After reading http://hootnaholler.weebly.com/ entry on the documentary following Aileen Wuornos: The Selling of a Serial Killer I started thinking on the nature of how female criminals are portrayed on film as a whole. There is a show that reruns constantly abotu the 15 most notorias acts of female violence. The violence is often the result of a failed interpersonal relationship. The violence that Aileen Wuornos shows is a result of her poor home life. The representation of the women feels like they are talking about a very dangerous animal most of the time. They show shots of the women with half cut eyes to make them seem more peculiar.
Having not seen the movie that the other blog is talking about I am drawing on my other expereinces of how she is portrayed. I feel fairly comfortable doing this because Hootnaholler described a similar expereince and type as seen in the other films. Where the drama gets in the way of the story, where the flash overpowers the facts...did we not all learn in our first computer class that just because powerpoint offers graphics doesn't mean someone should use all of them. However the blog entry also addressed the issue of profitting off of a story like Aileene Wuornos. It is my understanding that criminals can not profit off their crimes so how ethical is it for others to profit off of their crimes?
The blog mentioned that one of the last interviews with Aileen she made the point that not only was her once lover profiting off of her but so were the officers assigned to keep her. Also that at the end of the film that reports were going on investigating the officers that may have profited off of her. If the officers were paid for their time to give the interviews about Aileen is that wrong? and if documentary filmakers profited off of their documentary about her and the murders she committed is that wrong? Perhaps this needs further mulling over.
No comments:
Post a Comment