John Grierson famously defined documentary as "the creative treatment of actuality," and for this week's post, I want you to watch Errol Morris's Tabloid on Netflix and consider all the weird and wonderful ways in which Morris creatively treats the truth, as well as how he uses visual display to generate meaning. And do the film's style and sensibility - as well as its main nonfictional performer - contribute to your understanding of its theme (which is...)? How?
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 5pm next Tuesday of course.
This documentary made me scratch my head towards the end. Generally, it was an engaging piece given its fairly weird nature because of the loopy soundtrack, hilarious motion graphics, and corky editing style. In any case, there was an point where I started get upset 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 thought this to be unreasonable. Presently as of not long ago, I have had the opinion that the main idea that a filmmaker has regarding their work is to locate their own particular feeling of truth through their aestheticness. So typically, I wouldn't have an issue with this present movie directors depiction of Joyce as the crazed, fanatical, self-included miserable sentimental person that she is by all accounts. I absolutely get that, and it surely makes for a fascinating film. My issue with the film, in any case, is that this depiction is clearly hateful of Joyce's story. She isn't dealt with as a man, however to a greater degree a bazaar demonstration to be made fun at. We see this in the editing, we see this in the narration with the compared interviews and the many different feelings of different subjects towards Joyce, we see this in the route in which the director's downplayed some of Joyce's darker moments, while showing the delight of alternate subjects, (for example, the bit of the film where Joyce communicates her desire to jump off the balcony). I'm sad, yet there are times in this film I saw to be dealt with in poor taste, and I don't state that regularly. I'm about contention and pushing limits, yet not at the cost of degrading (to some degree) the subjects of your film. I'm for discovering your own particular feeling of truth as a filmmaker, yet not at the cost of negating somebody else's.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI hope one day that my life is as eccentric as this lady’s.
For starters, I thought this whole documentary was just far out man. I felt like Errol Morris could have just taken one of the interviewee’s stories that he liked best and made the film distinctly about that story, however he allowed his subjects to tell the story exactly how they wanted. Honestly, it was hard for me to see a specific bias in this film. While most people would connect and feel empathetic towards Joyce, there are parts that can make you absolutely despise her. I feel like he did this a lot throughout the film. We fall in love with the eccentric being of a person and we build them up as the film progresses, but then they say some fatuous statement that completely makes us disregard them as a person. For example, at the beginning of the film, I was like nah dude, there is no way in hell that lady could do any of this shit, and then she kind of just kept talking about mormons (something she did not seem to really have a grasp on...then again, do any of us? I mean, we made a fuckin musical about them…). She also continuously talked about herself and this obsession she had/has with love. I feel like this whole film would have been different if she were talking about love when she was younger rather than now. And the same thing goes for her private investigator that we thought was all on board to help her out, and then he goes on talking about her breasts and wondering if she was actually in a relationship at the time? This all shows the truth and morality of their overall being, but like wtf honestly wtf…
When the film had the flashing print over the interviewees faces as they started talking was a bit overwhelming for me. I felt like I was looking in every direction and not focused on the person right away...but maybe that’s just an ADHD thing. I did enjoy the flashing newspaper clips though. That just made the whole thing feel like a tabloid, which for sure helped the overall context of the film itself. It made me feel like I was reading one of those old magazines from the lates 60s or early 70s. To be honest, I’m not sure if this helped with the authenticity. It made it feel all over the place just as much as the people/stories were. I also feel like it’s hard to find a genuine perspective talking to all of these people. We for sure see debauchery and vice come into play with their thinking. Furthermore, the way they speak just seemed almost comedic-like to me. We have Joyce making dog sounds and some mormon yelling about devil-protecting underwear. Clearly, these were real life events, but I just don’t know what to make of it. While we had these people telling the story from their point of view, I personally just could not pinpoint the crucial parts needed for me to actually give a shit about what happened. I feel bad that she was in jail and that this shit even happened, but I wish I could find a more genuine connection outside the sweet, southern hospitality that Joyce had throughout the film. As for Joyce filing that lawsuit...why? The whole film was about her and being in the spotlight. If she honestly did not like it, she probably should have presented herself differently or at least a little more formal in front of the camera. At the beginning of the film, it said she had an IQ of 168, which I am going to assume is an accurate fact. She just shouldn’t have been a self-obsessed dumb ass on screen…
Zoey Danielson
ReplyDeleteThat was honestly probably the weirdest hour and twenty-seven minutes of my life. This woman is so strange, but she made for such a great complicated story. I honestly don’t even know what to feel right now. What I think I love about this documentary the most, was being able to hear complete multiple stories all in one video. You get to see and hear everyone’s side of the story, which is something that you don’t usually get. Everyone seemed to have their own version of the story, everyone seemed to have some form of compelling evidence, everyone seemed to be slightly in love with Joyce and everyone certainly had their own opinion. There is only one person who knows the truth of this story and that’s Joyce and because of that, I don’t think anyone else ever will.
