Advertisement
Personal documentaries rarely operate under the aesthetic and narrative rules of horror films, incorporating shocking Shyamalan-esque twist endings, but Dear Zachary: A letter to a son about his father does, so it’s fitting that Oscilloscope are beginning its roll out on Halloween. When filmmaker Kurt Kuenne’s childhood best friend Andrew Bagby was killed at the age of 32, almost certainly by his years-older jilted girlfriend Shirley Turner, Kuenne began filming testimony from his friends and family as a memorial to his lost friend. Shortly thereafter it was revealed that Andrew’s probable killer, who though charged with the crime had not yet been extradicted from Canada, was pregnant with Andrew’s child, and as Andrew’s parents Kate and David moved to Newfoundland and fought for custody of the baby, Kuenne drove across the continent from California to conduct interviews. At that point, he restructured the project: it was now a filmed letter addressed to baby Zachary, about the man his father was. But before Kuenne finished filming, the story would take another, much more devastating turn. It may be impossible to talk about Dear Zachary in terms of craft without spoiling the real-life twist which compromises the integrity of its structure, but I’ll try to be as vague as I can.
The story itself is unbelievably compelling: Bagby met Turner, twelve years his senior and twice divorced, as a medical student. They dated on and off for a couple of years, and when Andrew broke it off, Shirley drove across the country to see him and, apparently, shot him five times in the middle of a park. She then headed off to Newfoundland, where snafus in the Canadian legal system insured that she kept at least partial custody of Andrew’s son Zachary, even as she moved in and out of prison. Dear Zachary moves at a breakneck pace, often edited to Kuenne’s breathless, almost staccato narration, which is itself sometimes backed by a creepy, Psycho-like score. Kuenne conducts tons of interviews with Andrew’s friends and members of his large, close family, which the filmmaker chops up into flashes and weaves back together thematically. On initial viewing, only those closest to Andrew pop out as characters from what otherwise plays like a blanket of overlapping sentiment.
Kuenne is wise to let Andrew’s parents, seated together on a couch in a basic two-shot, tell the backbone of the story. Mother Kate, often teary, rarely makes eye contact with the camera, but father David, still clearly livid, often looks directly at us while detailing their relationship with “that fucking bitch” Shirley. Seen mostly in still photographs which seem to always freeze her in a state of manic motion, Shirley is blonde, skinny, with wild eyes hidden behind librarian glasses. The most compelling evidence to support the Bagby’s horror story comes from recordings of their phone calls with her and Shirley’s hysteric voicemails. Her voice is naturally sing-song in the creepiest way imaginable, and Kuenne gets a lot of mileage out of pulling soundbites like “Mommy loves you!” out of context and into the fabric of his horror movie soundtrack.
About two-thirds of the way through, a second crime is committed, at which point the pretense that this is “a letter to a son about his father” is no longer applicable. Dear Zachary then becomes many things –– a harangue against the broken child services system of Newfoundland, an advertisement for David Bagby’s new career as a legal activist (he published a bestselling book about the Turner case in 2007), and, as Kuenne puts it in a bit of narration towards the end, “a letter to someone else.” At this point, as a viewer it’s hard to not feel as though your sympathies have been taken advantage of. Ironically, in being honest about how, when and why his project changes focus, Kuenne has to initially lie to his audience. He documents an undeniably affecting personal story, and patches it together like a short attention span scrapbook with his fingerprints intact, but there’s something about it which feels false enough to undercut some of its potential power. In its title and initial structure, Dear Zachary sets up a foundation which it knows it’s going to pull out from under us, and that makes it every bit as emotionally manipulative as a studio film.
Kevin Buist
FLAME + CITRON Review
Christopher Campbell
Happy Halloween Links. Today in Film...
Brandon Harris
5 80s Literary Adaptations Worse Than...
Kevin Kelly
John Krasinski, Brief Interviews With...
