Matthew F.

Tantuan BFA Cinema 3 Documentary In the 1988 documentary, The Thin Blue Line, Errol Morris makes an effective argument for Randall Adams. He adopts the point of view of someone unjustly prosecuted and convicted as a result of a systematic injustice. The expository mode adopted by Morris serves his purpose effectively. He constructs a commentary, not only from his subjects side but also from the prosecution, giving the film the sense of objectivity which is in strong contrast to the unjust treatment of his main subject. He also employs the use of reenacted scenes from witnesses of both sides to better present the details much like presenting evidence in court. Morris uses conflicting statements made by the interviewees as counterpoint to each other rather than commenting on it himself. He also avoids showing any contact, or participation in the interviews, removing any information of what context they were conducted in which results in every interviewee talking as if to someone on their side who will not judge them. By the time alleged opportunist witness Emily Miller appears after a menacing court drawing of herself, one wonders: Does she know how she will be portrayed? The audience becomes the jury and is tasked to judge each character Morris presents.

The catch, however, is that we are already led to believe Adams is innocent and we begin to judge with confirmation bias at this point. When Miller first appears with her aspirations to be a detective, Morris facilitates us by playing a whimsical and playful background music. Do we take her seriously? Confirmation bias is used two-fold. First, by presenting not only Adams as innocent but also Harris as delinquent right from the beginning, the audience is carried by confirmation bias throughout the film, fixed on those two facts. Second, Morris makes use of confirmation bias as the cause for Adams conviction. He presents people with confirmation bias clouding their judgments resulting in Adamss conviction as a way to strengthen his argument. Gus Rose and, later, the psychiatrists responsible for assessing Adams are seen describing him as unremorseful, holding on to the notion that he is guilty. Through this unjust treatment, Morris succeeds in building sympathy for Adams. The evidence and testimonials gathered are to his favor. However, before one could inversely accuse Morris of confirmation bias, he places Harriss final interview and confession in the end as a punctuation to his whole argument. The film ends with the statement of both Adamss and Harriss current status and in Adamss case, Morris makes a point that there is something to be done.