Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

The one constant of the film business, is you can't fake buzz. You can't buy it, and you can't build it.

A movie is either 'good', or its a piece of ****.

How'd you like it? "it's good" - That's buzz.

How'd you like it? "oh, it was interesting" - kiss of death.

This film can't be good, because fundamentally it's based on a lie: They might have done it. No, that's not the truth. And that's why this movie is a guaranteed P.O.S.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

That's not entirely true, the film does not take the position that they "might have done it."

The film is quite clear. A scenario which describes them "doing the crime" is based on suppositions about which the facts do not support. Thmas, the flimmaker, even dresses down another journalists for saying, "Well, perhaps (Knox) went in and did it (this way)." Thomas explodes, That's not the evidence, that's the way you constructed it.

I can't wait until the thing is out on DVD. May be sooner than we all think.

 

[carbonjam72]

That's not entirely true, the film does not take the position that they "might have done it." The film is quite clear. A scenario which describes them "doing the crime" is based on suppositions about which the facts do not support. Thmas, the flimmaker, even dresses down another journalists for saying, "Well, perhaps (Knox) went in and did it (this way)." Thomas explodes, That's not the evidence, that's the way you constructed it.

I can't wait until the thing is out on DVD. May be sooner than we all think.

To be clear, at the Sept 6 premier in Toronto the Q&A had a question from the audience on the reaction the Italian judicial folks had to the filming of the film, and if there was any interference in the project.

I think the fair assumption of the audience that night was that there was a scathing indictment of the first trial, and those who know about such things know that Mignini and Stefanoni, et al., have their reputations on the line with the outcome.

Still, I think it is an exaggeration to say what is highlighted, esp. if the source is Winterbottom's own answer to the audience question. It is not true that the "Italian judiciary" supports the film. The Italian judiciary also does not oppose the film.
What Winterbootm said was that the courtroom scenes were filmed in a real Siena courtroom, with real-lawyers asking the questions of the actors posing, for instance, as Stefanoni. The lawyers apparently did not have trouble participating in a scene that made Stefanoni look like a clown.

Take that for what it's worth.

It is true, that the film is not really about the case - it's about the journalists surrounding the case, as well as a fictional filmmaker who discovers he cannot make a film about the case. It's about a very touching memorial to Meredith. It's about elevating no less than Frank Sfarzo as the key to understanding the case, if that's what you're interested in.

Bill, just two quick points.

The center of the film is that Amanda and Raf 'may have done it', that's the dramatic question. That's what Winterbottom is toying with, just as the tabloids did before him, its the same tactic; creating uncertainty by presenting Amanda as an ambiguous 'questionable' character. That may not be where the film ultimately comes down at the end, but without that suggestion at the core, there is no suspense. What is the mystery the film is trying to resolve: Did they do it. I can say this without having seen the film. It's obvious from the set-up, trailers, and interviews. Look at the levers they're pulling: it protects the police by downplaying the interrogations, and slut shames Amanda, blaming her for drawing suspicion to herself.

You're mistaking the position which the film concludes with, from the dramatic construction at the core. I don't see us as disagreeing here.

Second point, when the Italian judiciary doesn't like what you say, do, or express, you get arrested and stopped from doing it. That its shot in Italian courts with Italian lawyers, tells you the judiciary is fine with the message, and the lawyers who participated are very likely aware of it. Put yourself in their shoes, would they attack stef and the first trial process if they thought there would be repercussions? How do you continue to be a lawyer in Italy if the judiciary holds a grudge against you?

The timing is just prior to the ISC ruling on Nencini. It sure looks to me like they are softening up the public to prepare them for an acquittal of Amanda and Raf. The next clue will be the distribution the film receives in Italy.

