Thin Blue Line Essay

Thin Blue Line (1988) is ‘a film that successfully argued that a man was wrongly convicted of murder by a corrupt justice system in Dallas County, Texas.’ (Chislom). This documentary is filmed and directed by the award-winning director and filmmaker, Errol Morris; it centred around Randall Dale Adams; a 27-year-old worker and 16-year old David Harris. These two males were suspect of the murder of Dallas police officer, Robert W Wood in 1978.

This documentary is structured to persuade the audience to believe that suspect, Adams; who was convicted of the crime against Officer Wood and sentenced to the death penalty; was absolutely innocent of the crime and that David Harris is guilty of the murder. The film technique of using reenactments was

persuasive to an audience of the event as it is being constructed in a way that creates image and situation of what events occurred that night; in which shapes the opinion of the audience on the issue.

The documentary views Randall Adams in a positive and genuine light, which is convincing of his innocence and in contrast, the footage of Harris that is proposed presents an evil and untrustworthy essence of the man.

The film as a whole gave enough validated criticisms of the evidence that was collated by the police that the audience made up their own minds that Adams was innocent.

Errol Morris, the director of Thin Blue Line, is an award winning director with 35 years of experience in the industry. Morris has come across great success in his career, he has had great directing roles in films such as The Fog of War and Mr. Death. Although he has come across great success, Thin Blue Line not only did not make any profits but left Errol Morris in one hundred thousand dollars in debt.

Randall Adams and Errol Morris had a very close relationship during and after the filming of the documentary as Morris was determined to make Adams a free man. Although, once Adams was released from his life sentence, he sued Morris as there was a written agreement the two men made before the film was released, stating that ‘Adams would be paid $10 if Mr. Morris made a documentary film or $60,000 and 2 percent of profits if he made a commercial film.’ (P. A) Errol Morris therefore owns the material in Thin Blue Line but Morris reinforces that it was never his intention

to
“deprive Randall Adams of the opportunity to make money from his life story,’’(P, A)

This film is created in a number of modes but the most predominant being the reflexive convention mode, it includes the characteristics of this mode with a fictional essence, created by the re-enactments.

Also, there aren’t many hard facts presented as most of the information given in interviews and such are reliant on memory, in which can be terribly distorted. This was most likely the mode chose this mode as it allows the audience to make their own judgements on the social actors and their innocence. The film gives out more than adequate contradictory evidence that it almost forces the audience to believe that Adams is innocent, highlighting the characteristics of this chosen mode using techniques to create a subjective

film.

The second predominant mode used in Thin Blue Line is the expository mode as it adopts the techniques of ‘voice-of-god’ narration that present during the film, particularly when evidence and re-enactments are being shown. The images and newspaper clippings collated into scenes, also with voiceovers, illustrate the point that Morris is trying to get across, also engages the audience further and more heavily as they are being presented with facts and real evidence from the case, not just interviews that are based on the memory men and women, all of which could be lying.

Morris may have chosen this mode over others as they would not have been as convincing to the audience or may not have made sense at all. The observational made, for example, could not have been of any enhancement to the film as the only footage that could have been captured would be Adams and Harris in their cells, in which, do not tell their stories and is not what the documentary is about. No interaction between the filmmaker and the social actors would have been made, in which leaves out the main point put across.

Adams was the person most predominantly interviewed in the film, he was also the one to be wrongly accused and the main goal during the making of the film was to free Adams, Morris had the drive to help a free man and would not give up on his goal. Adams was at the centre of the film and the centre of the director's vision of how the film was going to be. Adams died in 2010 and the film still puts the same point across, yet if he was dead prior to the filming of the film, it would have turned out much different. Perhaps the director may have had less motivation and put less effort into the film as he had no hope of saving Adams, then again the motivation could have been excelled for the respect of Adams. Instead of an investigative film, it would have been a film respect and remembrance of the dead.

Adams and Harris, being the two main characters did not have an important role in the making of the film, they solely had the role of being social actors. The main reason for this being, that both social actors were in jail on death row. If both social actors had more access into the making to have a bigger role the film may have ended up putting the light on Harris instead of Adams, or they both could have seemed more guilty, there are man possibilities.

Thin Blue Line is said to be one of the greatest documentaries made, it had a rough start with many criticisms, but over the years people have come to appreciate its different style of filmmaking in the documentary world. This film is ultimately the reason for Randall Adams being a free man after so long of being wrongfully convicted, highlighting the flaws of the corrupt justice system in America.