|
I'm going to have to go back and rewatch the last scene for multiple reasons, but the main one is I assumed he was vomiting instead of making GBS threads.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 18:27 |
|
|
The Bunk posted:I'm going to have to go back and rewatch the last scene for multiple reasons, but the main one is I assumed he was vomiting instead of making GBS threads. I assumed the same. It seemed to me that being confronted with the evidence caused him to become ill, hence the burping. Did anyone else find Bob Durst oddly charming? Like it's obvious that deep down he's a very sick man, but I found him very warm and likeable through most of it even though I knew he was lying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Hmmm, final seconds aside I don't know that I liked that last episode, especially given the timeline issues. The first four and a half hours of the show were great because of how, well, balanced they were. It was pretty clear that this was a weird guy but he pretty much painted himself as a psychopath which Jarecki balanced out by giving him the benefit of the doubt and letting him tell his side of the story and secondary details of events. It was everything that the tabloid version of the story wasn't. As soon as they made the jump in episode five from telling the story in that way to Andrew planning a caper with bank vaults and chalkboards I was worried and this episode was basically all that. Sure, it maybe pays off, but that doesn't mean its not still cheap dramatization wrung from what had previously been a classy and subtle examination. I don't know what else they could have done, but making the final episode - the episode that everyone was going to jump on the bandwagon to see, the episode that was going to go viral and hit the tabloids - all about Andrew and his dilemma and his worries seems really self-servicing to me. I was impressed that the manipulative and misaligned filmmaker of Capturing The Friedmans had evolved but now I wonder if maybe that wasn't all a ruse. I don't know. Overall it was still a great show, I just think I can probably see someone coming out in a few years with a similar expose about the lies and tricks that went into the telling of this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
I don't mind fudging the timeline because most documentaries are all about framing and controlling the release of information for drama and the difficulty of getting the second interview was a minor plot point and not central to the story. It's more weird that they thought this was such an important conflict than damaging to their credibility. Unless something more comes out, this isn't The King of Kong. The last episode and a half felt like padding the story out but Part 6 was still too short. I would have found more background for Part 5, ended with the BEVERLEY HILLS envelope reveal, then added the bank fault scenes to make Part 6 run 50 minutes like the rest. Mahoning posted:Did anyone else find Bob Durst oddly charming? Like it's obvious that deep down he's a very sick man, but I found him very warm and likeable through most of it even though I knew he was lying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Bob's great. A huge part of the story is the affable arrogance that led to a guy getting away with murder and taking part in an interview he knew was dangerous. And sending the cops a notice about a body and stealing a hoagie. Edit: was I the only one doing Barry/Other Barry dialogue from Archer during that? Madurai fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
I binged through it today. I was going to post in the thread after I watched it something like "Is this really Serial-esque because this guy is guilty as gently caress and does anyone believe he's innocent" but then I got to the  ending and now I really wonder if anyone thinks he's innocent. Because if you do I want to see you explain literally everything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
The question has never been whether or not he's innocent, but if you can prove that he's guilty. It's inherent to the title of the show. There is evidence that links him to all of these people, evidence that points to him having motive to kill all of these people but very little in the way of incontrovertible evidence that he did, in fact kill anyone. His argument is, essentially, that he's just a Jinx, that bad things just happen to happen to those around him. We can say, well ok one false accusation, maybe that happens, but three is too many to write off. Our common sense says that he is guilty, and it says that if he is guilty of one then he is cumulatively guilty of all of them, but what can we prove? Even with the letter and confession I still don't see that you can prove anything except that he is an occasionally creepy motherfucker. I have some issues with the idea of reasonable doubt though, because I have the kind of cynical imagination that can doubt just about everything to some extent, so I don't know how any crime really gets certifiably proven. Is he guilty because he seems guilty? Because the press all says he is guilty? Or because we have facts that say only he can be guilty?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