Maybe I'm misreading things, but I see a very orderly progression. There is no satan, Amanda is not a witch, Amanda is innocent. And Raff too!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Sir Alec Jeffreys on DNA and its limitations

But DNA evidence is not enough on its own - as Sir Alec [Jeffreys] says, DNA "has context."
"For example, I could shake your hand, leave my DNA on you. You could then visit a crime scene and leave my DNA, and I've never been anywhere near it. So there are ways of transferring DNA [with] innocent explanations, which at face value look like a pretty damning bit of guilty evidence. DNA says nothing about guilt or innocence. It only seeks to establish whether sample A came from person B, or not. It can do that with exquisite accuracy. But it's up to the court to decide innocence or guilt on all the evidence, not simply on DNA." link

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, just two quick points.

The center of the film is that Amanda and Raf 'may have done it', that's the dramatic question. That's what Winterbottom is toying with, just as the tabloids did before him, its the same tactic; creating uncertainty by presenting Amanda as an ambiguous 'questionable' character. That may not be where the film ultimately comes down at the end, but without that suggestion at the core, there is no suspense.

If you have got this from me, then I have not been clear.

The centre of the film is about a filmmaker (Thomas) who goes to the Siena to make a film about the murder. It is precisely because of the tabloids that he stops making that film, a film about the murder. He quickly comes to the conclusion that the tabloid-journalists have taken sketchy facts, and filled in the rest with lurid imagination to produce a narrative which sells.

When Thomas actually tries to sit down and write a screen-play within this film, he has to stop with a description of how the American woman and the Brit woman comes to Siena to look for education and new experiences. He then stops, because there is no segue into a narrative that has the American as a killer.

What is the mystery the film is trying to resolve: Did they do it. I can say this without having seen the film. It's obvious from the set-up, trailers, and interviews. Look at the levers they're pulling: it protects the police by downplaying the interrogations, and slut shames Amanda, blaming her for drawing suspicion to herself.

This may be true for the trailers, but it is not true of the film. The film is NOT trying to solve the mystery of the murder.... there is no mystery to the murder - as Edoardo (the Frank Sfarzo blogger) continually reminds everyone. If one of the journalists or even Thomas hints that this is something more than, "Guede dd it," Edoardo shuts them down with a Sfarzo-inspired, "You think that because you are stupid and do not read my blog."

You're mistaking the position which the film concludes with, from the dramatic construction at the core. I don't see us as disagreeing here.

I do see us disagreeing. Unless I am completely misunderstanding you, the dramatic construction of this film is really about a film maker who goes to Siena thinking he's solving a murder, and he chooses love and exploration, over destruction and death instead. It's why the memorializing of Meredith is so important, because the way we save people from death is to make sure they are not forgotten.

Second point, when the Italian judiciary doesn't like what you say, do, or express, you get arrested and stopped from doing it. That its shot in Italian courts with Italian lawyers, tells you the judiciary is fine with the message, and the lawyers who participated are very likely aware of it. Put yourself in their shoes, would they attack stef and the first trial process if they thought there would be repercussions? How do you continue to be a lawyer in Italy if the judiciary holds a grudge against you?

Note that this was Winterbottom's answer in a brief Q&A, an answer to the question about "getting resistance" or any sort of negative reaction.

Winterbottom said no, there was none. What I am thinking about at this moment, is that perhaps it is you and me making a big deal out of this on an obscure JREF thread. The lawyers cooperating with Winterbottom, on the other hand, probably didn't care one way or another.

The timing is just prior to the ISC ruling on Nencini. It sure looks to me like they are softening up the public to prepare them for an acquittal of Amanda and Raf. The next clue will be the distribution the film receives in Italy.

Maybe I'm misreading things, but I see a very orderly progression. There is no satan, Amanda is not a witch, Amanda is innocent. And Raff too!

Ahhhh, but there IS a Satan. In one of the three fantasy scenes, it is no less than Thomas dreaming that it is Edoardo (Sfarzo) who is Satan, who feeds a beating human heart to Melanie, the fictional student-muse.

I was thinking that this was Winterbottom's way of getting the topic inserted into the film without directly accusing Mignini. It was the same with the anal sex theme - amongst the reporters!!!, the very reporters who were writing about the lurid sex-lives of the students. Oh, the irony and hypocrisy.

..... as well as with Melanie, the student-muse, by memory entering into Thomas's mobile the number of a local cocaine dealer.

