Ambiguous Engagement: An analysis on sympathy for morally ambiguous characters in Netflix documentaries

(1)

University of Amsterdam

Ambiguous Engagement:

An analysis on sympathy for morally ambiguous

characters in Netflix documentaries.

Master Thesis Film

Faculty of Humanities

03-09-2018

Author: Mattie Timmer

Supervisor: Dr. Amir Vudka

with morally ambiguous characters in documentaries. The aim of this thesis is to research how it is possible that a viewer can engage with a morally ambiguous character that is non-fictional, one that exists in real life and consequently has been part of events that also took place in real life. It is argued that in the process of evoking feelings of sympathy for a morally ambiguous character, the reality that is presented is altered to tell a story. In addition to that, it is argued that sympathy for morally ambiguous characters can happen because, and also despite of the immoral behaviour of the character. To support those arguments, this thesis analyses and compares two Netflix series, being Making a Murderer (2015) and Wild Wild Country (2018).

Introduction

“We appear to have limitless natural curiosity in and fascination with the bizarre and the horrific. Such fascination and curiosity have an essentially amoral character and can take two forms: the first

(4)

the second on the complete absence of such kinship. This second form of fascination leads us to watch, often in amazement, documentaries about the natural world, depicting the behaviour of

animals: each species may have its own habits and routines, but we don’t go about morally evaluating the behaviour of animals depicted (Smith 234)”.

It seems straightforward that a viewer is able to engage with the hero of a story, because the hero in a story usually fights for what is right. However, it is also possible that an audience member engages with a leading anti-hero of a film. This makes character engagement more complex, because, why would someone feel alignment with a protagonist that has questionable moral standards? This question becomes even more complicated to answer when it is applied to documentaries; how is it possible that someone is able to sympathize with a real life person in a documentary that acts immorally? Suddenly it can no longer be said that what is depicted is actually not real. While watching a documentary, the audience knows that the person does exist or existed in real life. Unlike in fiction films their immoral actions actually took place, yet sympathy can be evoked for that person. How does that work? Are the main characters of the documentaries portrayed as good people that just did some immoral things? Are the characters immoral, but still morally better compared with other characters known to the audience? Are the characters portrayed as victims of their faith or is it perhaps possible that sympathy sometimes has nothing to do with morality at all?

Nichols explains that the difference between ‘the voice’ used in fiction and the voice used in documentaries is the fact that in fiction the audience is engaged entirely in a fictional world, created by the filmmakers. In a documentary, in contrast, the viewer is engaged in the actual historical, existing world that every person shares (Nichols 50).

Theories about engagement and about sympathy for morally ambiguous characters focus mainly on fictional characters at this point in time, and not on the real life persons of documentaries, as Canet and Peréz point out in an article. Canet and Peréz state that studies about character engagement are often originally meant for engagement with fictional characters (Canet, Pérez 217). Canet and Pérez use a number of theories of engagement for analyzing a documentary. Also in this thesis, theories of engagement originally meant to study engagement with fictional characters will be used in the context of documentaries. The motivation of this thesis is based on the fact that so far, very few studies have dealt with the topic of engagement with morally ambiguous characters particularly in documentaries, of

(5)

characters out of real-life contexts. It is thus not well understood how audience engagement is created in those cases.

In this thesis I will aim to answer most of the questions that posed already above in the introductory part. The focus of this thesis will lie on the main research question, that is:

How is sympathy evoked for morally ambiguous characters in Netflix documentaries? Two Netflix documentaries will be discussed, in which sympathy is created for morally ambiguous characters. A close analysis will be done on the Netflix documentary series Making a Murderer (2015) and on Wild Wild Country (2018).

Making a Murderer is a true crime documentary series about a man named Steven Avery, who was supposedly falsely accused of a crime that he served a prison sentence of eighteen years for. After eighteen years, on grounds of new DNA evidence, it was proven that Avery did not commit the crime, and he was released from prison. However, only a few years later Avery was accused of a crime, again, this time for the murdering of Theresa Halbach. He is currently serving time in prison because he was found guilty for this murder. In the documentary, the process of what happened is being explained. It seems like the documentary makers are advocating for Stevens innocence and claim that Avery did not commit both of the crimes that he is accused of. In the documentary, sympathy is evoked in a clever way; Steven is made into a victim of chance; he was born under the wrong circumstances in the wrong place. In Making a Murderer and argumentation is being build up that seems to blame the police officers at the sheriff’s department of Manitowoc County in Wisconsin, where the whole ordeal takes place, to have framed Steven Avery for crimes he did not commit. This renders the protagonist a victim himself.

