Flawed Errol Morris film

I see your point, and that was my initial reaction as well: this woman is obviously lying, so why isn't she being called out on it?

I think that Morris is clever enough to realize that her lies are so obvious that there isn't even a need to confront her on them. I.e. she's digging her own grave. Could anyone see this movie and come away from it believing anything that she says? Part of what is so fascinating about the movie is that you see this story only from her perspective (more or less), yet you are completely unconvinced by her story. Which is because, as you say, she's a complete raving nutcase. :)

This reminds me of the situation Werner Herzog was in when he thought he was on a legit film expedition and one of the producers (Zak Penn) turned out to be a fraud (Incident at Loch Ness.) It is still a very interesting documentary despite the obvious lies and ongoing fraud, if for no other reason to see a consumate professional like Herzog handled the situation.

Zak Penn and Werner Herzog perform the DVD commentary while still in character, trading insults frequently, scolding each other and referring to a fake legal agreement that presumably would have been reached after the events taken of the film take place. Their argument gets so heated that Herzog 'leaves' and the commentary stops and then restarts, this time hosted by Penn and producer Jana Augsberger.

The point is to have her present her side of the story since she's such an interesting interview subject. She has a fascinating take on her life and what happened. Trying to contradict her would have ruined the movie. The point was not to make a hard hitting expose of her lies, but present her as an interesting character study.

The film's editing does a fine job of pointing out when she's lying/exaggerating.

I think he knew that if he pressed her too hard she would back out. She seems like the type that can't accept that she's wrong, and would probably lash out at anyone who challenges her. If this was some amateur film maker, I could see where her story could be taken at face value, but Morris is a pro. I'm sure he knew she was lying and he does offer counter points to a lot of her lies through the other people he interviewed.

I do think it's a weak documentary because so much of it relies on her statements. I know Kirk wasn't willing to participate, but there had to be more people who were actually involved in her life to add perspective. I just think he saw her as an interesting enough person to make a film with what little information he had. There were very few facts and too few people interviewed to completely know what really happened.

I did read somewhere that she claimed to have been interviewed under false pretenses. I think she claimed she was told the movie was to be about tabloid journalism and not just her story. It could be true given the title of the movie, and might explain why he just let her give her story as she wanted.

there was no need to confront her b/c he balanced her interviews with those from reporters and the pilot, and all the naked pictures.

You didn't need any other side of the story. Her story was so ludicrous that it was unnecessary.

It isn't a news show. The point isn't to nail her. It was much, much more effective to let her be crazy without constantly calling her out. It was more entertaining and, in the end, her crazy shone through more. Had he confronted her there would have been more sympathy for her. Like this woman was being picked on. She comes off as totally bonkers all on her own. She doesn't need help.

And he did have the other people give context. But Kirk Anderson is the only one who could truly dispute it. And he didn't want any part of it.



Guess who has two thumbs, speaks limited French, and hasn't cried once today? This moi.