I think that this documentary was authentic. It seemed to showcase who Joyce really was. This documentary didn’t seem like it was trying to tell a story, but rather showcase multiple versions of one story. This documentary was like the opposite of The Imposter, instead of making me trust the crazy main character, it made me distrust her. Which I really liked.
I was never bored during this documentary, it just kept going and going and was so fast paced it hardly left time for me to form my own opinion. I really liked all of the extra photos they showed, the newspaper clippings, the text over their faces when one of the characters said something weird, it was all great. I really liked how we would occasionally be brought back to the old television set, I thought that was really unique and signified for me that we were starting on something new. I also like how this ended quite abruptly. One second we were talking about cloning dogs and the next, credits. This documentary was an interesting experience. One that still leaves me slightly confused.
So, I'm not really sure what I just watched, so I'll just go over my thoughts, and move from there. The things I noticed about the film that I really enjoyed were the motion graphics and the story. The motion graphics are the main things that I found to really drive the story. The entire movie is basically just interviews, and the text flying around, and the weird sound effects, and newspaper like images flying around were what helped make it visually interesting, when there wasn't much else going on. As far as the story, I still have no clue what to make of Joyce. I want to say that she's bat shit crazy, and maybe she is, who am I to say. This film seemed to end so abruptly, and I don't feel like I can form a good opinion on what I think is the truth. I can see why she might be upset with Morris, but that just might be the crazy coming back out. Then again, maybe the reason I think she has a few loose screws is because of the way Morris portrayed her, and would probably be the reason she is so upset. I really don't know what to think of this, but I really did enjoy it, I just wish there was more.
ReplyDeleteTabloid. This film completely embodies its name. I’m not really sure where to start with this.
ReplyDeleteThe way the film was constructed is genius. Although it was mainly done through talking head interviews, there’s never a dull moment. The use of newspaper clippings, graphics, and archival footage was all impactful and added to the tabloid aesthetic. It was absurd and everyone was telling a different story.
I might be reaching with this one, but I feel as though the archival clips from films Morris used over bits of the interviews were used to visualize how Joyce saw her life. As she kept reiterating, she craved an ideal “All-American” life/boy. I don’t know, I just appreciated that aspect of the film.
Although this film is telling a story so manipulated through the media, I believe that all the interviewees Morris gathered formed the most authentic portrayal of Joyce’s wild life as possible. He could’ve easily not have had her in it and still told an interesting story, but this was not only a telling of this woman’s media exploits- it gave her an opportunity to tell her whole truth. Her answers were wacky, but she had total control over what she was going to say. Sure the editing made her a little more out there but it went with the tone of the rest of the film. Because of this, I don’t really think she was justified to file a lawsuit or protest but I mean… how could she not? She needs that spotlight. Lowkey I kind of love her.
Overall, the comedic and absurd atmosphere the documentary build was authentic to the events that unfolded on the screen. It was an entertaining and eye-opening way of telling a story by utilizing everyone’s perception of the “truth”. More than just depicting Joyce’s story, this film showed just how subjective truth really is. Watching this was very useful because it goes along with what we’ve been discussing in class.
Oh, and now I want to clone my sweet prince, Nacho. I need 5 Nacho puppies to cuddle.