The second documentary series that is analysed in this thesis is Wild Wild Country. In this series sympathy for the main morally ambiguous character is being evoked in a completely different manner than in Making a Murderer. Wild Wild Country is a documentary series that shows Osho, a controversial Guru from India and his followers on their journey of creating a big community in the quite town of Antelope in Texas. The documentary shows how the Rajneeshees, which is how Osho’s followers are called, completely take over the little town of Antelope with their newly established community ashram there and how they create a community that celebrates peace, love and happiness. The local residents of Antelope, however, are not very joyful about the arrival of the Rajneeshees and their way of living. As a consequence, they try to stop the community from growing. The Rasjneeshees in

(6)

their turn, led by few individuals, such as Ma Anand Sheela, the secretary of Osho, do everything possible to let their community grow and flourish quick and boundless. Wild Wild Country shows that Sheela has no limits when it comes to letting the community grow. Her morality can be called questionable at best, yet, sympathy is evoked for her which makes her a very interesting subject to study as a morally ambiguous leading person of the documentary. In this thesis, first, an overview is given on the various theories about character engagement within media studies. Before examining theories of character engagement, there will be a section devoted to showing why theories of character engagement for fictional characters can be applied also to analyse characters in documentaries. After that has been established, an explanation of how emotions are elicited in movies follows. Then, the various ways of engagement will be examined in more detail.

In the second chapter, the more general subject of character engagement is narrowed down to the issue of character engagement for morally ambiguous characters. First it is established what sympathy means and what various media scholars say what sympathy is. A closer look is then taken at how sympathy and morality can be seen in relation to one another. Then an overview is given of what media scholars have written about having sympathy for morally ambiguous characters. In the last section of this chapter, techniques of engagement with morally ambiguous characters in non-fiction films are examined.

The next two chapters are the actual detailed analyses of the two documentaries this thesis focuses on. In chapter 3 it is analysed how sympathy is evoked for Steven Avery and Brandon Dassey (one of his relatives and co-victim) in Making a Murderer. First it is examined at which moments sympathy is created and at which moments antipathy is created for the main characters. This is done both, from a personal subjective point of view as well as from an objective point of view, established by finding public comments and remarks over the documentary. Then, it is investigated which specific narrative techniques are used to create sympathy. Next to narrative techniques, aesthetic techniques like camerawork, colour grading and music score are considered in the light of evoking sympathy for the main, morally ambiguous character.

Chapter 4 performs the same detailed analyses as chapter 3, but this time Wild Wild Country is analysed purely on the techniques that create sympathy. Finally, the thesis is discussed and concluded, taking in consideration the previously referenced studies, in order to

(7)

make a conclusive statement about how sympathy is created for morally ambiguous characters in Netflix documentaries.

(8)

Chapter 1. Character engagement

“As other have argued, we engage with characters from the perspective of a separate self, or from the “outside”. Engagement is broader and more neutral, better able to embody the wide variety of experiences that characterize our orientation towards characters, ranging from adulation to active dislike, from affective mimicry to revulsion. Engagement allows for empathy and antipathy, sympathy and indifference, and certainly implies no melding of minds or identities (Plantinga 244)”.

In the above quote, Carl Plantinga explains why instead of the term ‘identification’ ‘engagement’ must be used when talking about emotions that are evoked by onscreen characters. Many scholars like Carl Plantinga, Murray Smith and Noël Carroll, have discussed how character engagement takes place. The main question in this discussion is: is the spectator immersed in the narrative and does he or she feel exactly the same as the characters in the movie, or is there a distance between the spectator and the character? In this chapter an overview is given about the various theories of how engagement takes place. Because, in order to find out how sympathy can be evoked for morally ambiguous characters in documentaries, first it must be considered how character engagement takes place in film in general. Before considering how character engagement works, it must be explained why in this thesis theories of character engagement with fictional characters are applied to the analysis of non- fictional characters in documentaries (Chapter 1.1). Therefore, in the next section there is an explanation of how documentaries can be seen as narrated realities and why, as a consequence, the main persons in the documentaries that are being analysed in this thesis are called characters. What follows (Chapter 1.2) is a consideration of relevant theories that offer explanations how a spectator can experience emotions while watching a movie. From there on, the subject is narrowed down to an explanation of different theories that focus on how character engagement takes place with fictional characters (Chapter 1.3).

