Amanda Knox (2016)

A Disappointing Continuation

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

When I first heard that there was going to be a new movie called "Amanda Knox" I met it with a healthy dose of skepticism, I had become hardened to what mainstream and tabloid media had produced about this young lady and her Italian friend in the past decade; I had learned not trust the opinions of people who read only headlines.But I must say I was not only pleasantly surprised by the outcome, I welcomed it gladly like a breath of fresh air. You see, I am a researcher for the advocacy that helped Amanda and Raffaele correct misinformation in social media, I volunteered to read the "mountain of evidence" against them.I know the "complex" first hand, so McGinn and Blackhurst's use of "simple" is brilliant.The guiltless in context with the people guilty of robbing them of their freedom and rights. It evoked a visceral reaction in me that was a surprise, the usual eye-rolling annoyance gave way to white hot anger because the film was so intimate. It brought the antagonists right into my home and, yes, I did yell "FU" at the TV a few times.Amanda and Raffaele are those people you saw on film, no acting, the real thing. Just two ordinary people who met everyone's nightmare – duplicitous authorities. Those people you see against that stark backdrop are exactly who they say they are, McGinn and Blackhurst captured their personalities perfectly.They captured the essence of Giuliano Mignini, Valter Biscotti and Nick Pisa as well. It sickened me to watch them preen for the audience, but the very important point I want to make is that the public's dislike of Pisa, despite his drooling over headlines, is misplaced. Pisa is the tabloid jackal you see, but at least he is honest about it and that authenticity sets him aside from the other antagonists who have cloaked themselves in respectability; wolves in sheep's clothing.If my opinion matters to you, then kindly pay close attention to Prosecutor Mignini if you have not yet seen this film. To those who have, please watch it again and witness "Amanda Knox" parting the curtain to show you official confirmation bias at work in a justice system.The stunning arrogance of Guede's lawyer Biscotti, for example, about being the "better attorney" for the murderer while the uninformed public knows nothing about the Italian fast-track trial system vs. the regular trial system. Can you imagine being found guilty in a court of law without being represented by a lawyer or being able to cross-examine your accuser? Consider the legal plight of Raffaele and Amanda, outside looking in, during Guede's trials while Biscotti swept their Constitutional rights away.Giuliano Mignini's interview was the most telling, he is right that he knows Italian law. So well, in fact, that he used it to pull the wool over the eyes of Raffaele's well-connected family (including sister the cop) just long enough to force the young man to "have his day in court" as mandated by law. He also pulled the wool over the US Embassy in Italy by not declaring Amanda an official suspect until after her arrest, though she was under surveillance, wiretapped and Perugian authorities were preparing to interrogate her and Raffaele both. Mignini's signature on the detention forms was inked mere hours before help would arrive for both naive students, and those papers are the tip of the legal iceberg. Because of the wiretapping Mignini knew his unfettered access to the pair was coming to an end as soon as Amanda's mother arrived.I was most surprised to see Mignini's mantra from court transcripts for the world to see: "Let's consider." "Let's imagine." "If only there was a video in the room." Well, that last part is not in the film, only the case file along with many other examples of this so-called professional imagining "what may have happened." His penchant to "make up dialogue" for Meredith and Amanda was also present and this man has made up many disgusting things; that is without question.Then there is the prosecutor's denial of knowing how Lumumba's name was fed to Amanda during the interrogation in contrast to his confirmed presence just outside the room; while he was engaged in advising the police. Mignini is provably part of the more than a dozen Perugian law enforcement members present while she was abused, broken, and forced to sign away her life in a foreign language. It is heartbreaking to see the part of the film when Amanda finally realized that nothing she said mattered to him, all that mattered was his opinion.So Mignini knows intimately how Lumumba's name was introduced and his denial of that fact in this film is pure gold.You see the barest hint of his Madonna/Whore Complex in the film as well, osmotic evaluation of the legal dossier reveals a dirty old man entertaining the court with the latest script from his "soap opera." The scared foreign kid is "crazy," the party-animal British Girls are "proper," and the murder victim is "virginal." Satan, the Mason's, Reefer Madness, Catfights, Guede's Poop, it's all there. The man in the mirror is an arrogant official, a devil some would say, who lied to the victim's family and accused innocent people of a crime he concocted in his own head.McGinn and Blackhurst did a great job of taking a complex issue and simplifying it in ninety minutes. I invite you to take that time, kickback with a cocktail in the comfort of your own home and see how easy it is for an authority to scoop kids right off the street. Amanda believes the public thinks she is a monster, but the most frightening monsters are the powerful ones pulling strings behind our backs.Turn away from Amanda and Raffaele; and see the monster that stalked them. Giuliano Mignini.

Having vaguely heard of Amanda Knox before, I was unaware of the full story. For the most part, I feel that Netflix did a good job at displaying all the cards at hand. They built up the character of Knox, giving us a vague sense of who she was, and how she got to be in Italy. The interviews with Knox, Sollecito, Pisa, and Mignini along with some other experts, provide some great perspectives to the case. As the audience, this documentary provides a convenient place to hear from all parties involved. However, with any documentary, there is the potential for biases to be involved.I am unsure of how much of the interviews were scripted, or what the opinions of the filmmakers themselves are. While the filmmakers did their best to not overtly state whether Knox was innocent or guilty, there is some hint that they believe her to be innocent. However, I do appreciate that they seem to have given an objective view of the case, and provided a lot of details from multiple sources. So much so, that I do not know who is truly guilty. Much of the fault is shown to be the incompetence of the police investigators, who would rather create a buzz about a young American woman who is sex-crazed, than follow where the evidence leads. As well, certain statements and actions of lead players who affected the outcome of the case are greatly concerning to learn about. From the testing of poignant DNA not being considered important, to the contamination of test results, and the falsification of facts to the media, this film shows how much of an influence the media can be, emphasizing that one can never truly believe the news. What made this a great documentary, was the archived footage that they managed to get a hold of. Of the case, the murder scene, the news at the time, and of the suspects. They juxtaposed this with interviews and recordings of conversations that definitely makes me question how they got their hands on it. For example, recordings of Knox's phone call to her friend weeks after the murder, or a conversation between Knox and her mother while she was in jail. These added bits of credibility to the documentary, and the way the film was edited helped it to flow smoothly in suspense. While watching this definitely fills me with more questions than answers, as a documentary, it does its job. A great watch to learn about details of the case, and to understand how the system in Italy works. The only thing I would have liked to see would have been interviews with Kercher's family. There is a short news clip of the mother speaking, but a more in depth interview of why the Kerchers believe Knox to be guilty would have been a great addition. Though I do understand that the family perhaps did not want to be included in the film. As well, interviews with Knox's acquaintances would have painted a better picture of the kind of person Knox is. Perhaps filmmakers didn't do this because they are focusing on the facts of the case, and not on trying to prove Knox's innocence. Regardless, I am not 100% certain that she was not involved, but this film provided a great introduction to the case.

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.

If you're looking for a piece of media to clear the confusing facts for you - this is not it.The documentary is clearly very biased towards Amanda, making her the sole focus of the documentary and not the case - I am aware that it is titled after her name and therefore about her, but I feel the documentary unjustly shifted the focus of finding the truth from the case to a more "we're trying to prove she's innocent" film. Would recommend to anyone looking for a good entertainment documentary, but in my opinion it does nothing but feed into the idea that Knox is innocent and absolves her of any involvement within the crime, feeding in to her dramatics.