If you watch enough Errol Morris interviews like I have, you’ll come across a repeated phrase and theory that really defines how Morris makes his films and how I believe he views the subjects he chooses. It’s his theory that we know other people better than we know ourselves due to what he sees as a human tendency for self-deception. Seeing Tabloid, and learning about the circumstances around the release of the film with Joyce McKinney, I’m thinking that she is probably the most Morris-esque character in his filmography. Watching this and another Morris film, The Unknown Known, in the same week, I am beginning to believe that people like Joyce McKinney are not simply liars. Having Joyce go on at length and in detail about the chain of events of the Manacled Mormon seem way to intricate to be simple lies. I think she is lying but I think that she has engaged in some sort of deranged doublethink that she now believes her own lies. The irony is that when Joyce goes around the country protesting screenings, she seems to be proving Errol Morris correct. One of my favorites is at NYC DOC where he just stands next to her and lets her speak. I’ll link to it below.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqyO81UZ3Mc
As for the actual filmmaking, it’s always a joy to watch an Errol Morris film, even when you don’t always feel joy from his selection of subjects from Fred Leuchter Jr, Donald Rumsfeld, or Ed Gein. One thing I found very interesting that differs from Morris’s other films is that during interviews, the shot will cut to black and then resume after a second or two. I’m not sure what purpose this serves. I did notice that this occurs only after a character begins to talk about sex and sexual acts that relate to the trials and tribulations of Joyce McKinney.
Oh boy. This doc was so wacky. What a character! Joyce was a joy and pain to watch. 'Tabloid' was such a mix between a cinematic masterpiece and a complete theatrical melt down. Joyce and the Kardashians should meet up to have high tea.
ReplyDeleteThe filmmaking makes up for the plot, but then again, this was just so damn entertaining.
The beginning tv interview within the tv immediately set the tone of this film. Right away, Errol brings in the concept of actuality. Is the picture on the tv real, is it staged? My first thoughts are, what are we watching? Soon its revealed to us but right off the bat you get a sense of something within something is happening. The filmmaking and editing choices of this movie were absolutely brilliant. The interviews with the pilot, the mormon missionary, the photographer and Dr Hong flow perfectly together. We hear each complete story and side from each person, which is rare and rewarding. Once in a while we hear the interviewee (Errol?) chime in only to remind us that yes, this is real and not staged, we are watching a documentary.
I enjoyed the montages of animated newspaper clips and the background music, while sometimes a bit cheesy to the situation, was delightful. The music was so important to the storytelling in setting the tone. Joyce is animated, crazy, dark and immensely entertaining. Mr. Morris used his famous interrontron method so that both subject and Errol could see each others face. The reason for using this method, hmm well I don’t know. Maybe this incident is to preposterous and delightfully astonishing that it has to be told to your face and not through a looking off to the camera traditional doc style interview. However, my knobs are turning and I remember when watching The Imposter, the bad guy is often always looking into the camera. Hmm. Either way, this was such a smart idea as the subjects being interviewed appear to be authentic. This interrontron method is used to try and get more out of the person and not have the eerie feeling of being filmed while discussing. It worked.
Throughout this documentary, we learn and hear so much, but how much of it is true, honestly, we’ll never know. Joyce states honestly in the documentary “A person can tell a lie so many times that they believe it's true.” Frankly, I don’t think anyone is this film cares that they’re being film. They’re just happy and flattered to finally tell the story the way they feel it should be told.
The only link missing is Kirk, but I think with all the subject matter, like Joyce flying out to clone her dog, Booger, we were just fine without him.
What in the hell did I just watch? I’m still not sure whether I liked it or hated it, or if I even comprehend what just happened. Where do I even begin. I guess I’ll start by saying what I wanted out of the film that it did not give me. I wanted to hear more about Kirk. In a perfect world, he would have been interviewed, but since he refused I would have liked to more about where he is now and what his life has been like or if he and Joyce have had any contact over the yeas. Something else I wanted but couldn’t have happened, was an interview with KJ. His perspective to the story would have been interesting to say the least. If those two people were in the doc, I feel that the story could have been stronger. However, using Joyce as a main protagonist works well. She's incredibly charming, and personable. No wonder the press was obsessed with her, besides her wild story. I loved the way the film used stop-motion style graphics to help tell the story. The style reflected the way people takes bits of information and weave together a full story, the meaning of the doc. The style reminded me of pin-up pictures from the 40s. I think that the director believed that Joyce was not as innocent as she claims to be, or innocent at all, but was supportive to her to make her open up in the interviews. The information he has in the doc from the other interviews wouldn't have been kept in if he truly believed her to be as innocent as she claims to be. He also wouldn't have showed as many of her nude photographs as he did believe her to be innocent. Whenever we would hear the interviewer/director speak to Joyce, they seemed to be very chummy and having a good time. The authenticity of this film however is questionable. Similar to the way The Imposter’s authenticity is questionable purely based on the story that is being told.