Before the final 2 episodes I was convinced in my mind that he didn't kill Susan Berman. At that point they hadn't revealed that he was in California at the time of the murder. But the bigger thing for me was that she totally could've pissed off mob types and they killed her. It didn't seem in the least bit outlandish to me. But then those episodes aired and HOLY gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Viginti posted:The question has never been whether or not he's innocent, but if you can prove that he's guilty. It's inherent to the title of the show. There is evidence that links him to all of these people, evidence that points to him having motive to kill all of these people but very little in the way of incontrovertible evidence that he did, in fact kill anyone. His argument is, essentially, that he's just a Jinx, that bad things just happen to happen to those around him. We can say, well ok one false accusation, maybe that happens, but three is too many to write off. Our common sense says that he is guilty, and it says that if he is guilty of one then he is cumulatively guilty of all of them, but what can we prove? I think everyone's focusing on the letters/envelope and the audio just because it's new/fresh in everyone's mind. Not that they're necessarily credible, but LAPD claims that they're seeking extradition from Louisiana because they're ready to bring charges in the Berman death based on evidence that has nothing to do with the show. We'll all see, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
There's not nearly enough to convict for Kathie Durst. I want to convict for Morris Black but hated what was shown of the prosecution's case. There was too much focus on dismemberment and not enough that he almost certainly went back and stole the head. I would convict for Susan Berman. I can strain to believe there was a struggle and he panicked in Galveston. I cannot believe he did not write the letter or stumbled upon the cadaver but didn't kill her.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Hypothetically speaking, couldn't someone intent on framing Bob Durst have imitated his handwriting on the cadaver note? I'm just trying to speculate what defense Durst's lawyers are going to go with. edit: An imitator probably wouldn't know to misspell Beverly. Big Piece O Shit fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
I mentioned this in the CD Doc thread but I ruined the last couple of minutes for myself because my mind was in full-on defense lawyer mode and his "confession" could easily be argued as being nothing but him angrily and sarcastically talking to himself after being (what I'm sure was perceived by him) ambushed with the envelope on top of the last 30 years of being a suspect in a disappearance and two murders. So instead of "I killed them all. Of course I did." it was more "I killed them all. Of course I did. Blame me. I'm the bad guy. That's what everyone thinks." I could see his lawyers brushing it off that way. Even so, the whole thing was completely riveting and gripping stuff, even though I read Durst's Wikipedia page beforehand like an idiot. I was loving glued to my TV from the discovery of the BEVERLEY envelope onwards. I wonder if they'll nail him for the Berman murder. A lot of the evidence seems pretty circumstantial and I'm sure people have gotten not guilty verdicts for more than what is there. The Morris Black case is surely closed now under double jeopardy, right? As for his wife's disappearance, I'm sure that case is cold as hell by now unless some guy walking his dog in the Jersey Pine Barrens stumbles on her remains or something. Big Piece O poo poo posted:Hypothetically speaking, couldn't someone intent on framing Bob Durst have imitated his handwriting on the cadaver note? Also since it's been established that he was in California (definitely) and LA (very likely) around the time of Berman's murder, they could argue that he did find the body, wrote the "cadaver" letter and got the hell out of there to not make himself look guilty of the murder. It's not like he hasn't done "that" before. He might just have a knack for finding himself near dead people he knew and do what he can so it wouldn't look like he killed them. Stare-Out fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
I got home from work and watched the whole thing in one go. The end of Episode 5 and the entirety of Episode 6 were chilling. Legitimately terrifying when you realize what's going on. Does anyone know if they're going to be able to bring charges in NY? Also how the hell can the LAPD claim that Jinx had nothing to do with the arrest? Did the filmmakers share their evidence with them? I saw they cancelled all media appearances and won't be doing any press about the show because of the ongoing investigation. Are they going to be called to testify? This trial is going to be insane. axeil fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
So, I'm assuming The Jinx will sweep the Emmys in every category it can. Oh, and it looks like the backlash has started http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/16/what-are-the-jinx-s-filmmakers-trying-to-hide.html quote:But instead of their expected victory lap today, Jarecki and his producing partner Marc Smerling find themselves under similar scrutiny to what they’ve subjected Robert Durst during the past five years—trying to answer for odd discrepancies that popped up overnight in The Jinx’s timeline of events. pentyne fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
axeil posted:Does anyone know if they're going to be able to bring charges in NY? There's not really any evidence connecting him to it, and there's no body or crime scene. It's not a murder or homicide but a missing person case, at least until the body is found.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
