Yes, this film certainly brings out the handkerchiefs, but why is everyone so oblivious of how poorly it was made? The editing was really amateurish and hard to watch, and the inserts from the home movies were carelessly edited in and even glib in tone. This film was so maudlin and over-the-top, couldn't the director tone it down a bit? The story was wrenching enough.
shareI would imagine that Flaherty himself would say this was the heart and essence of documentary film making.
Bravo!
This film was made "exactly" the way it should have been. To read your remarks leads one to believe that you think you could have done a much better job. Do you think so? Were you involved with this traumatic story of something that never should have happened? If so, you must have had a "rosie" life so far. I, and I would imagine many others in the audience, related to this in a sense of "there but for the grace of God go I".
My first husband left me eleven days before our/MY son was born. Ironically with a "friend" who assisted with my baby shower. For 13 years I struggled and wrenched everytime it was court appointed for visitation to the people who with their unbelievable act were allowed to TAKE my son away from me. I lived in constant fear of what they might do, or not do, when he was away from my arms. To me, To my son? Oh how I cried for ALL of the people that you say were edited amateruishly. Oh how I applaud this movie and whomever had ANYTHING to do with it's conception through birth and beyond.
With an impact to do something good and deserved as the horrors for which Zachary's family had to endure, NEVER EVER happen again, what does it matter to you, or your opinion on "how poorly it was made"?
The film is Honest. It had to be done, so something like this DOES NOT happen again. The impact and with who, what, and/or where it touches will hopefully remain in the hearts and souls of those who have lived a story like this, those who can change the problems, those who can't believe there are people like the those who do others HARM.
You say, glib, maudlin, and over the top? How dare you.
This film is like a family film made with professional technique
shareWhile I thought some of the looping and effects were unnecessary, I have a degree in the history of cinema verite and have been watching non-fiction film for over 40 years, and I found this to be one of the most moving documentary films I have ever seen.
One reason for this was the sensational bounty of video footage to be drawn upon. The fact that Kurt made films with Andrew as kids was invaluable. We virtually watched Andrew grow up before our eyes, then grew to know him better following his passing via the followup interviews which enabled us to see Andrew through the eyes of his family and friends.
There have been few documentary subjects whose lives are as well chronicled on film and video as Andrew's seems to have been. So when the cataclysmic events overtake the story, we feel as if we are falling into the abyss with all his other friends and family.
I am astounded, just on a production level, that Kurt had the tenacity to work with this emotional footage day in and day out for years. That's hard enough to do when you're working on a film about a general subject. To sift through endless videos that deal with such heartbreaking personal loss is just an incredible accomplishment, if you stop and think about it. It must either be cathartic, or involves some personal permanent trauma, or both.
Have read a couple of blogposts that refer to the film as "manipulative" and/or deceitful as Kurt doesn't reveal upfront the true horrors to come. Anyone who isn't manipulated by this sheer examination of the capacity of some humans to inflict misery on others should get back to the morgue. Manipulative is not a pejorative when dealing with empathy.
The journey was conveyed in exactly the proper way. It was the events themselves that caused this project to take two BIG left turns, one potentially joyful and redemptive, the other a devastating tumble into an immeasurable pit of crushing grief. That is the journey the filmmaker and all the participants were forced to take.
The film is shattering for the viewers because we take the same ride. Thanks for taking the time, Kurt, and if you make no other films in your lifetime, you should consider this your own "Triumph of the Will". And hopefully time will act as its own balm to your own personal anguish.
And thanks to the grandparents for being so resolute in their devotion to their son and Zachary. And thanks to Dave for being one of the very few casualties brave enough to honestly display on film the profanity that such heartbreaking violence can generate. Dave spoke with the frank seething rage that victims seldom are allowed display on film. That in itself was a blessing.
I agree completely.
I thought that the film used effects that distracted from the story and confused its point at times, but ultimately, I was a fan.
It just set out to do so much so it was difficult to resolve all of its questions.
Nevertheless, I became so emotionally invested in that by the end, this wasn't as distracting as it was in the beginning.
It's a story worth telling and the director's personal relationship raised the stakes of the film, but could have benefitted from some objective eyes.
The editing of this film was extremely impressive. I edit documentaries and I was really amazed at points with how rich it was. The phrenetic style complimented the horrid story. Criticisms of the editing or production value (has the original poster seen other verite docs?) are coming from an uninformed point of view in my opinion.
And I agree with the last post from filmex2000, but I would shy away from mentioning 'Triumph of the Will' in any way lol. Call it the filmmaker's own Potemkin, Hearts and Minds, Dark Days, Capturing the Friedmans, etc - anything but 'Triumph of the Will'.
The editing was amazing, end of story, the end. To take all that footage and distill it into that particular story- I'm just blown away.