(9)

1.1. Dramatized documentaries

“Contemporary film theorists conceive of ideology as a form of knowledge in which human beings are blind to the fact that what they believe to be true is a product not of the way the world is, but of the language they use. Language appears to provide humans with the capability of knowing reality, but only because its role in structuring the way that knowledge is produced is invisible or transparent (Allen 2).”

In the quote above, Richard Allen explains how film theorists view the term ideology. According to those theorists language is used in reference to reality and cannot represent reality. However, the fact that it is just a reference is invisible for the people using it and therefore it seems like the language that is used is reality. Allen explains that the cinematic image is conceived in the same way; the audience takes the image as it was reality1_{(Allen 2).}

This can be applied to documentaries as well; documentaries are a documentation of events that took place in the real world. Even though those documentations are a part of reality, they are not representing reality itself. George Didi-Huberman makes a statement that is similar: he refers to the images that are made of what happened in Auschwitz during the Holocaust and calls them ‘images in spite of all’. ‘Images in spite of all’ are images that are not able to represent the horrors of the Holocaust in its entirety and are therefore not a depiction of the reality, despite the inability to fully comprehend what happened by the receiver of those images, the images are still part of that reality (Didi-Huberman 3).

To further explain this, theories of Carl Plantinga and Bill Nichols must be considered. Bill Nichols makes a distinction between various modes of representation: The expository, observational, interactive and reflexive mode (Nichols 32). He states that narrative and reality are employed in various ways in each mode (34). In expository documentaries reality is narrated in a way that seems to be objective (35). In this mode, the spectator anticipates on a solution to the problem that is being presented (38). Nichols argues, referring to the seeking for a solution for the presented problem: “The felt need itself can be as much a product of the expository organization as of narrative suspense, even if it does refer to a problem located in the historical world (Nichols 38)”. This clarifies that in documentaries, like in fiction films, narrative suspense is a tool to keep the audience’s attention. In addition to this, Carl Plantinga aims to explain what a documentary is, he argues that: “People do expect of the documentary that it is intended to offer a reliable record, account of, argument about, or analysis of some element of the actual world, that is, they expect an assertedly veridical representation

1 This theory stems from Althusser’s theory of ideology. Allen challenges the theory that the cinematic image can be perceived the same way, but this is not something that is of relevance in thesis.

(10)

(Plantinga 112)”. He argues that this expectation of the documentary to represent reality is dependent on the mode of the documentary, referring to the distinction that Bill Nichols makes (112). Plantinga states that, when it comes to the way that images are used in expository documentaries, the rules for the veridical representation are looser than with observational documentaries. This again shows that between the various modes of documentaries, the reality is shaped differently (Plantinga 112).

In his article, George Larke-Walsh discusses the phenomenon of documentaries and their wish to entertain rather than just to reflect on reality or being made for education purposes (Larke-Walsh 53). Larke-Walsh argues that various modes of film and documentary are not fixed and open for discussion (53). Reality television made sure that documentary could be more associated with dramatization. There is a new documentary style that uses various techniques, like interviews and archival footage to entertain its audience. Paul Arthur calls this type of documentary ‘the tabloid documentary’.2_{Larke-Walsh notes that: “It can be}

argued that the tabloid documentary is first and foremost voyeuristic entertainment, and therefore it can be summarized as a performance of many recognizable modes of documentary (Larke-Walsh 54)”. He states that the film A very British Gangster (2007), can be seen as a ‘tabloid documentary’ (54). “The aesthetics impose recognizable entertainment formats on set sequences in between observational and interview footage (Larke-Walsh 57)”. This ‘performativity’ in documentaries can also be found in the Netflix documentaries that are analysed in this thesis. However, the difference with the documentaries that are analysed in this thesis, is that the spectator is not made aware of the camera, which is something that does happen in the tabloid documentary (54).

In conclusion, documentaries can never fully represent reality; only a part of the reality is filmed and not reality as a whole. The filmmaker chooses which part of reality is being captured on camera and what interviews and archival footage is used and the way it is used. In addition to that, images of documentaries are mostly cut and edited and often accompanied by music. As seen above, documentaries are depending both on reality and on narrative techniques to represent that reality. Various modes of documentary ‘perform’ the ‘real’ differently3_{. I argue that the techniques that are used to narrate documentaries are}

2 This is a term that is introduced by Paul Arthur in: Arthur, Paul. "Media Spectacle and the TABLOID DOCUMENTARY." Film Comment 34.1 (1998): 74.