Karina Longworth
SpoutBlog, Now Available in Book Form
Paul Moore
October 31, Karina’s Last Day
Lauren Wissot
Sasha Grey Interview
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
While everything you say is accurate in regards to it’s manipulation, I couldn’t disagree with you more about its impact. I thought one of the main strengths of the film was its ability to create a first person perspective of the film that, while obviously omniscient due to the time frame, managed to make me live every moment of the film as if it were happening at that moment. I don’t think I’ve ever had such a visceral experience in a documentary in, well, ever.
I do think that Kurt layed the visual asthetics on a little thick at a crucial time late in the film, but his Berliner-like editing style had already established this as a personal collage, so I thought it was forgivable.
I think when viewing “Dear Zachary” as an objective documentary, your criticisms are right on the money. But I saw it as a deeply personal, almost primal scream from a filmmaker who felt completely helpless and had only one channel to focus his rage and sadness. While Kurt and David Bagby are obviously using the film to enact political change in Canada, I think this film is first and foremost a catharsis, and by using manipulations to drag us through the whole sordid story step by step, we understand how truly tragic it was in a way that no Oprah-style “issue piece” ever could.
I am sorry…I completely disagree with your statement! I think in a situation like this that you don’t have enough sound effects and still frames of that woman’s face to show that what she did was nothing less than EVIL! I understand that it is easy to feel like maybe the rug was pulled under YOU but fact is this story began as a tribute to Zachary and his Father Andrew and this was a true to fact documentary. Manipulation, is where you go so wrong. Just my opinion but then again you probably weren’t expecting the ending we saw, and now know to be fact…It broke my heart and I think it broke yours and you feel manipulated but in any film you don’t know the end, and in this case there is no Fiction and this is a documentary and for me it changed my life.
After just watching A Letter To Zachary…I couldn’t disagree with you and your assessment of this documentary. It truly was a letter to Zachary that ended as a lettery to Kate and David as it should. I now feel as though I know Kate and David personally. They (Kate and David) are the unsung American heros that we hear so little of. This documentay was wonderful, heartbreaking, thoughtful and even inspiring. I STRONGLY suggest that you view it again.
I disagree with you . Kurt Kuenne’s film did not overdramatize or sensationalize events. What happened to this family was horrific and I hope that reform comes about because he had the courage(with the Bagbys) to finish this project which began and ended with love for his friend.
Wow. As a master social worker, I hate to tell you hon, but LIFE often “pulls [the foundation] out from under us”. Is life, therefore, “emotionally manipulative”?? I deal with this kind of horrific crap every day, IN DEPTH. And it’s kind of sad that you seem to either not know how very true (in the deepest sense of that word) this kind of storytelling is, or to simply not be able to handle it. Maybe (and I mean this seriously) you have simply never experienced anything all that bad–either personally or by knowing someone who has. Maybe you’ve been sitting around writing internet reviews too long, and need to get out and see more of life (the good, bad and ugly). I don’t mean that maliciously. Maybe, in the fullness of time, you’ll be able to have your heart broken by documentaries like this, and know that there is a rare value in that–when done for the right reasons. And, of course, this film was done for the right reasons, despire your carping (that’s he only proper word to describe your tone here, in places). I also must say, there’s an element of modern-day liberalism in this review; namely, your air of sympathy towards the murderer (”take it easy on her”……..that sort of thing, without the courage of coming right out and saying it that way). Do you know it’s that kind of attitude that helps contribute to little children being murdered? I’ve seen it and dealt with it–it’s what I do. And I’m tired of that kind of attitude. Enough children have been destroyed already, don’t you think??….
Excuse me, but where do I say, “take it easy on her” in this review? If you’re read an “air of sympathy towards the murderer,” then you’ve seriously misread, hon.
