MovieChat Forums > Talhotblond (2009) Discussion > Totally engrossing, but suffers from com...

Totally engrossing, but suffers from common documentary flaw (spoiler)

posted 14 years ago by zombiemoviefan2010
13 replies | jump to latest

I was completely enthralled by this documentary, and highly recommended it to my friends and family. With that being said, it does have very typical flaws that happen in documentaries---the inability to present an unbiased view.

Without a doubt, there is no question that both Tom and Mary seemed to be very unhappy people who made a web of lives about who they wished they could be. Tom made an entire persona, told the online "Jessie", he wanted to marry her, and even acted as if he was the father of Tom. Weird. also, no one mentions if he started talking to Jessie before he thought she was 18. That is a very big issue.

Mary, was COMPLETELY wrong for 1) lying about who she was, 2)using her daughter's image in ways that are disturbing on so many levels, and 3) engaging in taunting Tom, and 4) not calling the police when Tom began to display serious levels of aggression and instability.

Tom, was COMPLETELY wrong for 1) lying about who he was, 2) engaging in such a relationship with someone so much younger than himself, 3) continuing to talk with her after all of the drama, and most sadly, 4) killing a human being.

What others have said, but the THB facebook page doesn't quote, is: the latter part of the film really sort of dismisses Tom---some have even posted that he couldn't help himself because he was lured by sex. So wait, as a grown man he has no control over the "prowess" of someone almost 30 years younger than himself? Are we thus saying that men cannot control their actions when sex is involved? Isn't that a bit archaic? The film begins to focus more on pictures of Mary and her culpability in the horrible crime that ensued.

Also, very little is really discussed about the actions that happened to Tom. Only a mention is made that some taunting happened, and that there was sadness about it. But what happened? It would have been helpful if the documentary discussed a bit more what happened.

Make no mistake, and I will say it very clearly, EVERYTHING that Mary did was wrong. So very, very, wrong. i do believe in laws to strengthen how people can act online (namely in regards to the high amount of cyber bullying.) However, did she commit murder? No. Did she conspire to commit murder? No. Did she tell Tom to act in such a way? No. Did she really know Tom would do this, or did she think he was just being a typical, hurt, jilted ex?

It seems like there is an extreme level of hate (rightly so on some levels) for Mary and her lies. But people quickly dismiss all of the wrong things that Tom did, not the least part of it being actual murder.

Both Mary and Tom were adults. Tom had control over his actions. To act as if a woman heavily flirting or being sexual is the grounds to make a man mentally unstable is to heavily blame the woman, and fall into the stereotype of men "just not being able to control themselves". As women who have commented in that way towards the movie, haven't we fought for decades to actually hold men accountable for their crimes?

All in all, the documentary is good. People will need to understand perhaps the direction of the person who created this film, and that there is a slant to it at the end.

[–] joelirwin 14 years ago

I heard once that the goal of entertainment aside for the obvious is to "invoke evoke and provoke". From reading your comment, it would seem to me it has certainly done that. Regardless of how one views this film or feels about its perspectives, from an artistic perspective it 'hook's in the viewer right at the beginning and keeps the viewer immersed in the film and entertained right up to the end. I did not feel at any point bored or uninterested. It did not seem to me that there was too much fluff, repetitiveness, or redundancy. When the film ended, my head spent some time with that spinning and processing feeling I get after watching a good theatrical film.

We will all have opinions and judgments about the facts and the story telling. A producer and director can not possibly make a product that will be everything to every person. I believe they certainly have entertained the majority of the viewers and this material is just a gold mine (i.e., profitable) for a follow-up semi-fictionalized theatrical release with A-list participants.

Joel

[–] hodie 14 years ago

We live in an age in which so many people, perhaps more than at any other time in history, have bought into the myth that men have no self-control when it comes to sex, and lies told by men to obtain sexual gratification are not the exception but the norm. Real men can and do conduct honest and responsible sex lives, but the assumption is that guys are all adolescents who cannot tolerate sexual frustration no matter how brief. They are overgrown infants who "just can't help it." Mary was a female version of the sexually self-centered immature personality.

"Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?"

[–] Zando777 14 years ago

Men have always been held accountable for their crimes. Women, on the other hand...