e^: People have been convicted of murder without a body. I'm not sure about any without physical evidence.pentyne posted:So, I'm assuming The Jinx will sweep the Emmys in every category it can. UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:e^: People have been convicted of murder without a body. I'm not sure about any without physical evidence. Plus now that he's actually been arrested citing "ongoing investigation" is actually a legitimate excuse, and probably the ethically correct one. I'm guessing their legal team told them to shut the hell up after they saw the interviews this morning. We don't know what stuff the police might need unspoiled to actually convict the guy and Durst walking because the film crew let something slip while talking to Jimmy loving Fallon would be terrible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
I read an article about this show that made the funny observation of how on a show with multiple creepy, sleazy lowlife characters, Jarecki's goatee is the worst culprit
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
savinhill posted:I read an article about this show that made the funny observation of how on a show with multiple creepy, sleazy lowlife characters, Jarecki's goatee is the worst culprit I got Very Upset with the Galveston detective's handlebar mustache being uneven.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
The funniest part about Bob's lawyers trying to argue that he did write the cadaver note but he didn't kill Susan Berman (if that is indeed what they'll do), is that Bob himself says in episode 3 that only the killer could have written the note. Whoops.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:The funniest part about Bob's lawyers trying to argue that he did write the cadaver note but he didn't kill Susan Berman (if that is indeed what they'll do), is that Bob himself says in episode 3 that only the killer could have written the note. Whoops. Lawyers can still argue that doesn't mean anything because Bob's not a detective and couldn't really know that. I'm thinking the LAPD got some more serious evidence from the film makers and this is an actual slam dunk, unlike the "slam dunk" in Galveston. Then again the guy's a known flight risk and rumor has it he was trying to go to Cuba so maybe they had to jump the gun a bit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
savinhill posted:I read an article about this show that made the funny observation of how on a show with multiple creepy, sleazy lowlife characters, Jarecki's goatee is the worst culprit There was some pretty bad facial hair going on in this. Berman's son, yikes. Also, I would have been fine if this was five slightly longer episodes instead of Zarecki padding the first half hour of the last episode giving himself some screen time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
savinhill posted:I read an article about this show that made the funny observation of how on a show with multiple creepy, sleazy lowlife characters, Jarecki's goatee is the worst culprit Going into this show with absolutely no background on the people involved, I was very upset that this serious HBO "documentary" was being led by a strange magician.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
tk posted:There was some pretty bad facial hair going on in this. Berman's son, yikes. I didn't have a problem with that. The show was just as much about this weird relationship that developed between Jarecki and Durst as it was about anything. I think that once they became part of the investigation with the letter, they were just as much a part of the story.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
They were only as much a part of the story as they wanted to be though. I mean, certainly you would have all of those conversations, but you only choose to shoot them, to shoot you saying 'The number one priority is Justice' and then editing an entire episode around that if you want to be a big part of the story, if you want to be having morning show interviews, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
What surprised me was the lawyer saying anything, he wasn't required by law to say anything at all. Also, how did they mention to the lawyer and show him the hand writing, yet Bob never found out about it until his interview. Having a timeline of the doco would help understand a lot. Especially that the interview sounds like it took place over the course of a couple of years. Rocksicles fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
Even if these supposed timeline discrepancies were as egregious as possible, there's absolutely no onus on Jarecki and his team. These cases have been completely cold for over a decade, absolutely no one has been checking up on them besides his filmcrew who just so happened to have a unique opportunity to appeal to a reclusive nut's vanity where the police could do nothing of the sort. All clickbaiting blog "thinkpieces" are loving worthless, as usual. This whole thing is insanely cool and poised to be a unique crossover of media and legal reality, which is highly welcome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
Yeah like the loving Gawker article that said "Robert Durst blinks every time he tells a lie" which isn't exactly wrong, but entirely misleading. Bob Durst blinks every time he says anything. Watching it through the second time, he says plenty of poo poo that is indisputable fact and blinks after it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