I reread my comment, and the two phrases which apply (and which serve to shade the truth regarding the murderer and her crimes) are “jilted girlfriend” (versus “ex-girlfriend”, or “obsessed ex-girlfriend”), and “snafus in the Canadian legal system”, which is far, far less serious than what actually took place: Liberal judges, psychiatrists, and social workers clearly took pity on the murerer and helped her to get out, so that she could murder again. What a tangled web we weave!!
After rereading your review, what stands out as even more disturbing is your absurd criticism (such as that Kuenne “lied”). Do you have any idea what it took to produce this film? To make it through production without going insane? And the fact that you can’t (or won’t) recognize it as one of the most brilliant, vital documentaries ever made really says more about you than it does the film.
No disrespect intended. But again, if this post is the worst thing you experience today, then COME ON! We live in a world where amazing, precious, wonderful babies get slaughtered by evil people. (The truth and reality is worse than any made up horror movie, you surely know….)
grampa david had the answer.
sorry to have to say that, but as this played out……….that was the only way.
I’m not really sure how to take your review, but I can say that I get the vibe that a part of you was scarred, along with the heart and lives of all who viewed it. I am scarred for life by what I watched twice on my television last night. I cannot imagine how a person could be so evil. I cannot get over the fact that the system did nothing to protect the lives of innocent people. The Bagley’s story touched my heart and I lift them up in prayer for comfort in their pain, I think the most horrifying aspect of the film was the fact that it was all reality, not a Lifetime movie. Unbelievable.
I’ve emailed a couple of my girlfriends this morning asking them if they have seen Dear Zachary - we have all been changed by this extraordinary tragic event that took place years ago but documented as if you were with Kate and David every step of the way living their pain. I can’t remember the last time I was so moved by pain and tragedy but I can only give credit to Kate and David for what they have endured for their son and grandson. I feel like their circumstances were unimaginable and for Kurt to convey the process of which they lived with grief and how they loved every breath of Baby Zachary. I salute the circle of friends Andrew surrounded himself with as they are now taking care of his parents and every small measure of love counts but will never equal the colossal love for their own son and grandson. Emotionally manipulative? How do you manipulate gut wrenching emotion? This documentary makes you feel like your heart is being ripped out of your body…..the ending that no one would or could have ever imagined. I thank Kurt for his bravery in executing a process that only the insiders of this tragedy would be able to feel and understand…his loyalty and love for Andrew, Zachary, Kate and David have made me view my own relationships differently.
Wow. What was that all about? You were a bit harsh. I love your “almost certainly” about her guilt. And the comment about how Kurt “gets a lot of mileage out of pulling soundbites” Keep in mind this is after her 2nd murder. Or do you believe that she may not have committed that one too?
What film deserves creepier music than this one. I also believe you are incorrect about Andrews age at his death. Are you Canadian?
Ive never been so happy to wake up to a screaming 8 month old as I was today. And throughout the day I’ve caught glimpses of that poor boy in my baby’s eyes. I’ve never been so moved by any movie..fact or fiction. We all know most critics are cynics and experience life through an illuminated screen, so have some sympathy.
“Emotionally manipulative?” Are you serious? What you seem to not be able to comprehend is the fact that this was a documentary on actual HORRIFIC events. You are clearly wrong when you compare it to the likes of a studio film.
In my opinion, for being as close to Andrew Bagby as Kuenne was, he did an amazing job of telling a raw and emotional story. He was far more objective than I personally could have ever been, had this been about one of my dear friends.
The Bagbys sacrificed their own emotional well-being to be there for their grandson. How many of us could have shared their loved-one, a pure and innocent being with a cruel, ill, and clearly selfish monster?
This is a true story and there is nothing manipulative about it! These things happen in life and some of us are the lucky ones who never have to experience a pain to that extent. Something should be done, yes! Something should be done to prevent things like this from happening to other innocent people. I was changed while watching this, and I feel as though I know these people. It almost makes me want to go and hug them and tell them it is ok, that everything will be ok….