ReplyDeleteThis was my least favorite documentary we have watched as a class thus far. It was a good film, however I found myself losing interest in the story after the film was about half way over. I did enjoy the footage and pictures that were included, but I wanted more. I feel like this was way too much talking heads and it became really repetitive as a film. Maybe I just have a short attention span. Regardless of the lack of footage, I really liked the story and all the details that were included. I think in a sense the film felt like a tabloid itself with all the flashy imagery and quick paced story telling. I became overwhelmed and began to forget what was going on. The way Joyce was portrayed made her seem like she was a little out of her mind, especially when she starts talking about her cloned dogs knowing how to open up doors. I can see why Morris decided to cut the film this way and include that information. I think it really skews the viewers opinions on the subject however.
ReplyDeleteI liked that I got to hear both sides of the story and everything that happened thought the whole process of this mess. I do think that the focus was on Joyce and her story however, I still don't think that convinced me that she was in the right for this because of how crazy she sounded. Overall I think this film was well made, and the people involved were well represented. I just thought it was a little too weird and out there for me to enjoy it being as long as it was.
This film was interesting to say the least. From the beginning I actually found myself feeling bored and not engaged with what the interviewee was saying, and I found that the motion graphics and the style wasn’t heightening this interest for me at all. I think I became intrigued with the doc when the story was getting juicy, and Joyce was was almost telling a different story then the man who flew the aircraft. All the sudden, I actually started liking the graphics that were carrying along their words. And humorously certain graphics that played along to Joyce’s words were even more entertaining. Visually I especially loved the graphic of the plane flying from different parts of the map, and the location added into a appealing aesthetic. But again the story didn’t capture my interest at the beginning so the aesthetic and what was being said seemed confusing for the emotion being brought out by the colors of shots and the initial interviews. Also I had no idea who any of the guys being interviewed were because there was a lot of words scattered all over the screen for a brief moment, so it took me awhile to gather information on them. Storytelling wise I thought Errol Morris filmed this topic in a creative and alternative way, I often found myself contradicting who to trust based how every person stated their own view of what happened. I noticed many times he would chime in with a few words as if he was guiding or almost boosting up their confidence with everything they said. Up till about the last 20 minutes of the film, I somewhat felt sympathy for Joyce. It wasn’t till her way into the spotlight again with the cloning of booger. The ending definitely tied together the meaning of the name and its revolving around Joyce, to make her seem like somewhat of an attention seeker. One thing I do have to give her credit for is being a spectacular performer and storyteller, even if it was a lie it was amusing and comical for the audience. For her to file a lawsuit against morris was definitely inevitable, she was painting in a somewhat bad way but honestly that from her own doing, also seems like another attention scheme.
ReplyDeleteIt was a pretty good documentary, and I was really interested in the whole London ordeal. The doc flowed nicely, and it was kept interesting with the graphics and how the archival footage was unique. The theme of tabloids was constant in the visuals. However as much as the film was about this woman's obsession with being in them, I lost interest after the kidnapping story. As good as the doc was and as well as it was made- it felt personal each time you heard the interviewer's voice- the rest of her story didn't interest me. For the first story, I liked how they got interviews with just about every party involved, such as the pilot's perspective. This gave the story more dimension, which may be why I liked the documentary and stuck through the parts I was bored with.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how I felt about this doc as a whole. The story sounded interesting just based on the synopsis, but I found myself playing with my phone during most of the middle portion. What first caught my attention at the beginning before I became too ADD to care was the use of animation to help tell the tale of how she met Kirk. I thought the use of footage, pictures, animation, and talking head interviews was really fascinating.
