Amanda Knox (2016)

the audience applauded

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

First of all, people, a documentary doesn't present both sides. Documentaries are the media equivalent of a debate argument or a persuasive essay. A documentary presents a claim and then supports it with information. Documentaries are biased by design.For unbiased information, we are supposed to look to the news and journalists. Within the first few minutes of this film, we can see that trust is misplaced. The "journalist" recorded here appears truly deplorable. It is clear the media smeared Knox by printing every fabricated or insinuated tale as though it were fact. Foxy Knoxy? Lucifer-like, satanic witch? Yeah, that's evenhanded journalism assuring a fair trial. *scoff*Drug-fueled sex orgy? Because they smoked a little weed? Puh-leeeease.The investigator comes off as a pompous ass. Knox is an anarchist because she doesn't like being questioned by authorities? Pretty sure only the truly stupid are cooperative when they have been accused of murder.I'm dumbfounded by the people screaming for Knox's head based upon the "damning" physical evidence. You mean they found Knox's DNA and fingerprints in her own home? Wow, what a revelation! Listen, your DNA and fingerprints cover just about every square inch of your residence, including the bedroom of anyone living with you. Skin and hair are everywhere (that's what dust is mostly made of), and don't tell me you never hung out in your roommate's room listening to music, chatting, or smoking a bowl.Knox was acquitted. That means she is presumed innocent. End of story.

People with only a casual interest in the case my find this documentary interesting. It's well-made and presents the basic facts well. The filmmakers made a number of pro-Knox tweets and comments prior to making the film, so it's not unbiased. I won't go over the evidence and its presentation in the film except to say that the case against Knox is very well presented on the website themurderofmeredithkercher.com. Also, the trial transcripts (highlights at least) and "sentencing reports" are online in English (in Italy the judge issues a kind of term paper explaining how the verdict was arrived at.) The final sentencing report is the Marasca Report. That report explains why Knox was found not guilty by insufficient proof, a weaker status than the alternative form of not-guilty. Reports are also online from earlier trials in which Knox was found guilty (Massei and Nencini) and not guilty (Hellmann.) I will make just two points: 1) Kercher's family, friends, and surviving roommates seem to think Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. They did not participate in the documentary except via old footage. 2. Prosecutor Mignini is portrayed as biased against Knox by his Roman Catholic religious views and Knox's alleged sexy, druggy lifestyle. That is unfair. No devout Catholic would think it right to judge unfairly an accusation of murder because the defendant had engaged in pre-marital sex. That would be a grave sin as any priest would tell you.

If you are looking for definitive answers, this documentary will disappoint you. But if you want to become familiar with this case and see how justice can easily go from blind to hobbled when the media are involved, this is definitely worth a watch.Although it clearly supports Amanda Knox's side of the story and strongly advocates her innocence, this film isn't so much about the verdict. Rather, it highlights how flawed a crime investigation can be when the media and the public put such immense pressure on officers and detectives. How amoral and ruthless the media can be for the sake of selling "the perfect story", and how the public's opinion is so easily and quickly shaped because of it.The sheer indifference that journalist Nick Pisa shows when proclaiming how Rudy Guede's story "wasn't interesting" was very telling. Also, it is completely baffling how the head of the investigation ended up being promoted after doing such a stunningly bad job in this case.In the end, whether you side with Knox or not, this film -while not necessarily having the depth that one might seek in such a documentary- clearly demonstrates how rushed and weak the case against her was, the product of a botched investigation fueled by media frenzy.

Named the "trial of the decade," the story of Amanda Knox first captivated the world in 2007 following the gruesome murder of British student, Meredith Kercher. Since then, the case has been picked apart and reviewed by innumerable forensic analysts and murder mystery enthusiasts alike. The film has garnered high praise and popularity since its release on September 30th of this year, making it clear that many people still have a vested interest in this story. Much like the JonBenét Ramsey case, the case of Amanda Knox was made into a grand spectacle by the media. It has even been suggested that the media may have swayed the ruling of the Italian court. This is supported by the film. In it we see the media put pressure on the government to apprehend the murderer quickly, but this makes investigators sloppy and they make careless mistakes. Evidence is not properly preserved and this in the end radically changes the lives of the two main suspects: Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. Murder mysteries and "whodunit's" are astonishingly popular among today's film consumers. Everybody wants to play detective, and in the Amanda Knox case, everybody did. Every single person from sea to shining sea had an opinion. The people of Perugia, Italy cried out for justice for Meredith Kercher and then the world followed suit. Again, this is arguably one of the reasons that the case played out as it did. Two convictions, two acquittals, and still no definitive answer as to who killed Meredith.There's always an angle; people, architecture, and yes, cameras. The directors of this film interestingly chose to make use of subtle camera angles and techniques for a variety of purposes throughout the film. The use of intermittent stills of Italian countryside, flashes of newspaper headlines or clips of a busy Perugian street made for nice visual imagery as well as good transitions. Most notably, however, were the peculiar camera angles in the early parts of the film. For example, during interviews with infamous journalist, Nick Pisa, who reported on the case from start to finish, the camera awkwardly hesitates on him as he smiles crookedly following his speech on the controversial way that the media got their hands on Amanda's diary she kept while in prison. This paints Nick in a negative light and even proliferates the stereotype of journalists as slimy, shady creatures, and ultimately garners more sympathy for Amanda, as she was the one being attacked in these publications. This same technique was also used with similar intent when interviewing Detective Mignini, another figure in the story who is generally disliked. Both Pisa and Mignini were misogynistic egomaniacs. They both profited from Amanda's demise. Throughout the entirety of the case they could both be seen basking in the glory of their attacks on Amanda. While Mignini used fear tactics and physical abuse in questioning, just outside the prison walls Pisa typed away feverishly at his computer printing phrases like, "femme fatale," "Foxy Knoxy," and other sexist remarks in what has been called, a "character assassination." Lastly, in my opinion, the film was very effective. It certainly had a target audience: those who have always been interested in the case, but I believe it also drew in others who enjoy documentaries, Netflix subscribers in general (since it was well advertised) and of course your run of the mill murder mystery fans as we discussed in the beginning. For many, this film helped them to see the case differently. With all cards and evidence out on the table, viewers were clearly able to see the facts. No matter whether you find Amanda's shrieks of delight in the end, following the announcement of her exoneration, encouraging or creepy, the film achieved its sole purpose: telling the twisted tale of a chilling murder.