A brief look at the IMDb reviews put up there and one will be able to find a lot of hate for this movie. They say: there are no new insights to the case, basically a bunch of random strangers gossiping about and dramatizing the death of a child. This film is all of that, and because of that, it is great.
I came into the film not knowing a single thing about the case. (I've yet to reach twenty and I do not live in the west) And it is through this film, through these gossips by these strangers that I have managed to piece together a vague sense of what the case is all about.
But this understanding of mine that I received on what happened to the child is a dramatized and subjective rendition of the proceedings.The people interviewed are your regular Tom and Jane on the street. The answers they share are less of an expert's and more of the opinion being spread out on the streets, what the people believe. The subjects feel very assured of what they believe, which theory they believe. Their answers to the questions are filled with the passion of a group of people sharing their ideas on the case. They draw from their personal experiences and from their subjective ideas. Many of the interviewees personalize the case too much and as such it is definitely not something to be taken as the truth.
Though this leads to some extremely fascinating scenes where the interviewees appear to be relating and perhaps even sympathizing with the proposed perpetrator in their theories of the case. Further more the fact that these interviewees are actually auditioning to be acting as the people they talk about serves to further blur the identities between the 'perpetrator' and the regular human being. Perhaps we all have the potential commit an act or play a part in something so horrifying. After all, we are all human. We make mistakes.
In this respect, the film reminds me of the great documentary 'The Act of Killing' where the lines between the identity of fiction and reality, history are blurred. Of course 'Casting JonBenet' does not solely focus on the blurring of identity and the aspects of human nature, but there are moments where the tragic loss of the child can be felt from through the subjects, how they felt about it, how they can relate to the death. A little superficial perhaps, but it does not feel sentimental as many conventional documentaries would have done if they were in the shoes of such a topic. It feels earnest and real.
This movie is not the typical documentary typically known to the mainstream, it's goal is less focused on delivering information to the public in an entertaining manner but rather, just as some of the best documentaries do, it focuses on exploring the human condition. This film is less about the case of Jonbenet but more about the normal person's interpretation, reaction and their personal bits of introspection regarding the tragic incident.
The film certainly is not without faults, there are plenty. But my main complaint would be that the reaches not much of a conclusion and the montage near the end emphasizes a little too much on the film's concept and ends up feeling more manufactured than earnest and emotional.
I came into the film not knowing a single thing about the case. (I've yet to reach twenty and I do not live in the west) And it is through this film, through these gossips by these strangers that I have managed to piece together a vague sense of what the case is all about.
But this understanding of mine that I received on what happened to the child is a dramatized and subjective rendition of the proceedings.The people interviewed are your regular Tom and Jane on the street. The answers they share are less of an expert's and more of the opinion being spread out on the streets, what the people believe. The subjects feel very assured of what they believe, which theory they believe. Their answers to the questions are filled with the passion of a group of people sharing their ideas on the case. They draw from their personal experiences and from their subjective ideas. Many of the interviewees personalize the case too much and as such it is definitely not something to be taken as the truth.
Though this leads to some extremely fascinating scenes where the interviewees appear to be relating and perhaps even sympathizing with the proposed perpetrator in their theories of the case. Further more the fact that these interviewees are actually auditioning to be acting as the people they talk about serves to further blur the identities between the 'perpetrator' and the regular human being. Perhaps we all have the potential commit an act or play a part in something so horrifying. After all, we are all human. We make mistakes.
In this respect, the film reminds me of the great documentary 'The Act of Killing' where the lines between the identity of fiction and reality, history are blurred. Of course 'Casting JonBenet' does not solely focus on the blurring of identity and the aspects of human nature, but there are moments where the tragic loss of the child can be felt from through the subjects, how they felt about it, how they can relate to the death. A little superficial perhaps, but it does not feel sentimental as many conventional documentaries would have done if they were in the shoes of such a topic. It feels earnest and real.
This movie is not the typical documentary typically known to the mainstream, it's goal is less focused on delivering information to the public in an entertaining manner but rather, just as some of the best documentaries do, it focuses on exploring the human condition. This film is less about the case of Jonbenet but more about the normal person's interpretation, reaction and their personal bits of introspection regarding the tragic incident.
The film certainly is not without faults, there are plenty. But my main complaint would be that the reaches not much of a conclusion and the montage near the end emphasizes a little too much on the film's concept and ends up feeling more manufactured than earnest and emotional.