3 This section is not about fitting the Netflix documentaries that are analyzed in this thesis within a certain kind or mode. The paragraph is here to show that the documentaries are narrating reality and use techniques that are similar to fiction films and therefor theories that are used for fictional characters are applied here.

(11)

similar to the narrative techniques that are used for fiction films4_{. As a consequence, in this}

thesis, theories of character engagement that are meant for fictional characters will be applied to study sympathy for morally ambiguous characters in documentaries.

1.2. How narratives elicit emotions

Before considering theories of character engagement, it is necessary to take a look at when and how emotions are elicited when a spectator watches a movie. The first question that should be tackled when considering emotions is: when do emotions get evoked? Ed Tan and Nico Frijda argue that: “Emotions occur when a situation is relevant for an individual’s concerns (Ed Tan, Nico Frijda 51)”. In “Stories and Sympathies” Carl Plantinga verifies this statement. He states that the Hollywood movies usually create an emotional response with a spectator with the help of conventions that are recognizable and that the audience can identify with (Plantinga 78). Hence emotions are only being elicited when something is relevant and recognizable for the spectator. In addition to that, Jane Stadler states that emotions help people understand situations in the real world (Stadler 139). She argues that the compassion that is felt as the result of watching a movie, does not only make people relate to character, but gives people the ability to understand situations in the world (140) Emotions can be both consciously evoked and unconsciously evoked (140). Emotions can cause that evaluating something ethically is no longer objective, as emotions are subjective (141). This subjectivity however, does not mean that spectators cannot form a critical opinion about the ethics that are at stake in the film text (142). With the help of Murray Smith, Stadler argues that everyone brings in their personal experiences when watching a movie (143). Trough processes like empathy, the spectator is more involved in the narrative text and as a consequence the ethical value of the text is stronger (157). Empathy in narratives can also help make people understand situations outside of the context of everyday life (165).

But what are emotions exactly? Greg M. Smith argues that film scholars use ‘prototype emotions’ to get an understanding of how films elicit emotions (Smith 105). He states that, seen from a cognitive perspective, prototype emotions are ‘action tendencies’. This means that emotions make sure an action is being undertaken, when an emotion is felt. In addition to that, emotions are not standing on their own; they are oriented towards an object and have a goal (104). In order to show how emotions are elicited Greg M. Smith introduces ‘an associative network model of emotions’. Emotions are a combination of responses that are

(12)

connected to a variety of schemes and are dependent of the context of the person that experiences the emotions (107). Stimulations from the outside world arrive within ‘a system of nodes’. When various stimuli come together, the ‘node’ can be stimulated and emotions are evoked (111).

Smith argues that the attention within the emotion system is directed by mood and that in cinema, emotions are a tool to lead the spectator towards a certain mood (113-116). These emotional cues are what Plantinga calls ‘searchlight functions’. People have a lot of stimuli in everyday life, not everything is being processed; some things are ignored and some things do get attention. Plantinga argues that the stimuli that are being paid attention to are primed by emotions. Hence emotions make sure that a person’s attention is directed towards details that are relevant to that emotion. He argues that the same happens when someone watches a movie. According to him, films are ‘affectively prefocussed’ (Plantinga 79). “In whatever case, it makes sense to think of a narrative film as representing narrative events presented in such a way that they are prefocussed to provide a particular complex of affective experiences (Plantinga 79)”. Plantinga makes a connection between emotions and storytelling, by calling emotions ‘concern based construals’; emotions are depending on the environment and change constantly, they can be seen as a narrative. He states that like emotions, stories are prefocussed (80). When someone watches a movie, that person is constantly looking for changes of the plot and new information. When new information is given or the story changes, the spectator responds to this by the will to comprehend what happened and the will to foresee what will happen (87). Noël Caroll also discusses the notion of prefocussing of emotions in films and compares films to daily life. He argues that contrary to everyday life, the filmmaker already arranged scenes in a way such, that certain emotions are being highlighted. In addition to that, there are other characters next to the character that give a confirmation to the emotion that is highlighted (Caroll 29). Like Plantinga, also Caroll argues that once the emotion is established, the spectator will be fixed on that emotion during the story. Caroll calls this ‘emotive focus’ (30).