ReplyDeleteThe use of all these tools helped make the story more authentic for me. I saw at the end that they had tried to get more people to come forward to speak but they either refused or had died. The entire story was just bizarre, and for me, became a bit hard to follow. There was a lot of back and forth, as any good story should be, between both sides. Unfortunately, there wasn't a ton of evidence for both sides other than what was printed at the time and Joyce's words.
There was no doubt in my mind from the beginning that she had done something bad. While she may not have raped Kirk, she is definitely not right mentally. She seemed to have obsessive tendencies, and because of her high IQ, tried to rationalize her actions. Everyone does this, but she seemed to take it to another level. The fact that she felt so close with and obsessed with her dog and then went ahead to clone him was the biggest red flag. Everyone deserves a friend and partner in life but she was so focused on the one relationship with the dog, that she couldn't seem to see past him and find another companion. Because of this, I ended up believing the pictures and words of those who said she use to be a sort of call girl.
Part of the film I didn't particularly care for was when they used old film footage to help accentuate things. I recall seeing footage of a woman screaming in terror (seemed fairly obvious it was from an old horror movie) and it screamed desperate (pun intended). Some of the film was trying to hard to be artsy and attention grabbing, when for me, it lost my attention completely.
“Tabloid” was a very interesting story. Errol Morris definitely hit gold on creativity. First of all, throughout the film, he consciously considers the literal definition(s) of “tabloid”:
ReplyDelete-sensational in a vividly shocking or vulgar way
- a newspaper having pages half the size of those of a standard newspaper, typically popular in style and dominated by headlines, photographs, and sensational stories.
Morris’s approach to telling Joyce McKinney’s story was so mesmerizing. The “sensational story” made it easy for him to use dominant visuals such as actual newspapers with photographs and prominent headlines. I think this was so awesome to me that I really didn’t think much about the story in depth. I caught myself losing interest in this film, and I think it was because of these visuals. They definitely helped with generating meaning, however, I think the excessive amount of talking heads and little b-roll made me lose interest.
I think the theme of the film is “There will always be an altered version of the truth created by the media”. I think Morris had a pure curiousity with Joyce’s story, and that’s what helped me appreciate the film’s sensibility. Quite often we here Morris speak in the interviews, and you can hear how intrigued with the story he is. You can tell that Joyce trusted Morris. He was genuinely interested, and the trust they had between each other allowed the film to feel more sensible.
I can’t tell if this film seems authentic to me. We really only get two perspectives of the story; Joyce’s side and the (mormon?)’s side. Had we have seen an interview with Kirk, I might have had a better idea of whether the story was true or not. The story was revealing well, until I read the article about the lawsuit against the filmmakers. Did he really stab her to get her to sign the release form? Did the dog really die of cancer? I don’t even know what to think and I feel so weird about it. If that’s the case then I think she would have been right to file a lawsuit against Lipson, not Morris. I don’t know, she said she wanted to “clear her name” and I feel he had just done that. I don’t think the film depicts Joyce McKinney is a negative light.
This story is all over the place, but it was quite entertaining. Looking forward to speaking about it.
Right from the start the visual aesthetics express style, and set mood and tone. The music underscores the curiosity. We are hardly introduced to Joyce and we take it that she’s going to lead us through the story so we momentarily go along for the ride. Although from an editing stand point of view, the use of the aspect ratio change was a creative choice. Having worked with old footage before, dealing with quality and resolution issues, the use of a compact square space to show the old “flashback” style sequences, not only helped move the theme forward, but also dealt with the difficulties of old film. The titles were somewhat distracting, BUT they were appropriate because at least they matched the brand of this film. From the opening credits and the curious underscore, I would have felt cheated if the title cards were done differently, it’s not my personal taste, but it’s hard not to appreciate the thought, effort, (and money) that was put into the text and motion graphics. This film was made with the cinematic aesthetics in mind, (maybe because they couldn’t fill it up with enough found footage?). The editing and sound effects included with Joyce’s side of the story was showing he contrast; humor and a light-hearted attitude. Some motion graphics had strange sound effects that were used as comic relief peppered throughout the documentary, accentuating its own use of comedy as a stylistic expression.
