The Role of Responsibility for the Filmmaker in “The Jinx”
Ethical issues often arise in a typical document making. These are common when the filmmaker must relive the events that occurred. This may arouse the emotional suffering that the narrator underwent at the occurrence of the event. However, the filmmaker is also tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that the public or the audience utterly understand the gravity of the situation and the seriousness of the events that took place. In this case, especially given that the narrator approached the filmmaker with the idea of his interview being used as part of the film, the filmmaker is tasked with getting the elusive truth from the narrator. The narrator feels that the public misunderstood his decision to keep silent regarding the matter and thus saw this as an opportunity to clarify the matter. The instances of breach of privacy, the use of blackmail in getting some information, unauthorized recording and even awakening emotional scars in some of the victims show that the film erred in some of its approaches. However, one may feel that getting the truth at the end was crucial and justified the use of such techniques. Despite being a documentary, the film “The Jinx” is characterized by investigative film making traits. Its main aim was to find the truth regardless of the methods used for this; thus, “The Jinx” should not be held to the same ethical standards that are applied to regular documentary filmmaking.
As much as it is important to keep the public informed about the reality of the events, it is also prudent to consider the pain of reliving the details on the part of the victim or the witness. Nonetheless, for the believability of the documentary, on the other hand, it is essential for the revelation of real emotions on the part of the audience, so that they can relate to it (Cipriani). The story must provide compelling evidence that the narrator was there, which enforces the need for the filmmaker to use acceptable methods to get the needed emotions from the narrator (Spence and Navarro 83). Durst’s attorneys believed that he could not portray emotions, so they advised him to state the truth only, regardless of whether he missed some parts or otherwise. He did that and indicated that he had forgotten the other parts. One of the jurors was convinced that Durst was guilty in that he was not emotionally affected by the act of describing how he dismembered another person. Such situations show the importance of emotions to the believability of the story.
The methods and approaches applied by the film appear straightforward, especially in how realistically they reflect on the life of Robert Durst (Spence and Navarro 93). From childhood fights with his brother to adult life where he makes bizarre decisions, the film ensured that the audience had a grip of these events. The bad decisions included the marital fights and not wanting a child by threatening his wife with divorce if she kept the baby, meaning that she had to procure an abortion. It is compelling to see how painful it was for Robert Durst to admit that he lied when recording a statement. He lied to the police with the ideology that it would make them stop questioning and probing him since they were bothering him, but that never happened. It is also compelling to see him talk about the instability of his marriage where they were regularly fighting with Kathie before her disappearance. Therefore, Jarecki is successful in showing Durst’s life to the audience through an emotional window.
The film was responsible and objective. Instead of taking a stance, it leaves it to the viewers' discretion to make the final decision regarding whether Robert Durst was guilty or innocent (Spence and Navarro 88). The director, for instance, throughout the story making as well as in the interviews with Durst, he avoids hard or challenging questions that would unsettle him. He states that, from the start, he knew that Durst was innocent, but he set out to get the facts regarding the actual occurrence of the events that lead to the deaths of three individuals. Jarecki avoided being judgmental and employed the softball approach by asking him easy questions, reserving the most challenging question for the ending. The approach seems to work since, in the final scene, Durst conceded that he could not differentiate between the address in the murder note and the one in the letter he had earlier written to the victim. Thereafter, he requested to use the washroom, and, in there, without the knowledge that the film's microphone was still attached to him, he confessed in three murders. He then discovers his earlier mistake and admits that he had been wrong while the filmmaker was right. He then asks himself the question, “What the hell have I done?” after realizing that he had implicated himself.
Even though the argument is that the film cannot be held to similar standards to those of a typical documentary making, it shows some morally questionable practices as discussed. Jarecki, in the filmmaking process, violated some filmmaking ethics. Prior to the last episode, it seemed that Durst had changed his mind about the final interview and that he was not going to get involved again and Jarecki decided to stop pestering him. Later, Robert is arrested, and he needed Jarecki's help to get a clip of his earlier filmed activities to use it as part of his defense to avoid going back to jail. Jarecki saw this as an opportunity to exploit, so he blackmailed Durst into completing the interview that he had early refused. This is seen as a breach of ethics, which in a way could render the film not suitable for public viewing.
Breach of privacy is also noted in this film. For instance, the filmmakers continue to record Durst even after the interview is finished, which terms as illegally obtained footage (Anderson and Lucas 57). Such action is viewed as the breach of privacy, which, based on the filmmaking rules of ethics, should have been removed from the scene before the final edit was submitted for public viewing. Another instance of breach of privacy is seen in how they approach Sareb, Susan's “son,” to whom they were not biologically related, and get a request to search her things that were taken from her inventory after her death. They rummage through personal stuff to find confidential documents, such as a personal letter and a document of lease application, which they used for comparative purposes. Getting access to such documents without the authorization of Robert is a breach of privacy, which again means that it should have affected the credibility of the film based on moral grounds.
Even though this film “The Jinx” was dubbed a documentary, it should have been categorized as an investigative series since it combined a person’s biography as well as their law-breaking activities and included them in the film. Therefore, from the beginning, the film was more concerned about finding the truth rather than focusing on the life of Robert Durst. It seems proper that the producer used any means available to find the truth, which he eventually did.
Works Cited
Anderson, Kelly, and Martin Lucas. Documentary Voice & Vision: A Creative Approach to Non-Fiction Media Production. CRC Press, 2016.
Cipriani, Casey. “The Ethics of Documentary Filmmaking.” IndieWire, 2014. www.indiewire.com/2014/10/the-ethics-of-documentary-filmmaking-69007/. Accessed 1 Dec. 2018.