It has become clear that a narrative text is prefocussed and that the attentions of the audience gets directed by emotional cues. Now it is necessary to consider how emotions are evoked by characters in a film context. Caroll argues that the spectator must have a positive understanding of the character in order to keep their attention to the story (Caroll 31). Plantinga states: “When the viewer develops a concern that the goals of a character be met, this creates a desire for the attainment or maintenance of the character’s desired state or the

(13)

escape from avoidance of an aversive state (Plantinga 88)”. Plantinga argues that the viewer does not necessarily need to have the same intentions as the character, but that when there is a thread to what the viewer wants for the character in a story, sympathy for this character forms (89). This means that there is no entire identification with the character in a story. Berys Gaut argues that when watching a film, there is no ‘suspension of disbelief’, but the spectator imagines being the character (Gaut 202-203). This contradicts slightly with Ed Tan’s and Nico Frijda’s argument, which states that the emotions that are evoked within a spectator are mostly ‘witness emotions’. These are emotions that a person experiences for someone else, so as a witness (Tan, Frijda 52). Scholars however, do not agree with the way that these witness emotions take place, this will be considered in the next section.

1.3. Empathy, sympathy and emotional contagion

In order to find out what makes a viewer have sympathy for a morally ambiguous character, it must be established how engagement works. An overview of what has been written about this by cognitive theorists will be given in this section, starting with an overview of the discussion between three theorists on the ways of imagining while engaging with a character.

In her article, Amy Coplan makes a clear distinction between empathy, sympathy and emotional contagion. Coplan explains that when someone empathizes with a narrative character, this person is still able to make a distinction between the object of empathy and him/herself, there is a ‘self-other differentiation’. Feeling empathy for a character means being able to imagine the emotions of that character (Coplan 134-144). Emotional contagion is an emotional reaction that happens automatically and unconsciously. Coplan explains that unlike empathy and sympathy, emotional contagion is a fully immersive process in which the persons’ own emotions are temporarily overtaken and there is no self-other differentiation (145). Like empathy, and unlike emotional contagion, with sympathy there is a distinction between the self and the other. Sympathy can be distinguished from empathy because with empathy the spectator is feeling like a character and with sympathy there is a feeling for a character (145). With sympathy, a person is concerned for another’s wellbeing (146). Coplan explains that empathy is important in engaging with fictional characters, but that it is not the only thing that is at stake when engaging with a fictional character, it is part of an elaborate process (146). It is unclear how empathy, and what scholars consider to be identification,

(14)

works exactly. Some scholars use the term identification to refer to emotional contagion, some to empathy and some, like Murray Smith, do not use the term at all (147).

Noël Caroll is one of the theorists that rejects the term identification. Caroll argues that often the spectator has concerns for the character, but wants something different than what the character wants (Caroll 231). Coplan states that: “Carroll argues that readers' emotions have different objects from characters' emotions. But this is only partially correct. When a reader empathizes with a character, she simulates that character's experience, but at the same time maintains her own separate identity. This self-other differentiation allows the reader to simultaneously simulate the character's psychological states and experience her own separate psychological states (Coplan 148)”. This means that with empathy, the viewer/reader can be engaged with characters and still have an identity of their own, they do not lose their own identity in the process of empathizing. Also, as explained before, the process is elaborate. There is a simulation of what the character is going through, this process of simulation and empathy can make the viewer learn something new, which also becomes part of the process. Having empathy can occur for multiple characters (148-149).

In “Altered States: Character and Emotional Response in the Cinema” Murray Smith aims to explain the audiences emotional reaction to characters in fiction films by breaking the concept of ‘identification’ down into multiple smaller concepts, that together make up what he calls ‘the structure of sympathy’ (Smith 34). Smith proposes three levels of engagement: ‘recognition’, ‘alignment’ and ‘allegiance’ (35) Recognition is comprehension of the construct of a character based on elements within the film text (40). Alignment is the relation of the audience member to what the character experiences (41). Allegiance is the moral interpretation of a character, understanding what the character is going through and evaluate the actions that the character takes in the story (41). Allegiance revolves around understanding the character, not replicating its emotions and is therefore based on sympathy and not on empathy (42). Smith argues that the levels of engagement do not always interact, sometimes there is alignment with a character, but no allegiance because of the characters moral actions (49)

