I liked this film. Both of them.
I think any analysis of this documentary must take into account that it is really 2 films in one, and I'm not really sure which one the director felt was more important. The first film is a sort of "making of" documentary. This is where the director takes you by the hand and literally shows you how and why he came to make this film. This type of thing now-a-days is usually relegated to a special feature on the DVD, but here it is incorporated in the film itself. Some of that is irritating (Jackie Onassis gave him a "mandate" - c'mon dude), and some just looks stupid (pointing out the former location of the structure in which the party took place, while the camera doesn't move from his face). However, Stenn's research is very thorough, in some cases exceptional, and the interviews, for the most part, are well done. However, this film really has a "hey look at me - didn't I do a great job" feel to it. I gave this film a 3 (out of 5).
The second film is about a tragedy. The rape of a woman, the rape of a legal system, the rape of a society, and, perhaps most disturbingly, the rape of a family. And this film is brilliant. This film makes you care about a crime that was committed 70 years ago against a poor working-class girl. And although part of the crime involves the ruthless way it is handled by MGM, it is not just another Erin Brockovich big-business-is-bad story. It is also about how the crime has affected several families through several generations, particularly, of course, Douglas's. I wish he had introduced Patricia Douglas earlier, and I wish I could have heard more of her story. The film does leave some questions unanswered. For example, since Douglas was legally a minor (she was 20, and the age of maturity in those days was 21) how did Douglas choose her attorney, and how was he paid? Once her criminal case was dismissed, how did she arrive at the decision to file suit in federal court? After all, applying federal constitutional law to a rape case was not something that would have occurred to many practicing attorneys at the time (or even today!). Also, the film (with the help of Greta VanSusteren) seems to settle on the idea that her attorney was bought off - but could he instead have been threatened? (If he was bought off, then he's just a piece of scum, but if he was threatened, the moral picture for him gets a little murkier, while MGM's immorality would extend to perverting the federal courts). MGM apparently had a lot of clout, and was willing to use it, so who knows? Finally, why did she give up? The federal suit was left in limbo for 3 or 4 years before it was dismissed. Even then, it could have been re-filed. Patricia Douglas does not come across as a quitter. But then again, she's only human.
I have other questions, but I guess I'll have to wait for the book(!) I gave this film 5 (out of 5). So the total is 8 (out of 10).
I think any analysis of this documentary must take into account that it is really 2 films in one, and I'm not really sure which one the director felt was more important. The first film is a sort of "making of" documentary. This is where the director takes you by the hand and literally shows you how and why he came to make this film. This type of thing now-a-days is usually relegated to a special feature on the DVD, but here it is incorporated in the film itself. Some of that is irritating (Jackie Onassis gave him a "mandate" - c'mon dude), and some just looks stupid (pointing out the former location of the structure in which the party took place, while the camera doesn't move from his face). However, Stenn's research is very thorough, in some cases exceptional, and the interviews, for the most part, are well done. However, this film really has a "hey look at me - didn't I do a great job" feel to it. I gave this film a 3 (out of 5).
The second film is about a tragedy. The rape of a woman, the rape of a legal system, the rape of a society, and, perhaps most disturbingly, the rape of a family. And this film is brilliant. This film makes you care about a crime that was committed 70 years ago against a poor working-class girl. And although part of the crime involves the ruthless way it is handled by MGM, it is not just another Erin Brockovich big-business-is-bad story. It is also about how the crime has affected several families through several generations, particularly, of course, Douglas's. I wish he had introduced Patricia Douglas earlier, and I wish I could have heard more of her story. The film does leave some questions unanswered. For example, since Douglas was legally a minor (she was 20, and the age of maturity in those days was 21) how did Douglas choose her attorney, and how was he paid? Once her criminal case was dismissed, how did she arrive at the decision to file suit in federal court? After all, applying federal constitutional law to a rape case was not something that would have occurred to many practicing attorneys at the time (or even today!). Also, the film (with the help of Greta VanSusteren) seems to settle on the idea that her attorney was bought off - but could he instead have been threatened? (If he was bought off, then he's just a piece of scum, but if he was threatened, the moral picture for him gets a little murkier, while MGM's immorality would extend to perverting the federal courts). MGM apparently had a lot of clout, and was willing to use it, so who knows? Finally, why did she give up? The federal suit was left in limbo for 3 or 4 years before it was dismissed. Even then, it could have been re-filed. Patricia Douglas does not come across as a quitter. But then again, she's only human.
I have other questions, but I guess I'll have to wait for the book(!) I gave this film 5 (out of 5). So the total is 8 (out of 10).