Wow I think I saw some stuff in this documentary no one else is commenting on. This kind of violence goes on All The Time in this country and no one really notices! For instance, a man here in the Rio Grande Valley got angry that his beautiful young wife was going to college and planning to divorce him. He drove to her home, shot her, her mother, and all three of his sons to death. Another “crime of passion” so common here it only warrants one mention in the paper and one mention on the evening news, no follow up. Why follow up? The man was enraged by rejection and could not handle it, and acted out. Overwhelmingly in crimes of this type, the violence is perpetrated by a threatened, rejected man who perceives his life to be destroyed.
The Bagbys and their family and friends seem so complacent to me~like “Bags” they are themselves so secure and so emotionally healthy they cannot fathom the threat a howling desolation, a shreiking void like Shirley Turner could turn out to be. Despite warnings from friends, “Bags” goes off to rondezvous with Turner in a lonely spot~why? He had just broken up with her and put her on a plane back to Newfoundland and she drives back sixteen some hours, to say what? His inability to recognize truly psychotic behaviour comes from his coddled, secure upbringing. He can’t vizualize being physically attacked by her because he has never experienced real threat before.
Ditto his parents. They run fearlessly up to Newfoundland to be confounded by Canada’s flabby criminal system, the typical Canadian liberal inability to acknowledge personal (not corporate)”evil” They fearlessly demand custody of their grandson, then ignoring the dreadful signs of this demented womans SEVERE illness, call her a “bitch’ and behave as if she is the equal of them, to be treated on the same level~wicked, not insanely ill. Despite the shrieks of her own desolation, the eerie, childlike voice of this agitated , thrashing creature, the two grandparents seem PLEASED that Zachary has bonded with them, and prefers THEM to HER, “Her love was so fake” David Bagby says confidentially, as if proud of the fact. Hey, what has Shirley Turner proven time and time again, that she cannot bear rejection of any kind? That she has crossed the line into savage violence? So okay, lets have her baby reject her, that’s going to work out well….The Bagbys fearlessly lay claim to the baby, allow their whole hearts to be claimed by him in turn, oblivious that they are setting themselves and the baby up for the inevitable meltdown. By showing how much they loved and valued Zachary, they provoked his undoing. Far better for them to have worked on the sidelines to get Ms. Turner safe behind bars before securing the baby to themselves. I was amazed by their innate complacency, both in the son and the parents. “Street smarts” would have gone a long way in this sad case.
I and my husband had the experince to meet your wonderful Andrew and they very young Zachery thru your documentary, and we are so over emotional with the story…I could not sleep most of the night thinking of how I would have felt as the parents and grandparents…They must have the strength of 100 men in thier hearts and souls…I my self could not have faced this women..but I do realize they did it thru the love for Zachery and Andrew…but to be able to put your thoughts aside for even one moment when seeing her to be able to hold his child would have been so hard for me…I have 2 sons ans one daughter and one grandson….which we love with all our might!…but I do not know if I could have even tried to act of any love to Shirly …even typing her name makes me ill……please tell them I pray for them and have fallen in love with there beautiful sons…as ours …..they will never be forgotten..and they have given us the strength to be able to endure whatever life throws at us from this day forward……loveand prayers….Mrs Rayana and Garry Williams…ps. we fwd to all our friends your documentary and told them all to watch it…also to get the book…thanks again for doing it!
I think Kuenne was giving us a glimpse of what it was like for those who lived through it. They didn’t know what was going to happen, and neither did we. They fell in love with Zachary, and so did we. They were devastated, and so were we. But ours, thankfully, was just a glimpse.
I doubt that even Kuenne would deny that the film is “emotionally manipulative.” He knows why he chose the music, chose to edit the film the way he did. It is, justifiably, a very angry film.
As critics, we have an obligation to take a step back and look at such things with some degree of objectivity.
