The Staircase

I thought this was a great series, albeit a little one sided in Michael Peterson's favor, based on the Michael Peterson case. If you ever want to see the inner workings of a homicide trial on the defendant's side watch this!

Something about how this was filmed makes this one of the most compelling and thrilling documentaries I've ever watched. I found myself obsessed with getting to the next episode; like a great book. It follows what was an incredible story and trial.

This superb documentary captures the scenes behind both sides of the dramatic prosecution of accused wife-murderer and best-selling author. An excellent examination of the criminal justice system with multiple unexpected twists and turns. More exciting than any fictional portrayal.

Very interesting case, Michael Peterson is a fascinating character. The one thing that strikes me is the arrogance of the defense attorney. He seemed to be playing to the cameras. The other interesting facet was the TV coverage. It does not put court TV in the best light, certainly not Nancy Grace.

A very sad and intriguing case.

The Staircase (Jean-Xavier de Lestrade, 2004)

When I can sit staring into space for a half an hour after watching a documentary stunned at the outcome, it's a good documentary. When I can do it when I already knew the outcome, we go from good to exceptional pretty fast.

Now, before I go anywhere with this: since it seems to be a bone of contention among those who debate the merits of this documentary, whether Michael Peterson is guilty or not is not the thrust of this documentary. Nor was it the thrust of the trial. Trials are not about guilt or innocence-- they are about the creation and destruction of reasonable doubt. A number of the combatants (and there really is no other word to describe them) who have flung words back and forth about this film have either forgotten this, or never knew it in the first place.

Lestrade, on the other hand, doesn't seem to care one way or the other. This is an outrageous larger-than-life cast of characters, none of whom seems in the least concerned with the fact that they're all involved in a murder trial. It's not quite as off-the-wall, character-wise, as Gates of Heaven, but it's up there. If you were going to write a satire of a courtroom thriller, you might well come up with characters like these-- the oblivious protagonist, accused of killing his wife in what may be the most improbable manner the prosecution could have chosen; the victim, whose death was improbable no matter what option you considered; the kids/stepkids, who practice a weirdly vacant form of denial; the prosecution, who resemble the shrieking-harridan Greek chorus in a badly-filmed musical; the defense, who come off as competent, but not much more so than the prosecution (the main difference between the two, Lestrade seems to be telling us, is that the defense has a sense of humor); etc. From the point of view of simply following this cast around like Errol Morris and letting them dig their own holes, The Staircase is an unqualified triumph. Who needs editing to make people look dumb? Just turn the camera on them long enough, they'll do it themselves.

For the first half of this, you will likely be as convinced as I was that Lestrade isn't even interested in the trial itself; he was having so much fun with these people that I wondered if the trial would have even opened by the time he'd finished filming. It does (and, in fact, it ends), and at that point, even if Lestrade was just chronicling, we, as viewers, have to concern ourselves with the trial. We have no choice; we're about to spend three hours engrossed in it. A number of us spent a whole lot more time engrossed in it as well, as it was carried, minute by minute, on CourtTV.

As far as the trial is concerned, Lestrade's thesis seems to be that no matter how strong the circumstantial evidence, the method of death advanced by the prosecution was so ludicrous as to create reasonable doubt by itself. This seems to be accurate, though Lestrade was certainly not above slanting the footage he ended up showing us to support his point of view. (Interestingly, in the exhaustive lists of forensic evidence not shown to the viewers are a number of things that would have strengthened, not lessened, Lestrade's case that there was reasonable doubt; if he was as biased as people claim when making this film, why were those things not left in?) Still, as with the trial, all the circumstantial and anecdotal evidence is just that. Michael Peterson may be guilty as sin, but unless you can conceive of this crime happening in the way it was presented by the prosecution, how can you not have reasonable doubt? And if you can conceive of the crime in that way, you have a far more vivid imagination than I do.

One way or the other, though, Lestrade has created an extremely entertaining, if somewhat jaundiced, look at the American legal system. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll puke. ****