Like I wrote about above, given the recent pseudo-expose of Amanda perhaps having the number of a cocaine dealer in her phone, Amanda was perhaps the only student provably in Perugia who didn't!!! But even if she did, the thesis of the film would be, "so what?" Even the reporters covering the pseudo-luridness were doing cocaine with abandon! Even the Meredith-substitute: Melanie.

I honestly think this film will not have the impact you say. It's being panned at TIFF - Luca Cheli says, it is ironically being panned by journalists themselves dependent on the tabloid format Winterbottom is criticizing!!!

George Clooney's "Monster of Florence" film will guarantee far, far, far, more of an impact, since Clooney is playing Doug Preston, who actually ran afoul of Mignini's fantasies and associated judicial power.

That one will not go straight to DVD.

 

[anglolawyer]

I disagree that good films can't be based on a lie, but from what Bill Williams has been saying, it doesn't even sound like the film is particularly about the case at all.

It's certainly not turned out to be the coup de grace some guilters were hoping it would be.

No surprise, really. Barbie's book isn't about the case either. It's about her experience of reporting about it.

 

[Planigale]

But DNA evidence is not enough on its own - as Sir Alec [Jeffreys] says, DNA "has context."
"For example, I could shake your hand, leave my DNA on you. You could then visit a crime scene and leave my DNA, and I've never been anywhere near it. So there are ways of transferring DNA [with] innocent explanations, which at face value look like a pretty damning bit of guilty evidence. DNA says nothing about guilt or innocence. It only seeks to establish whether sample A came from person B, or not. It can do that with exquisite accuracy. But it's up to the court to decide innocence or guilt on all the evidence, not simply on DNA." link

or from the same article

Professor Allen Jamieson is the former head of the police forensic science laboratory of Scotland.

"Even if someone says the finding is 'consistent with' someone touching this gun, for example...That phrase 'consistent with' can be very misleading. If I take a pathologist, for example, who says the wound is consistent with a 6 inch knife because it's a 6 inch deep wound, it would also be consistent with a 12 inch knife which has gone half the way in, or an 18 inch knife which has only gone a third of the way in. So people need to remember it really means 'this is one possible explanation' - and with DNA, there are many, many explanations as to how DNA can come to be on an item."

 

[lonepinealex]

Bill, just two quick points.

The center of the film is that Amanda and Raf 'may have done it', that's the dramatic question. That's what Winterbottom is toying with, just as the tabloids did before him, its the same tactic; creating uncertainty by presenting Amanda as an ambiguous 'questionable' character. That may not be where the film ultimately comes down at the end, but without that suggestion at the core, there is no suspense. What is the mystery the film is trying to resolve: Did they do it. I can say this without having seen the film. It's obvious from the set-up, trailers, and interviews. Look at the levers they're pulling: it protects the police by downplaying the interrogations, and slut shames Amanda, blaming her for drawing suspicion to herself.

You're mistaking the position which the film concludes with, from the dramatic construction at the core. I don't see us as disagreeing here.

Second point, when the Italian judiciary doesn't like what you say, do, or express, you get arrested and stopped from doing it. That its shot in Italian courts with Italian lawyers, tells you the judiciary is fine with the message, and the lawyers who participated are very likely aware of it. Put yourself in their shoes, would they attack stef and the first trial process if they thought there would be repercussions? How do you continue to be a lawyer in Italy if the judiciary holds a grudge against you?

The timing is just prior to the ISC ruling on Nencini. It sure looks to me like they are softening up the public to prepare them for an acquittal of Amanda and Raf. The next clue will be the distribution the film receives in Italy.

Maybe I'm misreading things, but I see a very orderly progression. There is no satan, Amanda is not a witch, Amanda is innocent. And Raff too!

But even if the film were about the real case (which it isn't, it's fictionalised), there would inevitably have to be a "did they do it?" part, else there's no story. You wouldn't start at the acquittal.

I can't see that the judiciary has rubber-stamped this. It's fiction, which is I'm sure what they were told when they were asked if the real courts could be used as a location. I have no doubt their pockets were well lined by the production company.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I for one am looking forward to seeing this movie because of its approach; a review from the London Guardian :Review.

