truth. She states that her four-month-old puppy dropped its leash down by the door as if to say “walk me.” After many of these claims, I started to roll my eyes. So, I really don’t believe Joyce was right to file a lawsuit against Morris. He was only interviewing other subjects to hear their version of the story. Ultimately, though, I don’t really know who is truly right in this story. Parts of Kirk’s story could be truthful and part of Joyce’s story could be truthful. In the movie, Joyce even says something along the lines of “It only takes a while until you start to believe in the lie that you’re telling.” This isn’t exactly what she said, but she said something close to this. So, I don’t think we’ll ever get the full story. I believe all sides of this story have been somewhat manipulated and recreated over the years. It was the observation of the unfolding of these stories that really captured me. This film was excellent, and I cannot think of one thing that I would change in it.
ReplyDeleteThe flash of the different love related headlines of tabloids throughout served as a thread of cohesiveness between all elements of her story. I like the flashback of the courtroom scene that shows the director feel this story to be more dated than it really is by placing emphasis on these popular Thomas Jefferson, George Washington type hair styles.
ReplyDeleteThis piece documents how love spans across continents and kind of touches on psychological aspects. There were several heavy references to Mormon life that doesn't quite wrap up or show a clear conclusion, which I think were intentionally done to show how a story is still open-ended no matter how much you think you may have.
The character states how time changes but the scene is still the same. She's a narcissistic lonely old woman who lost all of her tangible resources to her truck being burglarized, and she's subsequently unable to provide evidence for any premise of her argument. She blows things off by saying oh well, dogs and children love me, and they don't read tabloids.
If I were responsible for a movie called Tabloid. I would have done so much differently than this director di. He focused on how many tabloids were taken in and interpreted by characters. I would have done more of non-relative commentaries on the random postings in the different global Tabloid bulletins.
This film was incredible. I was sitting on the edge of my seat saying what the actual fuck the entire time. The retelling of this story is just mind blowing.
ReplyDeleteI think “creatively treats the truth” is such a good phrase for this film. I still don’t know what the truth is, and I will never know. The theme is all about the way we twist stories and our perspective of the stories we tell people versus the perspectives of others telling the same story. Because of this it is so effective to leave us not knowing. We get bits and pieces from both sides that could be true and then we just scratch our heads and are forced to make up a story of what we think happened based of that. Pure genius. If forces the viewer to be involved and interactive through the entire film as well as to think about the stories that we tell even after the film is over.
The graphic treatment is amazing throughout this film! It’s so interesting and it heightens the fabrication of the stories that are retellings of actual events. You know very well you can’t trust everything if anything Joyce is saying but you can’t help but be fascinated with her.
As far as the lawsuit goes I think people just like reason to sue people. It’s a way to keep herself relevant. This women has had her 15 minutes of fame twice now, and she will do more crazy stuff to have more 15 minute moments. Of course she wasn’t painted in a great light, but was she really expecting to be? I can’t wait to hear the stories she tells about what she thought this film was supposed to be.