Why did Tom Stalcup have to make this about himself in the end? The section towards the conclusion about his personal life, and the final shot lingering on him felt very out of place. There is SO much real life tragedy in this story...the victim's families namely...that how dare he delve into self-indulgence.
Produce a good film on this subject, and your heroism will speak for itself.
I agree. His mom died? That's what drives him? Everybody's mom dies. What does that have to do with this story? One could shoehorn their personal loss into any tragedy, I suppose. Maybe I'll do a documentary on mistreatment of migrant workers and near the end show some footage of the sister I lost in 1980.
shareThat was so bizarre, so absurd, that the film became a complete joke at it's conclusion. He's blathering on about his mother, crying? Wth? He came off by the end of the film as having mental problems.
shareHe did that to place focus on how much he believes life is sacred. He lost his mother at an early age, a traumatic event that affects him to this day.
I think it is because of this he understands what these families went through. But the very nature of their deaths, the fact the truth has been deliberately kept from them is a gross injustice.
I had lived in Houston, familiar with Pam Lychner through her work on behalf of crime victims. I had attended the memorial service for her and her daughters, and during that time, I commented to someone close by, "It would be ironic if it turned out this was murder."
But it was. On a mass scale. Those responsible will never be found and brought to justice, because our government decided to hide the truth and lie to us instead.
Finally got a chance to watch this film and came back here to respond to the first few comments that I had read on this particular thread. I see the poster above me beat me to it, but I agree with what they have to say.
After reading those first three reviews by thenglensaid, jasper232323, and jamesl9, I was actually afraid this documentary was going to do more harm than good to this cover-up. You would think, based on their comments, that Tom Stalcup completely derailed the entire movie towards the end, and made it all about him. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was very brief, and, unless you have the comprehension skills of a kindergartner, it's pretty obvious he was explaining to the viewers that his passion for uncovering the truth lies within his understanding of what it means to lose a loved one, just like the victims' family members did. To imply that it was "self indulgence" is ridiculous.
Exactly....it never occurred to me that it was self-indulgence. I believe people have asked him why this is so important to him, considering that he did not lose family or friend on this plane. His point was that he understands what he means to lose someone close: those people who died in this crash were somebody's husband, wife, children, parent or friend. And yes, we all lose parents, but he lost his in childhood and it affected him all his life. People who lost dear ones in this crash deserve to know the truth, and that's what his agenda is; he was just trying to explain why this was so important to to him.
shareI agree that this element was a bit out of place with the tone of a documentary. My impression was that his motive to pursue this case was due to his strong feelings that people deserve the honor of truth, and that the deaths of the people on the plane are not honored so long as there are questions that loom over the investigation.
I'm not disturbed the the introduction of a personal human element like this. It seems fitting to end it on a human tone, not just end it. Many documentaries these days are done with some motive of passion. To my mind that isn't a problem as long as the documentary remains objective and follows the evidence.