I find it refreshing for the focus to be shifted back to Meredith without having to “pick a side” in this polarised case.

Very few people will see this movie just as very few people have purchased any of the books or watched the TV documentaries or previous movie, mainly because the public have moved on. Sure when the Italian Supreme Court meet to review the case there will be media interest, I do not see how any of TV documentaries, books, web sites or movies have had the slightest effect on the passage of this case.

 

[Dan O.]

I find it refreshing for the focus to be shifted back to Meredith without having to “pick a side” in this polarised case.

Do you want to talk about Meredith? How well did you know her? Was she the kind of girl that would make a date with a virtual stranger and invite him into her home while she was already involved with another man? Or, would she come home early from dinner with her friends and kick around idly at home, not trying to call her mother, not tending to the wet clothes in the washer, not even cracking the book she borrowed to study that night, just laying in her unmade bed fiddling with the buttons on her phone for an hour?

It's been almost 7 years now that Meredith hasn't so much as lifted a finger. What does she have to contribute to the current discussions? What truths could she expose?

I find your "Remember Meredith" meme to be disingenuous blather.

 

[carbonjam72]

But even if the film were about the real case (which it isn't, it's fictionalised), there would inevitably have to be a "did they do it?" part, else there's no story. You wouldn't start at the acquittal.

this is what I tried to explain to Bill W. The trial is at the center of the story. It's starts with a guilty verdict in place when the appeal begins, and goes through the "journey to acquittal". That's the story, the spine, that's what happens. That the film focuses on the perspective of the observers - the film maker and the journalists, and what the experience is and means to them, is an artistic choice, and I would argue a "false" choice. Like playing a note out of tune. I understand what the film attempts or attempted. I'm saying it won't and cannot work, because it is aesthetically false.

Imagine if the movie, "To Kill A Mockingbird", were focused on the journalists, and a Hollywood film-maker. Ooofah!, right?

Bill, I'm pretty sure I'm not explaining myself well here, but we're talking past one another. You're responding to things I haven't said, or didn't mean to say. Probably my fault for not being more clear.

LPA: I can't see that the judiciary has rubber-stamped this. It's fiction, which is I'm sure what they were told when they were asked if the real courts could be used as a location. I have no doubt their pockets were well lined by the production company.

The US military is often asked to help lend resources to make hollywood movies. They are extremely careful as to what films they choose to cooperate with. I would be amazed to find out that some representative of the Italian judiciary was not fully briefed - including the full script and project description- on Winterbottom's film before resources like a courtroom were allowed used, and local attorneys drafted for roles.

As to 'greasing of the palms', I wouldn't be surprised. But I'd rather suspend my disbelief than paint everyone with the broad brush of corruption. I will say though, that the point of a bribe is to look the other way. A high profile bribe is tough to pull off, especially if others object to the outcome.

Originally Posted by carbonjam72
You're mistaking the position which the film concludes with, from the dramatic construction at the core. I don't see us as disagreeing here.

BW: I do see us disagreeing. Unless I am completely misunderstanding you, the dramatic construction of this film is really about a film maker who goes to Siena thinking he's solving a murder, and he chooses love and exploration, over destruction and death instead. It's why the memorializing of Meredith is so important, because the way we save people from death is to make sure they are not forgotten.

Yes, I tried to explain above.

 

[carbonjam72]

Originally Posted by carbonjam72
The timing is just prior to the ISC ruling on Nencini. It sure looks to me like they are softening up the public to prepare them for an acquittal of Amanda and Raf. The next clue will be the distribution the film receives in Italy.

Maybe I'm misreading things, but I see a very orderly progression. There is no satan, Amanda is not a witch, Amanda is innocent. And Raff too!

BW: Ahhhh, but there IS a Satan. In one of the three fantasy scenes, it is no less than Thomas dreaming that it is Edoardo (Sfarzo) who is Satan, who feeds a beating human heart to Melanie, the fictional student-muse.

When I say orderly progression, I'm talking about real life, not the movie.