ReplyDeleteI’m a big believer in archival footage being used in documentary. And I’m an even bigger believer in archival footage being used as opposed to reenactments. That being said, I was a big fan of Tabloid’s aesthetic. I’m incredibly biased, because vintage imagery (30’s, 40’s, 50’s in particular) is something I’m really fond of- I’m pretty adamant about using it in documentaries and videos of my own. I hadn’t even seen an Errol Morris film before now, but watching Tabloid made me feel as though I somehow was inspired by him all along.
ReplyDeleteAside from all the gushing I’d love to do about the archival footage, I also enjoyed how the titles and subtitles looked. Switching from news clippings to a subject introduction in the same “newspaper” font was pretty slick. Same with the emphasized spoken words by the subjects being quickly flashed on the screen if they were significant.
I feel very confident that this film is authentic. And I think that having Joyce herself there as a subject really does the job. There’s opinions, standpoints, and perspectives that conflict right before our eyes, and it’s up to us to decide how we feel about what we’re hearing. I think there’s nothing more authentic than all equal sides of the supposed story being told, and Tabloid fulfilled that.
I feel the director was completely responsible with how this story was handled. In fact, I can’t think of a way I’d care to do it differently myself. So long as all the subjects were willing (which, Joyce had to have been. She can sue all she wants, but she probably signed a release) I believe this was as ethical as possible. No twisting or changing the story happened that I could see, and Joyce’s narrative seemed entirely unaltered. I feel that the “star” of the documentary wanted to try and save face after the evidence stacked up against her in the film, nothing more.
Trina Mulligan
ReplyDeleteTabloid was one of the most bizarre documentaries I have ever watched. Errol Morris does a fantastic job of capturing a story with intense contrast of the truth. The audience does not know which story to believe: the Joyce who raped an innocent Mormon or the Joyce who was falsely accused by her true love. Throughout the film, we hear various interviewees say, “The truth must lie somewhere in the middle”, and I find this to be very true. I believe Joyce when she speaks about the power of a cult and how there can be a “Kirk #1” and a “Kirk #2” because there is a cult in my hometown called Xenos and I know someone who was sucked into the cult. I also believe the journalist from The Mirror and the amount of evidence that he came up with. However, I think the main idea of this story was to show the power of the media and how tabloids will do anything to get a “juicy” story.
The aesthetic of the film is very much told like a dramatic reenactment on television. My favorite technique that Morris uses throughout the film is when he uses stock footage to tell the story. It’s such a creative way to place images in the audience’s head and allows them to fantasize a bit about what actually took place. I also love how Morris used collages and stop motion with newspaper clippings and news headings.
This documentary was authentic in the way the interviewees delivered their stories and I believe that when Errol Morris’s voice is heard, it creates validation of authenticity to the viewer. Morris learns things at the same time the audience does and his exclamations such as, “FIVE puppies!?”, echoes the reactions of the audience. Also, with such an engaging and “out of this world” story, the talking heads aren’t boring because I felt I had to closely watch the emotions and facial expressions of Joyce and the journalists to try and catch the truth. All in all, this documentary kept me on the edge of my couch.
This documentary made me uncomfortable but I found myself laughing at the same time. The use of graphics over the screen created humor. One of my favorite scenes was when Joyce explains how she picked up Kirk in England and the word “kidnapped” simultaneously flashes over the screen. Morris’s choice to use multiple interviews was compelling because I was able to hear the story from different perspectives making it more authentic. The use of old news footage, articles, and photographs helped create background to the story making it more believable. I liked the director’s choice to open the film with footage of Joyce reading her book which set a tone that was both dreamlike and creepy. It seemed that the director’s main intention was to excessively show how crazy and exaggerated Joyce was. I found it strange that Joyce would want to draw more attention to herself at the screenings, but she had a right to file the lawsuit if she felt that she was not being accurately portrayed. I really wish Kirk would have agreed to be interviewed. I am extremely curious to hear his side of the story.
ReplyDeleteSean McGann
ReplyDeleteWhat in God's name did I just watch?
Whatever it was, it was captivating. The strange and bewildering story of how a former beauty queen went to England to kidnap and rape the Mormon object of her affection is bizarre already. But when you sit down and interview the beauty queen who committed this crime, the film elevates to a whole new level of voyeurism. This woman has the charm of a Desperate Housewife and the speaking patterns of Charles Manson (right down to the random barking). It's hilarious, heartbreaking, and a masterpiece of chaos at the same time.
