Errol Morris is one of the most influential filmmakers working today. Before his death, Roger Ebert wrote, "After twenty years of reviewing films, I haven't found another filmmaker who intrigues me more...Errol Morris is like a magician, and as great a filmmaker as Hitchcock or Fellini.”
Write whatever you'd like, but please be sure to address your feelings about the way Tabloid utilizes the aesthetics of filmmaking to tell its story (Morris himself says Tabloid is in many ways a story about the way stories are told). Is the film authentic? Was the filmmaker responsible to its subject and main character? Would you have made it differently? If so, how?
Finally, do you think the film's main subject Joyce McKinney was right to file a lawsuit against Morris (article here) and travel around the country attending several screenings in protest (even more amazing article here)? Needless to say, this story is a hoot, Morris is a genius, and I look forward to discussing both with you in more detail when we next meet.
In the meantime, I hope you enjoy Tabloid and can't wait to read your thoughts about the film and its aesthetics - by no later than 9 am on Wednesday of course.
This was my second time watching Tabloid and I enjoyed it even more than the first. First of all, Joyce reminds me of one of my aunts so much-- from the pretty blue eyes to the ridiculous hyperbolic southern drawl. Maybe that is why I feel so sympathetic with Joyce and so intrigued by the way she tells stories. I watched this film with my boyfriend. He was incredibly annoyed with Joyce and didn't believe a word she said. He was convinced in the first 20 minutes that this woman was insane and vain and hungry for the spotlight.
ReplyDeleteWatching this film the second time, I questioned more parts of her story than I did the first time. That being said, I was even more heartbroken by her story this time around. I don't know what it is about this character, but for some reason, I just want her to win. I want to believe her fantastical stories. I want to believe in a woman who would ski down mount everest nude with a carnation in her nose just for love. Sure, she's a pathological liar... but what great artist isn't? Her dog may not have literally dialed 911 for her. But I am certain that she loved this dog at a time in her life when she had no one else and the dog may have saved her life in that sense. If documentary is the creative treatment of reality, then Joyce telling her story directly to a camera was a strong choice. That's all she's doing. Expressing her own truth through exaggerations and good story telling.
Wow! Where do I start!? Joyce Mckinney is an absolutely fascinating person. She made for a fine character in Errol Morris' Tabloid. This film was as bizarre as any I have seen. I was hooked from the very start wanting to know more about Joyce McKinney as possible.
ReplyDeleteTo begin, lets start with the way the filmmaker presents the information on screen. The talking heads consisting of the men who worked for the Daily Mirror and the Daily Express in England really made for a more compelling narrative and the discoveries that was made into her life by their deepening fascination with this tragic individual introduced their need to sensationalize a situation that had gone off the rails.
The way that Morris used archive footage that played on old television screens, the clippings from the papers, his use of music all added to the uniqueness of the story.
Now to Joyce McKinney who was the star of the show. From the readings, what I extracted was her need to clear her name, to exonerate herself from what she claims her false truths against her to defame her character regarding the supposed kidnapping of Kirk Anderson, an American Mormon who had went on a mission in England.
The fact that this woman by her own admission worked three jobs and saved money to go England by renting a plane, pilot, a bodyguard and taking along her friend and accomplice Keith May and by realizing it, is as astonishing as anything I have ever heard. Her supposed love and obsession for Kirk and what it leads her to do is as unbelievable as it is shockingly fascinating. Even what happens at the cottage according to McKinney is like WOW. We never hear from two vital individuals, which are Kirk Anderson, the other party involved and the deceased Keith May. There is a lingering curiosity and mystery that hangs over the truth. I did not think that Morris was concerned with truth. Is the doc authentic? I think it depends on who you ask. Information was presented but there certainly was a lack of evidence. I think Morris may not have been completely honest with what he was going to do with the interview but then again McKinney is peculiar and many may find her to be lying. The verdict is still out for me as I mediate and reflect on a terribly interesting woman.
