Frustrated by the Filmmaker


I found the filmmaker's attitude in this movie frustrating. I understand that he is a very caring and compassionate person, I would not want make him wrong for that, or invalidate those traits. So in that case, I guess I will have to make-do with calling him "naive." The two things that bothered me where his concern that she had gone mad in the end and "we" proceeded to execute her in spite of that, and his constant questioning and probing--of her, others, and himself--as to whether she acted in self-defense or not.

As to the first point, I can easily imagine the emotional stress of being put to death could drive many a person insane. So, OK, let's assume she had "gone mad" in the end--so? That doesn't mitigate the fact that she was found sane enough to stand trial, and it doesn't mitigate the years of court and legal activity that preceded her death. And I'm not even pro-death penalty--that's a different debate. I'm just saying going mad at the end doesn't mitigate the punishment one is due.

Secondly--how do you even have to ask whether or not this was self-defense? Really? Honestly? It doesn't matter what she says, EVER! Just look at her actions!!! She robbed and killed seven men in one year's time, in the suburbs and back roads of Florida--not some war zone where one might be called upon to defend one's self seven times in one year. Maybe I could believe one or two killings in self defense, but after that, it doesn't matter what she says. Any non-cold blooded killer would have extricated themselves from the situation that continually landed them in the position of having to "kill to defend themselves." No--she did it on purpose.

Now, if you want to talk about the influences in her life that made her so messed up, or if you want to debate the death penalty, fine. Those are discussions that can be had about any serial killer. But don't let your own low confront of evil blind you to the fact that she was a cold-blooded killer, at least in those seven moments. That doesn't mean that he couldn't like her or care for her, or that she wasn't funny, charming or intelligent during his interviews with her--only horror movie killers are pure evil. Humans that commit evil acts still have some decent human traits. You can have compassion for her without having to "prove to one's self" that she acted in self-defense. That's what it felt like to me, that the filmmaker grew to like her, and then needed to prove to himself that she really acted in self-defense because he couldn't rationalize in his own mind caring for a cold-blooded killer. I found that annoying. She was clearly a psychotic lie-factory all along, and a serial murderer--she never expressed ANY REAL REMORSE for those killings. Just a few empty platitudes about "feeling bad" for all that "stuff." She was clearly the epitome of a walking anti-social personality. I think the filmmaker just couldn't believe it, which, in the long run, is a testament to his goodness...

reply

Well said. I can't believe no one has commented. I also think she was completely insane but that doesn't negate what she did, and I think the death penalty was just in this case.

reply

I was frustrated by the filmmaker's questioning as well. Again and again he asked her whether or not it was self-defense when she had told him multiple times why she answered either way. He should have just shut up and let her talk; her rants were far more revealing.

reply

Secondly--how do you even have to ask whether or not this was self-defense? Really? Honestly? It doesn't matter what she says, EVER!


I think one of the issues towards the end was the competency of the accused in a capital case like this. I think Broomfield was thinking if we can get her to re-affirm that at least one of the killings was in self-defense, couple that with Wuornos's refusal to apply for a stay of execution, you could call into question her mental state, her competency. That's just a guess on my part, but his fixation on that question really stuck out for me, too.

You bring up a good point. Wuornos was a pathological liar, and she changed her story to fit her agenda (you'll notice more discrepancies in her story if you add Broomfield's earlier documentary on her.) I can't decide whether Broomfield was simply naive, was a decent person who doesn't believe in the death penalty, or whether his sympathetic tolerance (he never really challenged Wuornos) was somewhat put on to guarantee he'd maintain access to her.

reply

SteveH2002--Good points!! Been a long time since I saw the film, but I think you make some good points. :)

reply

She gave two contradictory stories, he was trying to uncover what was the truth. I don't think anyone believes all of it was self-defense, he was mainly wondering about Richard Mallory. Her description of the assault was very convincing, as opposed to her doing a complete 180 and saying it was just a robbery ten years later (with the motive of wanting the death warrant signed). No one is denying that she killed the additional men through rage/whatever. However, he and others believed the Richard Mallory assault/killing was partial self-defense and spurred her onto the other crimes, which makes sense along with her testimony. She confirmed as much off camera near the end. I'm glad he kept pushing her as that was the question I had in my head.

reply