This is definitely an Errol Morris documentary, firmly in the tradition he began with "Gates of Heaven". People and their stories are presented straight-ahead, with no obvious irony nor cynicism nor tongue-in-cheek. (As in his other films, Morris's irony is so subtle it can easily be missed completely.) The people and the story are so preposterous I seriously doubt anybody could have made it up.
In some ways though the film is different from the early tradition. The most obvious is that the filmmaking has grown to involve several tens of people. Although the credits list isn't a huge thing that goes on for several minutes, it's long enough to clearly indicate this wasn't a "one man with a camera" type undertaking. Another difference, progressing from "Gates of Heaven" through "The Fog of War" to "Tabloid", is the loss of the feeling that the crazy people on the screen just might -if the stars lined up exactly right- have been my neighbors.
As the events are in the past, there of course isn't a whole lot of original film footage. Mr. Morris has dug up what seems like every scrap that exists, and skillfully inter-cut it with clever graphics, newspaper excerpts, photos, bits of animation and stock footage, and memories delivered by some of the people involved. The film could have relied on recreations, but it doesn't. It could have been visually boring, but it most definitely isn't.
A handful of people are present as "talking heads", each remembering the events from their own point of view. In the beginning, all the talking heads seem to expound neutrally on the same events. Only later does it become obvious there are some profound disagreements. Although I expected each person to subtly spin their story, it caught be by surprise when eventually one talking head stated flatly that another was "crazy". A couple key people are absent, one because he died and another because he refused to participate. As one would expect , Errol Morris doesn't try to guess or recreate that missing point of view, rather he simply doesn't cover it at all. Unfortunately this seems to make the film more one-sided than it otherwise would have been.
I sometimes wished Mr. Morris had pressed just a little harder on Ms. McKinney ...but that would have changed directions to be an entirely different film. I particularly wished for a firmer time-line, as there is close to a decade (from high school to "late twenties") missing. Among other things, somewhere in that overly vague period there might be an explanation of how a former Miss Wyoming had a South Carolina accent. I also wished for some understanding of how a very bright and beautiful woman could become obsessed with people who obviously were much much dumber than her and who subscribed deeply to a completely foreign religion. I wished for a better explanation of how a stray dog found homeless at the roadside could miraculously become a very clever licensed "guide dog". And I wished for some explanation of how a single older woman who hasn't published anything was able to afford huge laboratory fees.
I can't resist commenting on the story as well as on the film:
The first thing that struck me was Ms. McKinney's skewed sense of justice. When unfairness-es --even outright frauds-- were perpetrated on her, she reacted quite strongly. But when she pulled similar tricks on the people around her, as she did for example with her disguises that went well beyond necessity, that wasn't even worth mentioning.
The second thing that struck me was this is a parable about how extremely bright people (the film states Ms. McKinney's IQ is 168) often can't fit into society (or is the problem that they never become comfortable with themselves?). She could quickly and thoroughly bamboozle virtually any individual she ever interacted with in person. But she seemed to have no clue how relatively anonymous _groups_ of people ("the press", "the paparazzi", "the church", etc.) might behave, nor how much consistency irregular yet persistent contacts might expect.
In some ways though the film is different from the early tradition. The most obvious is that the filmmaking has grown to involve several tens of people. Although the credits list isn't a huge thing that goes on for several minutes, it's long enough to clearly indicate this wasn't a "one man with a camera" type undertaking. Another difference, progressing from "Gates of Heaven" through "The Fog of War" to "Tabloid", is the loss of the feeling that the crazy people on the screen just might -if the stars lined up exactly right- have been my neighbors.
As the events are in the past, there of course isn't a whole lot of original film footage. Mr. Morris has dug up what seems like every scrap that exists, and skillfully inter-cut it with clever graphics, newspaper excerpts, photos, bits of animation and stock footage, and memories delivered by some of the people involved. The film could have relied on recreations, but it doesn't. It could have been visually boring, but it most definitely isn't.
A handful of people are present as "talking heads", each remembering the events from their own point of view. In the beginning, all the talking heads seem to expound neutrally on the same events. Only later does it become obvious there are some profound disagreements. Although I expected each person to subtly spin their story, it caught be by surprise when eventually one talking head stated flatly that another was "crazy". A couple key people are absent, one because he died and another because he refused to participate. As one would expect , Errol Morris doesn't try to guess or recreate that missing point of view, rather he simply doesn't cover it at all. Unfortunately this seems to make the film more one-sided than it otherwise would have been.
I sometimes wished Mr. Morris had pressed just a little harder on Ms. McKinney ...but that would have changed directions to be an entirely different film. I particularly wished for a firmer time-line, as there is close to a decade (from high school to "late twenties") missing. Among other things, somewhere in that overly vague period there might be an explanation of how a former Miss Wyoming had a South Carolina accent. I also wished for some understanding of how a very bright and beautiful woman could become obsessed with people who obviously were much much dumber than her and who subscribed deeply to a completely foreign religion. I wished for a better explanation of how a stray dog found homeless at the roadside could miraculously become a very clever licensed "guide dog". And I wished for some explanation of how a single older woman who hasn't published anything was able to afford huge laboratory fees.
I can't resist commenting on the story as well as on the film:
The first thing that struck me was Ms. McKinney's skewed sense of justice. When unfairness-es --even outright frauds-- were perpetrated on her, she reacted quite strongly. But when she pulled similar tricks on the people around her, as she did for example with her disguises that went well beyond necessity, that wasn't even worth mentioning.
The second thing that struck me was this is a parable about how extremely bright people (the film states Ms. McKinney's IQ is 168) often can't fit into society (or is the problem that they never become comfortable with themselves?). She could quickly and thoroughly bamboozle virtually any individual she ever interacted with in person. But she seemed to have no clue how relatively anonymous _groups_ of people ("the press", "the paparazzi", "the church", etc.) might behave, nor how much consistency irregular yet persistent contacts might expect.