I was deep in the Serial tank last year, convinced it was one of the best pieces of media that aired and The Jinx makes that poo poo look like a fuckin' Nancy Drew novel It's astounding how well executed on every level this show is not only narratively but cinematically and executionally as well. just incredible
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 10:11
|
|
|
I had no problem with the last episode. Jarecki stressing out about how to get Durst and ask him about the letter worked for me and put me on the edge of my seat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 10:17
|
|
|
What I found the absolute most convincing really was showing the side-by-side BEVERLEY comparison and watching Durst just go blank when asked which one of those two he did write. Sure sure, block letters don't mean anything. Sure sure, misspelling is odd. But ok so which of these did you write? Nothing, just nothing, not even a half-hearted attempt to answer. Where the hell were Durst's lawyers for that interview, anyway? After the first hot-mic incident, I can't fathom why they would let him go into an interview alone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 11:54
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:What I found the absolute most convincing really was showing the side-by-side BEVERLEY comparison and watching Durst just go blank when asked which one of those two he did write. Sure sure, block letters don't mean anything. Sure sure, misspelling is odd. But ok so which of these did you write? Nothing, just nothing, not even a half-hearted attempt to answer. I'm guessing by this point Durst sorta trusted Jareki and didn't have the lawyers there because he didn't think the questions would be all that serious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:I was deep in the Serial tank last year, convinced it was one of the best pieces of media that aired and The Jinx makes that poo poo look like a fuckin' Nancy Drew novel 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
TheRationalRedditor posted:The music, tone and editing were outstanding all the way through. And despite the gently caress it isn't even a fiction, one of the all-time great HBO program intros which no one seems to have uploaded anywhere yet. I mean...it's just the True Detective intro, dude, with a different song
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
It was weird to me that even after they caught him with a hot mic earlier (ep 3 or 4 when his lawyer told him to STFU) he forgot and hot mic'd himself again. I was also pretty surprised how well the running sink water covered his voice. You see in old spy poo poo they turn on a sink but I didnt think it would add so much interference. If he left the sink on while he poo poo and or puked, there wouldnt be any "confessions"
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:I mean...it's just the True Detective intro, dude, with a different song Arnold of Soissons posted:It was weird to me that even after they caught him with a hot mic earlier (ep 3 or 4 when his lawyer told him to STFU) he forgot and hot mic'd himself again. TheRationalRedditor fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Real talk tho mumbling to himself about what he thinks the documentary people are up to after an ambush interview and an envelope are not putting a man that rich behind bars, no way. e: OJ had a trail of blood from the murder scene to his car and then from his car into his house, and he was much blacker and poorer than Bobby D
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Arnold of Soissons posted:It was weird to me that even after they caught him with a hot mic earlier (ep 3 or 4 when his lawyer told him to STFU) he forgot and hot mic'd himself again. Well he is pretty loving old. Isn't he in his 70s?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
Arnold of Soissons posted:Real talk tho mumbling to himself about what he thinks the documentary people are up to after an ambush interview and an envelope are not putting a man that rich behind bars, no way. he also was put on trial in front of an overwhelmingly black jury right after rodney king like, that's the reason he got off, and it's proof positive of what happens to society when racial tensions hit their absolute worst: no matter how guilty he was, and he was guilty as gently caress, when it comes to choosing between rewarding the LAPD and validating them and making them look like incapable morons, if you're black it's hard to argue against the latter in contrast durst has a 6-part miniseries made about him that paints a pretty damning picture of the man, i mean even before the letter came to light and the hot mic statement I was almost positive he actually murdered everyone, simply because of how unconvincing a liar the guy is I mean, he's charismatic as gently caress and has an electric personality that makes you want to like him but jesus christ robert durst couldn't lie his way out of a paper bag
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 18:27 |
|
|
I mean seriously he's like one of those early perpetrators in LA Noire, like when they're revealing how the whole interrogation system works and they give you suspects who go "I TOTALLY DIDN'T KILL HER" *shifts eyes from side to side nervously* He's that level of fuckin' terrible at lying
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 15:53
|
|