The film, for all its power, and for all the sympathy we feel for these people, raises some important ethical questions about documentary filmmaking. It is not simply a “true story,” as one might read in a newspaper. What does Kurt Kuenne do to manipulate the sounds and images, and why? What effects does he hope to achieve? The film advocates a political position. What information does it supply to support this position? There’s no context provided. As someone who knows little about the Canadian legal system in general, the film gives me no reason to believe that this is not an isolated improperly handled case. Does this happen all the time in Canada? I’ve no reason to believe so. Are the representatives of the Canadian legal system involved “evil?” Incompetent? Are their actions politically motivated in some obscure way? Does their refusal to speak with Kuenne suggest that they do or do not regret their actions? These are all fair questions to ask, no matter how tragic the story, and no matter how personal the filmmaker’s connection to it.
Josh, I can tell you (being married to a Canadian) that it is all-TOO typical for our good liberal neighbors. In fact, they’ve become legendary for their laissez-faire attitude towards crime, terrorists, etc. This isn’t the first time they’ve played this game.
You seem to agree with Karina, and want to carp about this film. So odd that you would want to do that, in the face of sheer genius. With all respect, that carping (in the form of your questions) says more about YOU than about Kuenne or the film. Life….
Couldn’t disagree more with your assertion of the film being unjustifiably manipulative. It chronicles an amazing sequence of events, one whose simple telling is bound to shock the most seasoned documentary viewers, so if being naturally moved by true-life events is being manipulated, manipulation is an ill-chosen word as it implies it is a pejorative.
I think one reason the film is so astounding is because there is such a sensational bounty of video material to be utilized. The fact that the filmmaker made films as a youngster with the victim was akin to telling Spielberg’s life by having access to the countless hours of home movies he made as a kid in Phoenix.
Through this bountiful inventory we come to know Andrew in ways we seldom know protagonists in most non-fiction films because we virtually see him grow up on video. Then we see his post-life period examined through his friends and family’s eyes, and then we venture into territory that no human should have to experience, and by that point we feel we are part of the family.
Kuenne had no obligation to tip what is to come. In fact, it would have been a disservice to reveal the journey’s end early on, as it is doubtful that the audience could have comprehended the true horror as we do when presented this way.
And, in many ways, the film is more honest utilyzing this structure as we take the same journey the filmmaker does, beginning with a tribute to his boyfriend pal, then becoming a valentine to a newborn babe about his passed father, and finally into an abyss that is almost beyond comprehension.
The film takes two huge left turns on its own, driven by events beyond the filmmaker’s control. That we experience these quicksilver changes reflects what all particpants experienced as events unfolded unexpectedly.
As a cinema verite film history graduate, I have been watching non-fiction films for over 40 years, and this is as powerful a story as I have ever seen presented. Some of the effects and looping were a little too artsy and creative by half, and totally unnecessary, but the sheer will to complete this thing, with the countless of hours of video that had to be heartbreaking to sift through and relive every day for years, is hard to overestimate.
A remarkable film. A stupefyingly mind-numbing descent into the capacity of humans to inflict pain upon one another. It isn’t an indictment of all Canadian legal proceedings. It is one story where time and again individuals made careless decisions. But, based on the deliberate intent of evil embodied by this one psychotic personality, there is no guarantee the story wouldn’t have ended close to the same way, if she had been given just have the chance, only on an accelerated basis.
After seeing this film i felt a smorgasbord of feelings from amazement to relief when the grandparents got Zachary to deep sorrow, i never felt manipulated at all. I think this was a film that showed real emotion and flaws in Canada’s judicial system, i do not believe anyone could over dramatize murder and especially not the ones that occurred to make this movie possible, I as a stranger to this family and the story felt close to them like they were my friends and they were in pain so i was in pain i cried and felt the anger and frustration with/ at the judge and Canada system ifelt like i was with the family every step of the way , Shirley Turner was and is truly evil and my heart will never take for granted even the littlest moment i have with my children
It’s been a very long time since a documentary held my attention as this one did. I’m not a college educated person but this reached a part of my inner self that has not been touched in such a strong range of emotions before. I felt it was done in such a way that people from all walks of life can understand and they can cry out at such justices as those that allow innocents to come to harm. My heart goes out to the family and friends. Such love as I saw is so rare these days.
