Apr 2014
(NaPoWriMo Challenge: April 24, 2014)
A few nights ago my parents and I watched an HBO movie called “Phil Spector” starring Helen Mirren, (did you know she’s the same age as Cher?), Al Pacino, (in one of his best performances IMHO), and Jeffrey Tambor, (for those fans of “The Larry Sanders Show,” “Arrested Development” and, if you’re old enough, latter-day “Three’s Company”).
The moral of Spector’s involvement in the Lana Clarkson death-story can be read as “appearances are deceptive.”
Being beautiful, being rich, being happy.
The moral of this HBO movie could be read as movies themselves are deceptive. The HBO narrative tried to tell a story about how to tell a story about reasonable doubt. The movie itself left out some pretty pertinent facts about the case, such facts as Spector’s defense team might have left out, facts that may have been used to convict Spector later on… in the part of the story the HBO movie did not tell.
Facts around the periphery and facts mingling in the mix.
(The ****** towel in the bathroom, evidence of attempts made to clean up the scene, incriminating language said to a driver and then later during questioning by police.)
Shaky, addled hands can make mistakes. But then, appearances are deceptive.
Then there was the doubt, somewhat reasonable, a kind of doubt that hovers around the line, quavering, moving both ways.
Experience would indicate that sometimes barking dogs do bite. The headless and the dog-bitten will tell you that. The infamous Wall-of-Sound gun-pointer. The boy who cries wolf often finds himself in a pickle. Or a prison.
See? I use my experience to argue a point, to “sway the jury,” in another words to “deceive.”
Reconstructions are stories are usually deceptive.
A bullet in the mouth is less so.
Whether Phil Spector murdered Lana Clarkson—that is neither here nor there. A story will not tell you that.
So then what will?
A few nights ago my parents and I watched an HBO movie called “Phil Spector” starring Helen Mirren, (did you know she’s the same age as Cher?), Al Pacino, (in one of his best performances IMHO), and Jeffrey Tambor, (for those fans of “The Larry Sanders Show,” “Arrested Development” and, if you’re old enough, latter-day “Three’s Company”).
The moral of Spector’s involvement in the Lana Clarkson death-story can be read as “appearances are deceptive.”
Being beautiful, being rich, being happy.
The moral of this HBO movie could be read as movies themselves are deceptive. The HBO narrative tried to tell a story about how to tell a story about reasonable doubt. The movie itself left out some pretty pertinent facts about the case, such facts as Spector’s defense team might have left out, facts that may have been used to convict Spector later on… in the part of the story the HBO movie did not tell.
Facts around the periphery and facts mingling in the mix.
(The ****** towel in the bathroom, evidence of attempts made to clean up the scene, incriminating language said to a driver and then later during questioning by police.)
Shaky, addled hands can make mistakes. But then, appearances are deceptive.
Then there was the doubt, somewhat reasonable, a kind of doubt that hovers around the line, quavering, moving both ways.
Experience would indicate that sometimes barking dogs do bite. The headless and the dog-bitten will tell you that. The infamous Wall-of-Sound gun-pointer. The boy who cries wolf often finds himself in a pickle. Or a prison.
See? I use my experience to argue a point, to “sway the jury,” in another words to “deceive.”
Reconstructions are stories are usually deceptive.
A bullet in the mouth is less so.
Whether Phil Spector murdered Lana Clarkson—that is neither here nor there. A story will not tell you that.
So then what will?
