Murder mysteries as a genre, so it seems, has gained significant momentum over the past few years. Netflix acts as an active supporter of the genre seeing it has recently produced series like The Keepers which proved extremely succesful. The Jinx is yet another mystery crime documentary series which explores multiple murder cases and the people possibly involved in it. This tendency therefore quickly brings to mind a documentary like A Thin Blue Line which, in my opinion, could be seen as the blueprint for these new Netflix series.
What the abovementioned documentaries all have in common is its use of reenactments resulting in an overt dramatization of the displayed themes and storylines. Yet whereas normally the use of reenactments in documentaries might seem questionable, it is within these documentaries that I believe it serves as to illustrate more clearly the inconsistencies surrounding the given suspects and stories. So instead of using it as a way to show what (theoretically) has happened according to the filmmakers, it rather serves as a tool to communicate the flaws surrounding the existing theories about the given events. Its used as a means to pose questions, not answers.
It is for this reason that, in my opinion, the documentaries' credibility is by no means undermined. Moreover, further research concerning any of these documentaries does not result in contradictory findings as is the case with another murder mystery documentary series produced by Netflix; Making a Murderer. Surrounded by inconsistencies, irregularities and questionable evidence this documentary proofed to have taken a few liberties with their findings.
The Jinx, as noted, does however build a surprisingly strong case against Robert Durst without its evidence being disputed by other sources. And its not like these other sources don't get the oppurtunity to present the case in favor of Robert Durst. Even Durst himself has the oppurtunity to explain what has happened and how he was (or wans't) involved. However during the six-episode series a pattern slowly emerges which undeniably lead to one single conclusion.
The documentary surely offers an interesting portrayal of a man caught up in allegations and trials. Furthermore it offers psychological insight into a man who has been subject of many investigations in the past 30 years. And last but not least I find the images produced to be of absolute importance for the world to see. That being said I must conclude that its the story which makes it a great documentary. Not by way of its storytelling for it mostly shows talking-heads, offers little archive material of evidence, and fails to capture the gruesomeness to some extent. Nonetheless the story itself intriques and just screams to be told. Hopefully it is not too late.
What the abovementioned documentaries all have in common is its use of reenactments resulting in an overt dramatization of the displayed themes and storylines. Yet whereas normally the use of reenactments in documentaries might seem questionable, it is within these documentaries that I believe it serves as to illustrate more clearly the inconsistencies surrounding the given suspects and stories. So instead of using it as a way to show what (theoretically) has happened according to the filmmakers, it rather serves as a tool to communicate the flaws surrounding the existing theories about the given events. Its used as a means to pose questions, not answers.
It is for this reason that, in my opinion, the documentaries' credibility is by no means undermined. Moreover, further research concerning any of these documentaries does not result in contradictory findings as is the case with another murder mystery documentary series produced by Netflix; Making a Murderer. Surrounded by inconsistencies, irregularities and questionable evidence this documentary proofed to have taken a few liberties with their findings.
The Jinx, as noted, does however build a surprisingly strong case against Robert Durst without its evidence being disputed by other sources. And its not like these other sources don't get the oppurtunity to present the case in favor of Robert Durst. Even Durst himself has the oppurtunity to explain what has happened and how he was (or wans't) involved. However during the six-episode series a pattern slowly emerges which undeniably lead to one single conclusion.
The documentary surely offers an interesting portrayal of a man caught up in allegations and trials. Furthermore it offers psychological insight into a man who has been subject of many investigations in the past 30 years. And last but not least I find the images produced to be of absolute importance for the world to see. That being said I must conclude that its the story which makes it a great documentary. Not by way of its storytelling for it mostly shows talking-heads, offers little archive material of evidence, and fails to capture the gruesomeness to some extent. Nonetheless the story itself intriques and just screams to be told. Hopefully it is not too late.