Just a p.s., I, for the first time in my life, wanted to physically harm Shirley and risk my immortal soul.
I’m stunned at reading the the above “review”, - or that this film was even ‘reviewed’ at all by anyone. This was a heart-wrenching, personal documentary done by a man who obviously loved his friend, as did so many, many others who were interviewed in the film. To tear it apart and be so critical of how or what was said and done is heartless. I can only hope that when I pass I have just a fourth of the friends and loved ones that Andrew Bagby did. The basis for this film are horrid, the final outcome is unthinkable, and for YOU to criticize “how” it was made is beyond me. Just how many devoted friends to you have Karina? Maybe you should put in writing while you can just how your friends and family should remember you. Heaven help them if they get it “wrong” in your eyes!
Can’t you see that Karina wrote an amateur minded article with the purpose of stirring up emotions? I stumbled across her review by accident, never heard of her, won’t look her up again. She’s an unknown. Can’t you just see her checking the comments with an “I did it” smile and attitude? Don’t give her any more satisfaction that her article stirred up your emotions. Move on to a quality review, secure in your own ideas and inspirations.
While I disagree with Karina’s review — essentially I agree with Kevin Ely’s first comment — I think she is operating well within her role as a documentary reviewer. She’s not attacking anyone involved with this film personally, but is questioning the underlying craft. Kuenne has spoken about how the documentary was originally created just for family and friends - and I think you can see how jarring that shift is, once he realizes he’s not making this for Zachary, but now for someone else, as well as the world. Acknowledging that does not make Karina a bad person.
And Karina doesn’t deserve the pile-on or the comments that she’s a “nobody”. (Nor do I think that Canadians deserve to be sniped at. Didn’t we just all see the Canadian lawyer, the Canadian priest, and the friends the Bagbys made in Newfie?! Did we not see that the whole thing was started by an American lawyer who told Shirley to run home?)
I’m sure Andrew Bagby would rather you saved your energy to advocate for change in Parliament. The website Kurt put together has information on how to write the Canadian government.
Or at least, redirect the anger for the guy who reviewed it at Monsters and Critics, who seemed to have it “in” for the filmmaker.
I agree with Kaaren French’s comments. I had a problem with how involved the grandparents became with this woman and how often she pulled the strings and pushed their buttons.
They should have never created a situation where she saw that the baby prefered them to her. When that happened I knew that she would take a violent action.
They were naive and way too law-abiding. They should have taken the boy and fled the country and gone into hiding. They obviously had enough money to live where they wanted to. Instead they played a tedious cat and mouse game with her with dire consequences.
Sure, manipulative. What isn’t manipulative? When you stretch the definition of “manipulate” so many things are designed to manipulate: fashion models, tobacco advertising, all commercials, government propeganda; it all manipulates us to feel what they want us to feel. And so the documentary was manipulative, to which I say, yes, manipulate me. That movie touched me on such a level that there hasn’t been a day gone by since I saw it that I don’t think about it, the filmaker, the people involved. It was a tragic situation, and yes, the film maker manipulated it. So did Disney and well, how about every film maker, television producer, writer, director, actor…where does it end? If you believed it/felt it when you experienced it, called “suspension of disbelief,” well, you were manipulated. There is no judgement of right or wrong to it; all great art manipulates, and while this is just a documentary about a handful of people going through hell, it is artfully put together and I am glad that the film maker manipulated me this way; I won’t stop thinking about this film for some time to come.
Dear Karina:
The most difficult part in the movie for me is during the end, when Kurt is narrating and gets choked up and emotional… Perhaps that is because I know Kurt, and know that particular emotion was true grief and sorrow.