I absolutely loved this film! My favorite docs are the ones where people just sit down and share their life story. I know talking-heads are looked down on a lot, but I believe Errol Morris showed a terrific example of how it can work and be really awesome. I loved how he used newspaper clippings and made maps out of them. All of those graphic visuals really helped me to follow the story and create a perfect visual image in my head – just as if someone were reading me a book. I pictured every moment of the story in my head as if Morris were actually showing them to me on screen. I find that really cool because the entire doc kind of focuses on and often goes back to the fact that Joyce has always wanted to write her own book. At the beginning and end of the doc, young Joyce is reading a fairytale type story of her life. That’s such a great connection. I have no idea if Errol Morris did that intentionally, but it worked for me.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the entire doc I was questioning Morris’s responsibility to Joyce. Media had such a negative impact on her life, and if I were Morris, I would be terrified to initially ask her to be in this doc. How was he able to create a trust and separate himself from the tabloids and the rest of the world? Also, I LOVED that he showed the different sides of the story. Interviewing the two different newspaper guys was genius and it helped to round the story; it helped to fill in the gaps and give a different perspective on the whole ordeal. Again, I wonder about Morris’s responsibilities. What did Joyce feel as she saw a man who she deeply despised contributing his mocking opinions in a documentary about HER experience. As an average viewer, I thought it was genius. But if I were her, I’d be upset. Whoa! I just read the post assignment again and I forgot Dan had said she protested against it. That is so funny and makes a lot of sense. Her character is so eccentric and so….out there. I love it. Did she have the right to file a law suit after Morris? I mean…anyone has the right, I suppose. If he wasn’t upfront about his intentions with this doc from the beginning, then her being upset makes complete sense. Like I said, with her hatred towards those who betrayed her and with Errol giving these enemies a say in HER story…that’s risky. I personally feel really bad for her. She’s definitely a strange person, but all in all, she is a person. I loved the film, but I don’t think I could deceive someone (if Errol did.) Especially someone who had already experienced so much hurt and hate in her life.
I absolutely loved this film. The story of Joyce is somewhat unbelievable. The film does offer archival evidence that makes it seem authentic but I just don’t know. I totally believe she is absolutely crazy and I personally would rather watch her from screen because I do not think I could handle her in person. For the record just because I think she is crazy does not mean I do not think she is able of telling the truth or have some reasoning behind her. The talking heads seems to work because the characters are quite interesting. The language and quirky gimmicks they use during the interview doesn’t make it boring like typical talking heads. I love the humor within the talking heads as well. Her life seems so fantasized that all this could happen in one woman’s lifetime. I believe most of her stories have a central truth within them but something’s I do believe have been exaggerated in a way. I don’t think she was made subject I believe that with any arrangement of editing the opinions of those who were against her would still cause the same idea of Joyce as a character or as a person. I do enjoy how the director embodies the tabloid culture and how it can manipulate or how other can manipulate the press. I want Joyce story to be all factual and true cause of course we want the underdog to win. She has a glowing spirit within her or she could just be as manipulating and persuading as the people say she is and could be fooling the audience as well but who knows. I feel the director captured this story quite successfully. One of the things I admired her for saying during the film was “ I did what any other American girl would do, I went looking for him”.
ReplyDeleteFirst off let me say this film was great. I had never seen it until now. I have seen one Errol Morris film before in one of my classes last year but I can't remember what it was called or what it was about. The story of the main character, Joyce Mckinney is one that is pretty fantastic and partially unbelievable. The film did seem authentic but I'm not sure why, I just got an authentic feel from it. I agree with Tina in her post when she said, "Media had such a negative impact on her life, and if I were Morris, I would be terrified to initially ask her to be in this doc." A story like this at first may seem like every other story of Joyce but it wasn't. It was a different perspective. I enjoyed the film and I really don't know how to describe it. The story and Morris's style interested me so much and kept me entertained.
