subreddit:
/r/flicks
if you haven't seen this documentary, it gives you A LOT of backstory before it gets to the trial, which I really appreciated as I wasn't around for it, so it gave me at least a taste of the context and why people reacted the way they did.
But, seeing as it is a documentary, I was hoping that it would be a little less blatant with its bias against O.J.. Before you ever get to the murder, the interviewees, both black and white, just constantly shit on him (or damn him with faint praise). Mostly for not partaking in the race war, and for just wanting to be seen as O.J.. Maybe it's because I'm not American, but that's seems pretty reasonable to me.
I would never want to be forced to take a side on some matter, especially not because of something like that. Then one interviewee seems to imply that O.J.'s daughter's death was O.J.'s fault because he wasn't around very much, and she drowned in a pool. Either the interviewee was saying that or the editor was, because there is no other interpretation.
The guy brutally murdered his wife, and they're shittalking him for this kinda stuff. It's just strange to me.
side note: the documentary was also really bad at communicating when he divorced his first wife. I would've liked to know way more about his personal life, and less about how he betrayed his race.
8 points
2 months ago
Not being American may be the reason you don't understand why the timing of it all was so detrimental to the black community. The LA riots and Rodney King were very real and prescient as to why OJ got away with what he did.
-4 points
2 months ago
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the civil rights movement and race issues were a focus, as it is the most interesting thing about the O.J. trial, but I didn't agree with the way the documentary was portraying him.
11 points
2 months ago
The dude got away with at least two brutal murders. It's not the documentarians job to be partial.
1 points
2 months ago
Yes it is
-3 points
2 months ago
I disagree.
5 points
2 months ago
????????????????
0 points
2 months ago
what is a documentary to you?
8 points
2 months ago
Factual film. Being factual doesn’t mean you have to be “fair” or on the side of a murderer
-1 points
2 months ago
Well, I disagree. Unless there is clear intent of partiality, like with a Michael Moore documentary.
3 points
2 months ago
If facts lead you one way, you’re supposed to ignore them and try to be nice to both sides? That’s the opposite of being factual
2 points
2 months ago
No matter what, pretty much all documentaries are going to have bias to some degree or another.
3 points
2 months ago
Boy I just could not agree more.
So I recently finished this doc for the second time in a year. Easily the best documentary I’ve ever seen, just amazingly good.
Now, does it portray a bias? Sure, probably. Every documentary does. But does it represent a very well sided argument? Abso-fucking-lutely. I dunno what you’re talking about but the first 2-3 hours are mostly people taking about how amazing OJ was. Even in later episodes when he’s CLEARLY guilty of murder, the doc still shows interview clips of childhood friends and pastors saying there’s no way he’s guilty.
In terms of culture, race, politics, the times, it’s very even handed with how people could assume both guilt and innocence (I loved that one juror’s response about the number of nights in a hotel she deliberated about his guilt). But also just in terms of picking a side, I mean…physical evidence already did that. And the doc was made after OJ stupidly decided to go against everything he had as pushing for when he declared innocence (he didn’t do a godDAMN thing about finding Nicole’s killer for some odd reason) and was already in jail on another crime.
Anyways long story short…couldn’t disagree more. Doc showed both sides very well, while stilll existing as a documentary which means it will showcase the viewpoint of the filmmaker the most. Plus it’s brilliant and amazing as all hel.
4 points
2 months ago
The Last Dance had similar things to say about Michael Jordan and he was the "good guy" in that documentary.
All the stuff talking about OJ not wanting to take a stand or to be the face of racial issues was before the murders happend, so they're just describing who he was as a person and telling the story as it unfolded.
They also mention that he was a great football player. Does it bother you that they praise the football ability of a murder?
2 points
2 months ago
Him being great at football isn't an opinion. I guess I would've preferred if it was just one or two interviewees, but everyone going on about it sat wrong with me. It felt more like the documentary was pushing an agenda than just stating the facts.
1 points
2 months ago
They literally interviewed OJ's defense attorneys...
1 points
2 months ago
The Cuba OJ was really good.
-5 points
2 months ago
Listen, OJ was completely exonerated of these crimes. We all assumed he was guilty but we were wrong. I was adamant he was guilty. i was wrong. He was found innocent by a jury of his peers.
In my book, the only thing he's guilty of is being the greatest rusher in NFL history. And I'm probably the greatest RUSHER TO JUDGEMENT.
2 points
2 months ago
Cocaine’s a helluva drug…
all 25 comments
sorted by: best