I can also tell you and your readers that this documentary is genuine. Kurt was brave enough to FINISH the documentary after Shirley Turner killed Zachary. He was not trying to trick the viewers. He was telling the story, in the true order that it unfolded. Had Shirley Turner not murdered Zachary, the ending would have been much different.
He didn’t make the focus of the documentary shift. Shirley Turner did that on her own.
I’m not sure many people would have the courage to finish the documentary as he did. We should applaud him for his courage, his strength of will which was driven by his deep love and friendship for Andrew, Zachary and the Bagby family. And we should remember that in America, We… The People… are the voice. We The People… have the power to change things that didn’t work in the past.. such as a legal system, perhaps extradition laws.
You can have your opinion too, that’s another thing that makes this country great.. But I do agree with another writer, you should watch it again..
Katrina ,
Your pure uttering of nonsense assures me that you yourself suffer of some form of illness. And I am not saying this as an insult. I truly believe you must be scarred or simply looking to rile up attention by being simple.
Michelle, you’ve left my favorite negative comment in a long while. Is there anything more “simple” than checking the spelling of a blogger’s name before you accuse them of suffering “of some form of illness”?
I’m writing to Karina and I just want to say that people like you are what makes up the crazy in this world. I will say a prayer for you.
I think most of the reviewers on here all all nuts…karina wrote a review. It wasn’t personal. It wasn’t mean-spirited. It was her opinion. To call her mentally ill or scarred is unjustified. If you don’t like what she wrote, then don’t read her stuff. But she’s not the only reviewer of the documentary who had the same opinions. No one has to personally defend these people from a reviewer who’s not trying to attack anybody. Get a grip, folks.
It wasn’t manipulative, it followed a trajectory based on the events that happened. It doesn’t make sense to paint it as “lying” when the events were filmed in the real world where later events couldn’t have been predicted. The biggest bias in the legal system tends to be the favoritism women are given vs. men and I thought this was great at showing how a chivalrous court system is so out of whack with actual justice. I’m not clear on how you lacked emotional attachment to it, but saying it was edited in the form of a short-attention span scrapbook reminds me of people who said that Gangs of New York was edited like an MTV movie. To call those comments oversimplifications would be an understatement. In addition, for a movie with as many things to discuss as this had, perhaps you’d be best to write something longer than a four paragraph review - which of course smacks of appealing to those with short attention spans.
“Emotionally Manipulative”? That is quite an overstatement regarding some genius editing. I watch tons of documentaries (mostly true crime related), and this has to be one of the best docs I’ve ever seen. You seem upset that the filmaker “bait and switched” you, but I don’t see how it could have been told any other way and not create such an emotional reaction in the viewer. When we find out about the 2nd homicide, my jaw literally fell open…that has NEVER happened in my life…for any reason…that is powerful story telling. I have thought about this movie for days afterwards. I wish more documentaries would have this type of emotional impact. I walked away feeling like I learned about some amazing people caught up in a terrible tragedy, and it made me appreciate the people in my life and want to be better husband, friend, son, etc. I appreciate your review, but It seems many of the critics who didn’t like the alleged “bait and switch” story telling were just dazed by this story’s “left hook” to your emotional center. We start off expecting a run of the mill true crime story (at best), and we get so much more. Simply an amazing documentary–the ABSOLUTE best of 2008!!
your review SUCKS
I totally agree with your review.
Bye, Mattia.
i agree with your review
this movie had all the depth of a lifetime movie, with a cheesy “twist” that was pretty lame for a movie that’s supposed to be so personal.
it’s so black and white. shirley is bad, the bagby’s are good.
this movie doesn’t let you come to any conclusions on your own, it just assures you that andrew was the best ever and shirley was a “fucking bitch.”
I watched this film last night. I had no idea what it was about.