'There is no satan' (no satanic sect) - calamandrei trial/RE Narducci trail (2008), Micheli/ (2010 - Florence 20 defendants, including Spexi);

Amanda is not a witch - Micheli/Massei AK/RS, just 'normal kids making a choice for evil' 2008-2009. March 2013 ISC reversal of Hellman/Nencini. AND, March 2013 ISC reversal of Micheli/RE Narducci & the Florence 20 - though with an inherently guaranteed acquittal).

Amanda is innocent, and Raf too! - Hellman acquittal, and hopefully ISC 2014/15? AND 2014 acquittal of last Narducci defendants. And this film.

 

[carbonjam72]

I for one am looking forward to seeing this movie because of its approach; a review from the London Guardian :Review.

I find it refreshing for the focus to be shifted back to Meredith without having to “pick a side” in this polarised case.
Very few people will see this movie just as very few people have purchased any of the books or watched the TV documentaries or previous movie, mainly because the public have moved on. Sure when the Italian Supreme Court meet to review the case there will be media interest, I do not see how any of TV documentaries, books, web sites or movies have had the slightest effect on the passage of this case.

Why does recognizing that Amanda and Raf were wrongfully convicted amount to "picking a side".

Who would view a wrongful conviction as being in there interests, unless they are only interested in seeing someone/anyone suffer, and maybe a civil judgement, and innocence be damned?

Having ginned up a public lynching the tabloid media has moved on?

The refusal to acknowledge the unjust suffering of two innocent college students intentionally framed by a maniac prosecutor, flatly contradicted by all evidence, seems to be a peculiarly British phenomenon.

'Why can't they just be good fellows, go off to prison, forfeit their family's monies to the civil judgement, and let the victim's family get on with their dignified grieving? I mean really, how utterly selfish of these two!"

What makes you immune to evidence? Immune to injustice? Where does that come from? You baffle me, truly.

 

[carbonjam72]

I honestly think this film will not have the impact you say. It's being panned at TIFF - Luca Cheli says, it is ironically being panned by journalists themselves dependent on the tabloid format Winterbottom is criticizing!!!

George Clooney's "Monster of Florence" film will guarantee far, far, far, more of an impact, since Clooney is playing Doug Preston, who actually ran afoul of Mignini's fantasies and associated judicial power.

That one will not go straight to DVD.

I never said I thought this film would be commercially successful. Quite the contrary, no one recommends a POS to their friends to see.

It could though, be broadcast on Italian TV for instance, and that would have a far greater immediate impact on public opinion and in the press, than a theatrical release would while taking the normal course of a few years before it makes its way to free TV.

What I said though, was that it functions as propaganda in a manner that would suit the interests of the Italian judiciary if they were looking to climb down off this cliff. Pull the spotlight off Amanda and onto Meredith, focus on the validity of the 1st appeal and expert opinion and total lack of reliable evidence, and quietly let these two go free, and put the matter to bed. As quietly as possible.

Save face for the judges & judiciary, and blame the low level people; the lab tech Stef and the bumbling forensics team who were video taped making fools of themselves at the crime scene.

I know I'm speculating Bill, but please, let me have my fun.

 

[carbonjam72]

I disagree that good films can't be based on a lie, but from what Bill Williams has been saying, it doesn't even sound like the film is particularly about the case at all.

It's certainly not turned out to be the coup de grace some guilters were hoping it would be.

Films based on a "lie":

Far and Away (1992) - last line, "I claim this land". (Yes, because land just materializes out of thin air for you to claim).

Atlas Shrugged (2011) - Ayn Rand fantasy adapted for libertarian political propaganda. Box office bomb of epic proportions.

"Dancer in the Dark" (2000) - Lars Von Triers, quasi-musical on the US death penalty. Written/Directed/Produced by an agoraphobe who never travelled to the US, and not much off his small Danish island. Denmark's answer to US cable TV public access programming; with european actors in thick accents pretending to be shallow materialistic Americans; featuring lumberjacks in the deep south; female death penalty victim convicted, appealed to supreme court, and executed in what seems two weeks. Bizarre European Social State feel good propaganda, not unlike the guilter hate sites. (I oppose the death penalty, and favor a far more expansive social safety net in the US. But this film was a stinker, among stinkers, imo).