But all that is beside the point.
With such raw emotions captured, I felt priveleged and humbled to watch this film.
It was a very personal film so I don't fault the director for using a very personal approach to the editing. My only criticism would be that too often the same pics were used over and over to hammer home some point. And also the music was, at times, too heavy handed.
But I suppose the lighter touch that a more distant, objective editor might have imposed would have taken away from the urgent personal sense we got. So, I'll take what we were given.
I had to cringe at the monty pythonesque cutouts of an image of the judge's head with gibbering mouth.
shareWell go and cringe elsewhere and **** yourself at the same time, yagawa - as it happens that device was the ideal way to portray the malevolent spite with which the Canadian authorities handled this case. Had there been no question of extraditing a canadian citizen (big fat hairy deal) to stand trial in the US I'm sure this matter would have been handled with more efficiency, greater expedition and far more fairness. The canadian authorities, particularly the so-called judge were determined that the devil b8tch woman would never fall into the hands of the US legal system, hence they allowed thqt innocent beautiful child to be murdered by the woman they released, rather then do the right thing. I USED TO THINK QUITE HIGHLY OF cANADA - NOW THEY CAN ALL GO TO HELL IMHO/
George... don't do that!
"The canadian authorities, particularly the so-called judge were determined that the devil b8tch woman would never fall into the hands of the US legal system"
Ding ding, we have a winner. At times, Canada can be so juvenile (insecure and pig headed just like a teenager) in asserting its "sovereign nation" status, ie. "We'll show those big bad Americans they can't bully Canada".
I say this as a Canadian who loves this country, but we are world champs (2002-2010 gold medal winners) at navel gazing bureaucratic inefficiency. Its almost as if the Canadian authorities "deliberately" move at snails pace, so they can err on the side of indecision. Why make a decision today, when it can be delayed and delayed. After-all, the problem just might solve itself or better yet go away,if we just give it long enough.
The constant stream of canceled and moved extradition ruling dates by the Canadian authorities was the very definition of pathetic, and frustrating to witness for this viewer. I can only imagine how all this disgusted Andrew Bagby's parents.
Yeah, it was a little sarcastic. But on the other hand: fitting. That´s what it must have been for the Bagbys: they must have felt like beeing in an Monty Pythons or Terry Gilliam film.
Same as with the constant repetition of that judges justification for setting Dr. Shirley Turner free the second time over the rapid cuts of already shown footage: It must have felt like the ground opening up beneath the Bagbys - and that conveyed it quite good, I think.
[deleted]
Nope, I certainly didn't see the same movie you did. The editing only helped in making the movie more gripping. I caught this by accident, and was totally engrossed in moments. I realize if I still lived in Pennsylvania (just outside Latrobe), I would have probably known about this horrific story.
I can't even really express what I feel about the series of events. That Kurt started out making one movie and that it turned into something almost unimaginable boggles my mind. I made it through the program in an almost clinical vein, until the last 15 minutes. It all fell apart after that. How one person could so totally destroy something so beautiful is the stuff of which only nightmares are made.
Otherwise, I need to absorb. I'm effectively speechless. Wonderfully made, horrifically made, an absolute stroke of circumstance that the movie we see was made at all.
Go take a look at some of the reviews Kurt K received for this movie from PEOPLE WHO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, into which category you do not fall, ginsling. Get lost!!
George... don't do that!
why is it that most of the people defending this film have less than ten (in some cases only one) postings on IMDb? strange... i was very interested in watching this but considering the director has nothing better to do than create sock puppet accounts my interest has waned.
shareYou should watch 'Dear Zachary' nonetheles, otherwise you really miss a stunning film.
With 'stunning' really putting it quite accurate. The film does not tell the story from the detached point-of-view of an analytical bystander. It is told by a close friend, still under shock from the loss he suffered, totally upset at what happened and how the whole nightmare unfolds and worsens.
The film is by no means an impartial account, and I think this is where it´s merits are: it conveys much of the emotional reactions and leaves you as much in turmoil as the actual survivors.
I´ve seen 'Dear Zachary' on sunday at the Würzburg International Film-Weekend (where it finished third place in the documentary section of the audience award, mostly due to low attendance in the showings), and virtually everybody was touched by this film. I was able to talk to Andrew Bagby´s father, in the discussion after the film and privatly. After seeing this film you begin to understand what these people must have gone through and what still drives this man to come to as many showings of this film (worldwide!) possible to further his political campaign to change laws to prevent things like that to happen again in the future.
So, if you have a chance to see it, do so. And bring kleenex (if only for the person next to you).
And - no, I´m not a fake. I just don´t post that much... I spend more time watching films than writing about them (last weekend: 19 films in 3 and a half days - with "Dear Zachary" being the most impressive)
[deleted]