Making a Murderer Rhetorical choices make or break a Criminal case
Making a Murderer
Making a Murderer is a 10-part documentary series that chronicles the incarceration and exoneration of Steven Avery. Avery was originally convicted for rape, and after serving 18 years for a crime he did not commit, he was released due to DNA evidence. Two years after his release, and in the midst of a multi-million dollar law suit against the county for his wrongful conviction, Avery was again arrested - this time for murder. After analysis of the first installment in the series, it is quite evident that the producers made careful rhetorical choices to convince viewers of Avery's innocence, from the scene of a newly freed Avery arriving home that started the docu-series, to the vengeful and ignorant portrayal of law enforcement, down to which family members' testimonies about Avery were used. Using these tactics, the filmmakers had a huge impact on Steven Avery's life and brought the case to the public's attention.
First Impressions
The opening scene of episode one - the first glimpse most viewers got into the life of Steven Avery - was one of glorious freedom. "We knew he was innocent," says cousin Rita Sittman, during Steven's chaotic, joyful homecoming. In the first 2 minutes of the series, an immense amount of content is thrown at viewers, and with just as much bias to sway viewers' perceptions of the situation. Avery is depicted as a grateful, jolly man - one simply happy to be breathing fresh air after spending 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Hugs, tears, and babies all appear in the first few moments to cloud the judgement of viewers, because first impressions are always a big deal. There does not seem to be a bitter bone in Avery's body. His family seems to adore this man who has been in prison for nearly 20 years, and Avery altogether seems like man just lucky to be free. This characterization of Steven Avery sets viewers up to feel sympathetic and to see him as a victim.
"I was happy when I got out - probably the happiest man alive." - Steven Avery
The Corruption of Manitowoc County
The portrayal of the law enforcement agents and police that the producers provided for the viewers painted a less than pretty picture. Biased, blatant misconduct and mishandling of evidence; this is how those responsible in Manitowoc county were presented. This was a choice. Cherry-picking the information that viewers are exposed to is just another tactic to persuade them to believe the producers side of the story. While these things may have been true and accurate, the producers of Making a Murderer failed to represent both sides of the story- thus painting Steven Avery as the victim of a corrupt, devious legal system. One specific event - the suggestion from the deputy to the victim that Steven Avery was the attacker - makes the entire legal system seem very faulty and makes Avery look more innocent. This fact, along with the information that the suspect sketch was drawn from an old photo of Steven Avery does not bode well with viewers, and that is the entire point. Without touching on Avery's side of the story, the producers were able to turn the viewers against the law enforcement, and thus making them more susceptible to believe in Avery's innocence.
In the last 15 minutes of the episode, it seems like the producers were set on attacking the law enforcement in Manitowoc County. The DNA evidence from a single pubic hair ruled out Steven Avery, and proved that Gregory Allen, a man already in legal trouble for sexual crimes, was involved in the sexual assault case. The documentary presented this information by assuming that the DA or the sheriff knew that Steven Avery was innocent and that Allen was the assailant, but continued pressing charges on Avery for all of those years. Viewers are also exposed to the idea that the county may be trying to frame Avery for a murder to avoid paying him the $36 million law suit charges, which only casts more doubt on Avery's involvement in either case. Again, the complete exclusion of the other side of the story was an important decision, but seemed to be a successful one.
Interviews and Testimonies
The choice of which testimonies to incorporate and which to leave out was a critical choice in the documentary. The repeated use of Steven Avery's mother was also important, because who knows a person better than their own mother? Her persevering, unconditional faith in her son's innocence was enough to convince viewers of the same thing. However, leaving out personal statements from people who were not as sure of Avery's innocence was also a choice. The personal reviews of Avery's character were all positive, or obviously botched by law enforcement - how could viewers think anything less of him?
The fact of the matter is though, that interviews, while presenting authentic opinions and testimonies , can also be edited to say just about anything the producers want them to say. As stated in Truth or Dare: Art and Documentary, interviews can be edited or staged, and words can be put in people's mouths just by how the clip is put together. This could be the case in the interview scene with Steven Avery's mother, or in the police footage with Steven Avery's cousin, but the viewers only know what they are told. An important concept to understand about the confession type interviews featured in Making a Murderer is that they tend to focus on emotion and subjective feelings instead of the facts, and in Documentary Screens: Nonfiction Film and Television, Keith Beattie makes the point that these types of interviews can often be misleading and biased.
The concept we see at work in these instances is the sense of authority given to the makers of the documentary. In Crafting Truth: Documentary Form and Meaning, the authors argue that if we buy too much into the honesty and authority of those trying to persuade us, we lose the other side of the story and are basically blind followers. Louise Spence states in chapter 3 that, "The unity and coherence of the documentary's perspective should seem beyond all doubt." This may have been what the producers of Making a Murderer wanted, for viewers to be overwhelmed with evidence of Steven Avery being a innocent man and a victim, that they couldn't even fathom him as guilty, thus completely buying into the producers' point of view.
Works Cited
Beattie, Keith. Documentary Screens: Nonfiction Film and Television. Palgrave MacMillen, 2004. Online.
Pearce, Gail and Cahal McLaughlin. Truth or Dare: Film and Documentary. Bristol: Intelligent Books, 2007. Online .
Spence, Louise and Navarro, Vinicius. Crafting Truth: Documentary Form and Meaning. 2011. Online.
All images from Making a Murderer. Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi. 2015.
Reflective Memo
My goal for this digital essay was to point out that rhetorical strategies can change the entire story. I did this by analyzing the rhetorical choices made by the producers of Making A Murderer. The documentary was overflowing with bias and left out lots of evidence, so I had to choose just a few things to analyze. Steven Avery’s characterization was one major choices I wanted to look into, as well as the description of the law enforcement in Manitowoc County. I think that these two sections were very strong, as they were supported by evidence, videos, and links. The least successful part of my essay, I feel, was the section on interviews and testimonies. I feel that is was weak because I stuck mainly to the interview with Steven Avery’s mother instead of branching off into the many other interviews in the film. Overall however, I feel I did well in analyzing those three components of rhetoric and providing examples from the documentary. I truly feel like there was too much going on in the documentary to analyze in a single essay, so that is why I chose just a few topics to tackle.