You see what I mean by, 'based on a lie'?

It's not about the story, it's about an agenda, and they try to use and mangle the story to control your beliefs. It fails, because its not about anything honest, nothing that's organically true.

 

[lonepinealex]

The refusal to acknowledge the unjust suffering of two innocent college students intentionally framed by a maniac prosecutor, flatly contradicted by all evidence, seems to be a peculiarly British phenomenon.

Are you serious? I'm so sick of the Brit-bashing that goes along with this case. It's utterly ridiculous.

 

[Bill Williams]

BFI LONDON FILM FESTIVAL

The Face of an Angel

A filmmaker struggles to turn a notorious real-life crime into a feature film in Michael Winterbottom’s moving new drama.

Oct 18, 2014 6:00 PM
Odeon West End, Screen 1
Goes on sale: 18-09-2014 10:00 AM

Oct 19, 2014 12:30 PM
Odeon West End, Screen 2
Goes on sale: 18-09-2014 10:00 AM

https://whatson.bfi.org.uk/lff/Online/default.asp?doWork::WScontent::loadArticle=Load&BOparam::WScontent::loadArticle::article_id=BF05D786-5673-4801-8215-531E6F558857&BOparam::WScontent::loadArticle::context_id=8C5D05B0-0290-4011-93EE-16101316176A

 

[Bill Williams]

The refusal to acknowledge the unjust suffering of two innocent college students intentionally framed by a maniac prosecutor, flatly contradicted by all evidence, seems to be a peculiarly British phenomenon.

Are you serious? I'm so sick of the Brit-bashing that goes along with this case. It's utterly ridiculous.

It's also a Canadian phenomenon. Two words: Nyki Kish.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, I'm pretty sure I'm not explaining myself well here, but we're talking past one another. You're responding to things I haven't said, or didn't mean to say. Probably my fault for not being more clear.

Or it's the weakness of this medium..... still, I stubbornly stick to my views.

I'm trying to get in touch with my inner Frank Sfarzo. Either that or Grinder.

 

[Bill Williams]

I for one am looking forward to seeing this movie because of its approach; a review from the London Guardian :Review.

I find it refreshing for the focus to be shifted back to Meredith without having to “pick a side” in this polarised case.

Very few people will see this movie just as very few people have purchased any of the books or watched the TV documentaries or previous movie, mainly because the public have moved on. Sure when the Italian Supreme Court meet to review the case there will be media interest, I do not see how any of TV documentaries, books, web sites or movies have had the slightest effect on the passage of this case.

Yet you've picked a side. Let me correct that for you:

I find it refreshing for the focus to be shifted back to Meredith without having to “pick a side” acknowledge thinly veiled beliefs in this polarised case.

If you are looking for a film which honours Meredith without picking a side, then Winterbottom's film is not for you.

The closing coda remembering Meredith, with long euology-quotes from Meredith's father in church (presumably at the funeral), which concludes with the memorial, "for Meredith" is heartfelt, well deserved, long overdue and extremely well done.

But this film DOES pick a side.

 

[acbytesla]

Are you serious? I'm so sick of the Brit-bashing that goes along with this case. It's utterly ridiculous.

CJ is wrong on this. Sorry CJ. This really has nothing to do with nationalities. It has to do more with "inside baseball" than anything else. Maybe, a larger percentage of Brits have fallen for the guilter story because of the Kercher's in with the tabloids and the BBC and the tabloids. Maybe.

If there is one thing that is "particularly British" it is the tabloids which we also have in the US to a lesser degree. but the British tabloids may just be the worst about publishing nonsense and trash. (But sometimes the US press can give them a run for their money.)

No, people in all nationalities can jump to conclusions. And the press can do hatchet jobs everywhere. And wrongful convictions happen in Italy, the UK, the US and elsewhere.

I bet we can all see things that are wrong and right about our own countries.