I appreciate Karina’s review. I’ve worked in documentary filmmaking for the past years - as a producer, writer, and recently as an editor - and I felt very manipulated while watching this film. Were it not for the horrific subject matter, the poor editing style would have occasionally bordered on comical. For example, there is a sequence towards the end when the filmmaker uses old video of Andrew Bagby and does quick cuts with gun shots audio and other soundbites. Terrible…aesthetically and conceptually…
Additionally, the filmmaker clearly goaded people he was interviewing so that he could get some extremely emotional soundbites. When Bagby’s ex-fiance makes a remark that coffins should not have to be made so small (in regards to Zachary), the filmmaker starts asking her what was in the coffin, etc? Obviously this chokes the woman up even more as she tries to supply answers. The filmmaker’s clearly goading her, trying to get more sentimentality out of a story so full of sadness that why the filmmaker needed to eke out more is beyond comprehension. How would that kind of sentimentality help the Bagbys (if indeed the film was for them)?
If he really made this film for the parents or Zachary or whomever, he could have just handed it to them in person. And frankly, I can’t imagine those parents having to watch this film. It would be like another injustice to them. And jeez, those last several minutes when people tell the Bagbys how much they love them seemed like guilty icing on the cake. Okay, we get it, ya know? Why did the filmmaker do this? Did he really think the Bagbys will watch this movie again and again, and that the occasional lovefests (particularly at the end) would justify the means?
Why didn’t this film explore Shirley a bit more, i.e. her past, her family, etc? (And before all you guys start jumping on me and saying she was evil, etc, I pre-empt your strategy by saying that a good documentary tries to explore its characters; exploring Shirley might give us more insight into her insanity). Also, why didn’t we learn more about Andrew? Having everyone say they love him is all good and well, but I barely learned anything about this young man.
On another note, a few people posted comments about the the Bagby parents, questioning how they put up with the home visits with Shirley. Indeed this part of the film naseauted me. How on earth did they do it?! With all due respect, and I feel so sorry for those parents, there had to be another way. Sneaking the baby out of the country would have been a start. But I can’t pretend to really know anything about this, so I’ll refrain from saying more.
This film could have been done so much more honestly, in a way that was more sober - no music, soundbite, editing theatrics. Just a simple telling of a horrific story. The laws in Canada could have been explored with more intelligence and calm, so that its failings would be better understood by viewers.
Lastly, for all the people yammering about the initial film review, for heaven’s sake - relax. The film reviewer wasn’t asking to resuscitate Shirley and set her loose on the streets. She was merely, and in my humble opinion - wisely, pointing out the manipulation of a subject that - by virtue of its subject matter - didn’t need to be treated that way.
I have to disagree, “Dear Zachary” always was and always will be a personal, SUBJECTIVE film. After all it’s made by a film-maker who knew the persons involved. And he blatantly states in the beginning of the film that the film was meant for Andrew’s family and friends.
Where does this idea of the “total” objective viewpoint come from anyway? I can’t think of one documentary film-maker that doesn’t manipulate its audience, be it Werner Herzog or Errol Morris.
Karina, you should check out “The Journalist and the Murderer” by Janet Malcolm, it’s about the impossibility of objective journalism.
I 100% agree!
I must disagree with your review - it feels as if you believe this documentary was made for your critical eye - as if the film-maker was concerned with how someone in your position would follow the plot line. I think you have to see this movie from the “friends perspective”, from a human persepective.
What a stupid review.
And what other form could the final narrative take. Deception is hardly a motive that can ascribed to this filmmaker.
This film is gripping. Period.
To me its a failure of society at large to not immediatily terminate maternal rights in the face of overwhelling mental instability not even withstanding the murder charge.
Your review even attacks David Bagby’s motives. Your review smacks as being sympathtic “probale killer” to Shirly. Maybe its this misplaced parental/maternal sympaty that led to the death of Zachary in the first place. Why to much rope for MUM.