ReplyDeleteTabloid was amazing, but I honestly don’t think it could be the same with a different lead character or subject. As much as Joyce McKinney was “over-the-top,” she entertained the audience completely through her stories. Morris did a great job comparing those stories to the “truths” of others. The funny thing about truth in this film is that I don’t quite know what it is exactly. Many times the idea of the truth being the combination of both sides of the story comes up. McKinney may be a pathological liar, but some of the things she says don’t sound that unreasonable. When we see the image of Kirk, it’s hard to believe that this cute little southern blonde would want to kidnap and rape him (let alone obsess over him at all). That seemed to be why so many people came to support her “truth” of what happened. One thing that is actually discussed in the documentary is the major issues the documentary itself covers! It’s great. There’s religion, beauty, crime, food, nudity, psychology, and sex. What more can an audience ask for? In a way, I related this to The Imposter in the sense that she is that good at lying. At the same time, is everything she says a lie? We don’t really know! I don’t think so. We know she isn’t an innocent girl due to thousands of nude photographs of her sexual experiences, but at the same time outside sources say “nobody had sex with Joyce”. Is she the devil or is she an angel? This is kind of the position that Morris put her in, but backed it up with great evidence for both arguments.
ReplyDeleteMy first instinct would be to criticize the amount of talking heads but for some reason it really worked in this film. I thoroughly enjoyed Joyce and the way she presented herself. She is such a character. There were points when she would lean into the camera and laugh just as someone does when they can tell their audience is eating up their story. It’s like she’s feeding off of the energy of the viewers, who are laughing at her and not with her, but she can’t tell. Along with the entertainment of Joyce the interviews are filled with “fun” edits. There’s a point when the former Mormon turned gay activist talks about the process of priesthood. He says “They went through… we went through… I went through…” As he corrects himself jump cuts are made more and more zoomed into him. Little things like this keep the rhythm and add fun bits here and there, similar to the quick-cut tabloid headlines to introduce people. Or the jokes laid out in the newspaper collage-like title cards, or the interviewer in the background commenting on the weird things people say (“Spread-eagled?”) I love the way Morris says she’s crazy by having Joyce say it herself, like the feel of the bookend beginning and end of Joyce talking about her book. But he’s not afraid to say them himself, like with the newspaper clippings. All of this plays into the style the film portrays.
ReplyDeleteI 100% think that she had the right to go to the screenings. Why wouldn’t she be able to attend? If she freaked out and made a huge scene that would be one thing but to go and scream at the screen once and a while that would just be more entertainment in my opinion. I’d love to have been at one of those screenings. Plus she has a right to speak up, after all the film is able her. I’m not really sure where I stand on if Morris was responsible or not. And with responsibility comes authority. I think it is safe to say that Joyce’s story isn’t what really went down. Regardless if Joyce is telling the truth or not I understand why she would be fighting for a lawsuit. I don’t think that Morris presented Joyce as she thought she was going to be presented. Then again Joyce was the one telling her story for the majority of the film. I think responsibility in documentaries is a blurry line. With that being said I think this film is still authentic and presents the truth, but that’s hard to say not knowing everything. I’m not sure if I would have made it differently or not but I would consider what I would be doing to Joyce and I’m sure that crossed Morris’s mind. But just as you said, I agree, the story is such a hoot and as a viewer I don’t care because of it.
I didn’t think anything could match Thin Blue Line, but I was proven wrong. Errol Morris is a visionary, and really knows how to document a good story. Although the film is mainly restructured to his liking, I largely agree with what he has to say in this film. First and foremost, Joyce Mckinney is a brilliant liar. Morris illustrates this early, and often; funnier yet, she continues to show how much of a nut she is by showing up at screenings of Tabloid. This woman clearly knows how to get away with murder, and will manipulate any story her way. Morris plays this well by making the story show exactly what he wants it to show, although his hand isn’t physically present in the actual scenes. The shots and animations he uses are very dramatic, illustrating beautifully comical representations of the crazy characters. The film is authentic, using very real first hand accounts of the time, and Errol Morris was responsible in that he shows what he believes to be truth. Whether or not that matches everyone’s truth doesn’t matter to me, and in that respect I believe our styles of filmmaking to be very closely related. If I made this film I can’t imagine it being very different from this. Comical, and truthful. Instead I would use this as a gateway to another project that details the affects of fame on people prone to being pathological liars. Joyce Mckinney has no case against Errol Morris because she gave him her permission to be filmed, plain and simple.
ReplyDeleteThis film was very interesting from beginning to end. It catches you with the combination of the vintage and very catchy visuals. The use of the tv's to show stock footage and not just simply showing things in a typical manner, Morris uses a very creative way to draw the audience in. The film doesn't play the mystery angle of this so much as i thought it would, it actually played a more fun side of it. You would think the way the talking heads dominated a lot of the film this would've been boring but it actually served the film well. I really liked this film because it was not what I expect, a fun look at an abduction.