[–] info-4777 14 years ago

care to elaborate ?¿

[–] cmr1188 13 years ago

To Zando:

So the women that have been stoned to death throughout history for adultery, burned at the stake for practicing "witch craft", women that have been killed by their own family members for allowing themselves to be raped...hell women that have been killed by their fathers for becoming too Westernized in order to save face....and you think women aren't held accountable? Women have been held accountable throughout history for things they have and have NOT done...things that nobody should be punished for. It is a fact that men commit the VAST majority of violent crimes. When women commit violent crimes they are sensationalized in the media and they CERTAINLY have the book thrown at them.

[–] JimmyZappa 13 years ago

Really?

I thought less as him equally as I thought less of her. They were both very stupid. The kid was almost as stupid for not staying out of the situation especially when it was getting heated. Or at least talk out of it.

Stuff like this reminds me of "Movie Poop Shoot.com" from Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.

[–] itsalltears 13 years ago

the film maker was totally unethical and irresponsible for focusing the blame on mary. she was a liar just like tom, but she had nothing to do with the murder.
she is another victim now because this movie is deliberately destroying her life and basically calling her a murderer and a criminal, 2 things she is not.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] the_spiral 10 years ago

I totally agree with you. It was an interesting story, but the documentary itself suffered from bias. It seemed to imply Tom was a victim, even though he came across as a completely remorseless murderer in his talking heads. He had so many opportunities to extricate himself from the situation, but HE chose to escalate it to real-life violence. And then they tried to insinuate the woman should've been charged criminally? Charged with what? She didn't kill anyone! She's clearly a sick and disturbed person for using her child as bait to get sexual attention from men online, and I don't blame her family for disowning her — but she had nothing to do with the murder itself. She even tried to warn the victim he was in danger.

I thought it was incredibly disrespectful to the murder victim to try and shift the blame away from his killer onto a third party. As far as I'm concerned, the person responsible for the tragedy is the person who killed a man in cold blood over some STUPID internet catfish drama. There are TONS of people using fake personas for attention online. It's creepy, for sure, but nowhere on par with blowing someone's head off.

[–] butaneggbert 10 years ago

Interesting, because I didn't see that bias at all.

I thought it brought the criminal portion of the story to its rightful conclusion (that Thomas was arrested, cut a deal, and was sentenced) before going on to reveal a twist: that Thomas was fooled by someone as deceptive as he was.

That segment went on to examine just how god-awful a person Mary is, but at no point did I hear or see Schroeder draw any conclusion that lessened Montgomery's responsibility.

What the film DID have to do was tell Mary's whole story, as - unlike Montgomery - she didn't cooperate with the film makers. So her tale had to be carried completely by narration and screen shots of her messages. Montgomery was there to speak for himself, for the viewers to judge for themselves.

[–] FawnOmatic 10 years ago

I'm more with you on this. I didn't feel that the filmmaker wanted to imply she should be charged with murder. The film did, however, let us in on how the family felt that Mary did owe some kind of debt for her role in the whole situation. It let us in on how there are little to no laws holding people accountable for this kind of situation.
I felt the first half spent enough time focusing on Montgomery and I, personally, didn't get the impression they were saying he was a man who couldn't help himself. I felt that Montgomery, himself, implied that excuse but I didn't feel the film was leading me to believe that was a legitimate excuse.

I certainly do not believe Mary should have been charged with murder.

I did feel she owed responsibility for being aware of multiple threats from Montgomery. Mary not only failed to report it, but toyed with the man even further after the fact. Despite the threats; possibly being more excited to continue, indeed, because of the threats. She may not have told him to do it but her actions lead me to believe she didn't care much if he did.

Ultimately, she was enjoying the drama and the more it increased the more pleasure she got out of it. Maybe she felt guilt at what ultimately but maybe she didn't give a G.Damn. Maybe even, as her son said, she is still lurking around online seeking this kind of attention.

[–] butaneggbert 10 years ago

I, personally, didn't get the impression they were saying he was a man who couldn't help himself. I felt that Montgomery, himself, implied that excuse but I didn't feel the film was leading me to believe that was a legitimate excuse.

Yes. I thought the filmmaker was particularly good at showing the contrast between how Montgomery presented himself - articulate, seemingly direct, kind of an aw-shucks persona - and his own words in the chat transcripts. He was not the kind of person he wanted us to believe he was, and I credit the direction and editing with making that clear.

[–] prosodic 8 years ago

It was engrossing but I felt it totally downplayed the fact that Tom was culpable for his actions. In fact, they excuse Tom by saying he was sad, impotent and pathetic. Yet she was some conniving vixen apparently.Even though her excuse was similar to Tom's, she was lonely and pathetic. She did some bad things, no doubt. But she is not responsible for the murder.