My only real complaint was that there's this constant cut to black present in many of the interviews. I will admit that it gave the pace and rush of the film more of a kick to it, but it was distracting at times. It happens so often that I realized it was a choice to cut to black rapidly, but it was odd nonetheless.
I feel like the film is authentic. Its limited amount of people interviewed gives its authenticity strength, as it's not just conflicting points of view all around. The only person who doesn't seem to be in agreement with all the other interviewees is, wouldn't you know it, Joyce McKinney. The interviewer, who speaks up every now and then, reacts in a less neutral way, almost like they were having a natural conversation with the subject. This may be risky, but it works with a story built on shock and awe.
I can understand completely why McKinney would sue Errol Morris over the film. I don't think she was rght to do it, but let her try. I mean, I'm making a documentary right now about an unconventional and scandalous person who will more than likely sue me after the film comes out (not because I'm defaming this person, just because that's what this person does). Morris had every right to make this movie. If a person who signed a release form and gave Morris permission to make a film about her doesn't like the final product, they don't understand that it's not their film. By all means, though, let McKinney lose her legal battle; it's just a waste of money on some attorneys.
I give Tabloid a nine out of ten.
What?! She's from Wyoming!!?
ReplyDeleteTabloid was great. It freaked me out and made me feel empathy all at the same time. Not only empathy for Joyce, but empathy for nearly all the other characters involved. Errol Morris is a master of portraying alternative perspectives, and by extension, alternative truths. I tend to mostly agree with Errol Morris' assessment of Joyce McKinney; She is a prolific adventurer, endlessly fascinating, and undoubtedly insane, but ultimately only a victim of her choices and circumstances. That said, I don't think I'd want Joyce McKinney in my life in any capacity.
I admire Morris' ability to capture and interweave so many versions of the truth. I thought it was interesting how in the IDA interview, Morris stated something to the effect of "I think we all live in distorted version of reality, some more than others, but we all live there to an extent". To me this really exemplifies his commitment to trying to grasp a greater truth about human nature, one that this told through lies and fabrication.
Technique/Style - There were some very interesting choices and Errolisms in this film. The only shot I remember seeing other than the (4?) interviews was the shot of the old TV with a green checkered pattern in the background. I'm still not quite sure what purpose the shot serves, other than obviously using it as a medium for Joyce's old Television interview. Sometimes the shot slowly dollies in and sometimes it remains static. When the camera pushes in closer to the TV, I noticed the same camera move was used inside the TV, during Joyce's 70's interview. I think at minimum the particular TV was used to give those sequences a homey, old-time Utah, ranch-style home feel. It was likely utilized to communicate her proclivity towards seeking attention... I don't know, it was an interesting shot.
The aesthetic choice to frame all the characters in essentially the same background, an unspecific gray blur, was interesting. At first I found it off-putting, as I usually enjoy interviews in which the frame is telling of a interviewee's character in some way, but after thinking about it I decided it probably reinforced the theme of competing perceptions and perspectives.
The very creative use of found footage/archived newspaper clippings and its application was great. Using the different aspect ratios combined with the vignette effects was utilized in a compelling way.
Would I have made the film different? Probably. I would have framed the characters in more interesting backdrops and included more footage because I really like shooting. I'm not saying it would make the film any better by a long shot (pun intended), but its what I would have doe. Its probably good Errol Morris made this one and not me.