ReplyDeleteWow. Tabloid is such an interesting film! Errol Morris used his creativity to capture all the bizarre and unusual pieces to this story. I think this film is authentic and fair to everyone in it, because he gets you to feel for both sides. He doesn’t make one side of the story look better or worse and that’s what made it really captivating.
ReplyDeleteI think Joyce McKinny is a little wacky and that maybe Morris knew she would act out about the movie. I think Morris did a great job displaying the facts of what happened without inserting too much of his own opinion. I liked hearing his dialogue with his subjects; it brought in a regular (sane) voice or reaction to this wild story.
This is definitely one of the craziest stories I've ever heard. I don't think I would have made this film any different given the subject matter. The way each character tells the story is very intriguing. It held my attention very well for talking heads.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand how she didn't see the film before it was released. I thought she would've seen it first. I guess following the film's screenings & protesting was something she felt she had to do to protect herself. I feel bad for her. But I guess she is a liar and liars will do anything to make you believe them. I want to trust her but her stories are so biased.
“Is this real life?” was the very first thought that popped into my head right after this ended, while my girlfriend was still just staring at the screen like she had been the whole film. The beginning of the film I thought was going to be very anti-religious just from the interview with Joyce and Troy Williams and was going to get very testy. Then the film took a step, no a leap in a whole different direction. I actually really liked the fact that Troy Williams was in the film, because even though he was no longer in the mission, he had been through it and knew all the rules and how to explain them. To me having Williams who had gone through it give the facts, instead of giving the facts on screen, made it feel real and made me believe it more. The film was authentic, and respectful in my eyes because the director gives both sides, and he lets both sides be there own voice. The only time you heard the directors voice was when he joked around with the interviewee, and he did it to both sides. Also the stories were told all the way through by both sides, and they were given right after each other so you had all the info, and could figure out which one you believed. I also think it was respectful because he didn't try to paint Joyce as crazy, it was just the way she presented herself. I think for a story like this, there is no other way of telling it, because Kirk wouldn't be interviewed but Morris did get a person from each side of the story to talk, and it seemed like he asked the same questions, and even told the interviewee what was said by others, so they had a chance to respond. Like when he told Peter Tory that Joyce had called it a romantic get away, and he kind of laughed and spoke on that point.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Joyce was right to file a lawsuit, but I think her reasoning was that she loves all the attention. Throughout the whole film she was so extravagant for the camera, and in all the pictures and old footage of her she was acting the same way. I think this whole thing from the beginning of the Kirk story was for attention, and it is working out exactly how she wants it to. The way she acted and spoke actually is the reason I think the film was done respectfully and correct, because that is what she is and you couldn't hide it. The mixture of old footage and new footage, along with talking heads, and animated maps and B-Roll made the film a great watch, and the story is obviously an amazing one. The whole dog clone story at the end was very confusing and felt thrown in to me though. But I think it could have been used to show just how far Joyce will go to get what she wants, and once again showed just how much she loved the attention, even when pretending to be trying to stay away.
