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 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.

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..

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.

Just a p.s., I, for the first time in my life, wanted to physically harm Shirley and risk my immortal soul.

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.

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.