This was an interesting movie. In the world of alternative facts, it was interesting to hear all the different versions of the same story. As interesting as the film was I sometimes found myself getting bored. It was a lot of information but sometimes I felt that it was too much information. It was too much at times, and all the clips was too much. I did like the pictures and how some of the visual ads worked , the old footage was little annoying and sometimes threw me off. In addition I am not sure if the director Errol Morris did this on purpose but he made Joyce look crazy. For instance, when she talking about her relationship with Kirk relationship in comparison to what the tabloids say. I didn’t feel sorry for Joyce or Kirk Anderson. I honestly felt that they were both lying and somewhere in between these lies was the truth.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI personally enjoyed Tabloid. I think it covered both sides of Joyce McKinney pretty well, especially in setting her character up at the beginning. But she definitely seems like a pathological liar. I think the film is responsible to the main character and subject, it gives everybody a chance to give their side of the story, excluding Kirk Anderson but I think he probably would have agreed with what the mormon representative had to say. I would not have made this film any different, I think it was beautifully made, giving a lot of facts and information while at the same time being creative with the presentation of the info. I don’t think Joyce really needed to file a lawsuit against Errol Morris but I can see why. I don’t think she's right or would win the case but I can see why she is angry and wanted to sue him. I’m not surprised she followed him around the country to heckle him, and I think it's funny that she did so because it just makes her look like a hypocrite. I feel like after you seemingly self diagnose yourself agoraphobic and being attacked by a dog and almost dying you wouldn’t travel all over the country or even to south Korea. I just think everything she said was pretty much bull for the most part. I really don’t like her as a person for the most part because of the way she treated/treats her dogs. You should read the labels on your dog's pills and make sure that the pill in the bottle matches. I felt sorrier for Tough Guy than for her when she was talking about how Tough Guy mauled her, and quite frankly I was pissed about how she treated booger like a servant. Yeah he’s a service dog but at some point you get better and don’t need the service, so either move him to someone who needs him or just treat him like a normal dog. Side note I don’t like those videos on facebook of people making their dogs doing stupid tasks like vacuuming and especially making them get drinks when it's obvious they can get up and walk to the fridge. I’m not 100% sure on why Morris put this in the film, I guess because it does tell pretty much her life story and it is part of that story, but it just made me dislike her a lot more.
ReplyDeleteWow, what a complex doc. Something that was particularly unique that I haven’t come across in documentaries is when you get to hear everyone’s own side of the story. In Tabloid, it was great to showcase everyone’s own version of what happened. I love the usage of archival footage that was immersed into the film. This definitely gave it the aesthetic feeling, but also made it authentic. Also, I loved the text over people's faces. I feel that I am still lost for words on what to actually point out. It was a confusing film to fully grasp.
ReplyDeleteTabloid made sure to set a specific and consistent tone for the film. The use of old film camera footage, video displayed on an old boob tube TV, and the pictures and newspaper clippings definitely gave it a 70's era vibe that transported us to the feel of the time that the story had taken place. Even the way that the interviews were lit and set up against the blurred grey background felt like a 70's style. Although they were bland and a bit desaturated, the charisma of the characters being interviews drew enough visual interest and, if anything, emphasized their personalities.
ReplyDeleteThe way they often edited the interview footage is something that I don't see very often. Instead of hiding the cuts or jumps in the edit with b-roll, they would simply cut to black for a half second or suddenly change the shot scale or framing. The filmmakers didn't seem to mind us knowing when they decided to cut stuff out, which perhaps makes them more trustworthy and us less suspicious of them trying to hide anything. They also chose to have the interviewees look directly into the camera and talk to the audience, which felt personal and intimate. They could have went the "Imposter" approach and had Joyce be the only one looking at the audience, but I'm not sure that would add anything to the effectiveness of the film. They all seemed to be recounting Joyce's story together, and so their interview styles should be equal.
I would say that the theme of this film is "the consequences of fame." It was fascinating seeing Joyce in her interviews discuss how appalled and annoyed she was with all of the attention she received for her crazy deeds, but there's no doubt that she was enthralled by it at least at the beginning. You can see the gleam in hey eyes when she excitedly talked about the famous people she met at parties and the public obsession of her image. I think that she enjoyed riding this wave, but like many famous people, it started to drive her mad and led her to a very lonely and secluded life with her clone dogs as her only friends.
This documentary made me very nauseous while watching it. On the train while I tried to push through my viewing it became increasingly difficult because of how casual they were about describing something gross and I had to frequently pause the film to collect myself so i didn't cause a scene. Something about her demeanor of being so casual and describing her actions with beauty did something to me and I wasn't able to view this like the other documentaries. It is clear that it took me a while to finish it but better late than never I suppose. The constant cuts to black caught my attention form the start. It was an interesting choice to do that and make it look somewhat like a draft but it was those moments that allowed me to think about how absurd everything really was. Beyond this, some of the old footage from other sources didn't help with my feeling sick as it offered a very odd way of making the actions seem pure when they weren't. This really wasn't my favorite.
ReplyDelete