This Story was Pretty Ridiculous. Earl Morris really stumbled upon a great story to tell. Although the story may have been great and it was really interesting hearing and seeing joyce tell her story first hand i wasn't to sold that this should've been a full feature Documentary. throughout the Doc i was in and out of watching the full visual and caught myself kinda doing side tasks while listening to the audio. No disrespect to the director himself but i wasn't really sold on as mentioned this being a full documentary. at times i feel like this could have been short and done like the Cable TV segment about Joyce. Once i got myself back into what was happening i did enjoy the newspaper clippings provided to show the mass hysteria caused by Joyce and her mormon love. I also definitely enjoyed the fact that they had one of the recruited men there to tell the way he saw this story unfolding, the pilot provided a real anchor back into the interesting story that was being told. Another part that was really interesting from moments to moments was the first hand accounts by the reporters and photographers although that is why i felt that it got very dull mid way. Yes the Tabloids were the reason why she got famous and this story was told. but i also feels like its the same general way the way tabloids figure these stories out and i didn't feel they needed the spotlight the way they did. So i had mixed emotions and and feel this could have been even a short Tv special but the story of joyce itself was ridiculous and very entertaining. In a way i feel a bit of Inception happening here, Earl Morris is The tabloid and he is out to blow this story out of proportion finding hard evidence and first and second sources to tell the story. A bit of exploitation in here as well. He may not have said it literally but you make this type of Doc with the intentions of tell a dramatic story and exploit how insane this lady really appears to be, an example.. Once she was back home and went into hiding from the press he went on to tell the story of the Dogs and something about the way she tells her story really sells you on her being crazy and mentioning several times she is writing a book. Earl Morris serves as a tabloid with a bit of exploitation and than rewards her by giving her more views of the story.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed watching this film. I see what the filmmaker means when he says that it is a story of how stories are told. I agree with this because it shows virtually all sides of the story. We hear it told from Joyce's point of view which is filled with lovely music and clips from romantic movies. All of that helps to push her interpretation of what really happened. Then the story is told from the pilot's point of view and it seems like he's telling a ghost story. For his point of view, it shows suggestive clips that are played in slow motion so they are more dramatic than romantic. I felt that it was satisfying visually with the news clippings and the cartoons, and footage. It was all very well crafted to tell the story and accentuate on emotion. I did feel that the film was authentic because of the use of editing. Some words spoken by the interviewees would pop up on the screen to show their importance. This really grabbed my attention as I'm sure it did most people. And the shot of the TV was very specific in showing how the public must have viewed this story on the news. I feel that the director left his mark, his aesthetic, on this film. Also his style works very well for this story. All the whacky editing of the transitions, clippings, and text mirror the craziness of the story. I feel that the director was responsible to the subject and character for he didn't focus on just one thing. Multiple perspectives were taken on what happened, and Errol did his very best to tell all of them equally. I honestly can't see this film being made any other way. If it was done differently it would either be boring in how it's presented or way to flashy and random.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I want to say that I thought this film was very well done with a very compelling story. The second thing that I want to say is that the lady is bat shit crazy. From the moment she came on screen I was taken back and had to think to myself if I believed what she was saying. I think that this film has elements to truth to it, but I don't think that the truth is coming from her per-say. I found that all of the talking heads were very well lit, I also found it interesting that 30 minutes into the interview the director started to put in either his voice, or the voice of the interviewer. I found it a little off-putting. I just don't see why he would go so long without putting the voice of the interviewer in so late. I thought that it was a bad choice on the directors part. As for the law suit that was filed, I feel that it was wrong on both parts. He should have showed her the film, but I don't think she was right in filing a law suit on him and following the film around to festivals. I think that the whole situation could have been avoided by better communication.
ReplyDeleteTABLOID was a blast from the past. I'm not really sure how or why I was so drawn into the story, but for whatever reason, I was. It was told in a complex "he said/she said" fashion but Errol Morris did a phenomenal job keeping things consistent; His characters, however, (joyce in particular) did not. I was very fond of the editing techniques employed in that the character's body placements were jumping all over the screen in the same way that the stories were jumping around. They were also lit and shot beautifully. As far as Joyce goes, I would love to sit down with her; I've always been very interested in talking with people who are sane but crazy at the same time. Something about how their minds work is fascinating to me, and so I often humor them by buying into their beliefs or theories when I'm with them to just listen to their thought process and rationale..often times they end up contradicting themselves and it's pretty funny. In most cases I never point out that I noticed the contradiction, but when I do their defenses are even more humorous. With that being said, I think that Joyce would definitely be one of those people. Regardless of the editing job (and I was constantly wondering how sequential the interview clips were), I think that Joyce would never be satisfied with any edit made about her because she still to this date doesn't have a rock solid consistent story of what happened. She's one of those sane but crazy ladies. I think that all in all this film was authentic in that the legal courts probably listened and had to sift through this same exact story, and it was almost a recreation of what they would have heard and discussed. One final thought/question I had was the use of archival footage; Were they staged recreations or were they actually archival? Either way, I think they were used effectively. Overall, TABLOID was a very entertaining film.
ReplyDelete