Smith makes a distinction between central imagining and a-central imagining5_{. Smith}

argues that the structure of sympathy is an a-central structure (39). The a-central structure means imagining that something is a certain way, opposed to the central imagining that fully

5 Based on “In The Thread of Life, Richard Wollheim makes a "fundamental distinction, corresponding to a big divide between two modes of imagination (Smith 36)”

(15)

immerses a viewer (36). He explains his view on central versus a-central imagining with the help of Carrols notion of the matter. As seen before, according to Carroll an audience member never completely identifies with a fictional character, but is able to imagine that the character goes through something in a story. The audience only responds emotionally to imagining that a character goes through something and not imagining being the character (Smith 38-39). Smith agrees with Carroll on the fact that ‘identification’ only gives a one sided view. But he explains that with viewing character identification as solely a-central, Carroll misses an important point. Smith explains that the structure of sympathy is an a-central structure. However, it leans on experiences that are ways of central imagining: “While the structure of sympathy is as a whole an a-central structure, it draws on various phenomena which, I shall argue, are forms of central imagining, or what psychologists call empathy: emotional simulation, motor and affective mimicry, and autonomic reactions like the startle response (Smith 39)”.

Even though not all scholars agree exactly on how the ways of imagining take place when engaging with a fictional character, some of them agree about empathy and empathetic processes like emotional contagion as being part of sympathizing with a fictional character. Therefore, in this thesis I will follow this notion.

In summary, in this chapter it became clear why theories of character engagement for fictional characters can be applied to the Netflix documentaries that will be analysed in this thesis. First, documentaries narrate reality. This becomes apparent with the notion of ‘images in spite of all’ that is used as an example to explain why documentaries can never fully represent reality (Didi-Huberman). Also, it becomes clear with the help of the term ‘ideology’ that visual techniques are used, which are the same or at least comparable with the techniques that are used for fiction films, but that these techniques are perhaps not necessarily visible at first glance (Allen). In addition to that, what can be considered as a documentary film can vary, there are no set rules that define ‘the documentary’. There are, however, various modes and kinds of documentaries. There are documentaries that are there for entertainment purposes and use footage in documentaries to create suspense (Larke-Walsh, Nichols, Plantinga). Emotions are ‘action tendencies’ and are ‘goal orientated’ (Smith). In narratives emotions are elicited with stimuli that are relevant for the spectator. The emotions make sure what emotional cues the spectator pays attention to when watching a movie and act as a ‘searchlight function’ (Plantinga). When watching a film, there is no ‘suspension of disbelief’; the spectator is able to make a distinction between the self and the on-screen character.

(16)

Processes of empathy and emotional contagion are, however, part of the process of sympathizing with narrative characters. Smiths ‘structure of sympathy’ gives a clear example of how the process of sympathizing with a character takes place, by dividing the structure in ‘recognition’, ‘alignment’ and ‘allegiance’, during the moral evaluation of the character (Smith). In the next chapter, this moral evaluation in connection with sympathy for a morally ambiguous character will be further explored.

(17)

Chapter 2. Engagement with morally ambiguous

characters

“Now, when various narrative strategies are required to facilitate sympathy with the antihero, there must be some pay-off to be found in his very immorality. If there is no attraction to be found in the antihero being immoral, why not just tell conventional stories about heroes? Why an antihero in the first place? (Vaage 90)”.

In the previous chapter is became clear how narratives elicit emotions and how engagement with fictional characters takes place. In this chapter, it will be explored how sympathy and morality are standing in relation to each other.

In the quote above, Margrethe Bruun Vaage asks the question of why even there are antiheroes. This is an interesting question, because it seems relatively harder to sympathize with an immoral character than with the hero of a story. There are however various techniques that can elicit sympathetic emotions for morally ambiguous narrative characters, which will be shown in this chapter. In the next section (Chapter 2.1), the relation between eliciting sympathy and the relation with morale is analysed. The following section (Chapter 2.2) deals with the eliciting of sympathy for morally ambiguous characters in fiction. Since this thesis, however, researchers techniques that evoke sympathy for morally ambiguous characters in Netflix documentaries, the chapter finishes with a section (Chapter 2.3) that reflects on engagement for non-fiction characters.

2.1. Sympathy and morality

In the previous chapter it became clear how character engagement with fictional characters takes place and what the difference between empathy and sympathy entails. But what does sympathy mean exactly and what can be said about it in relation to morality? That is being considered in this section. The word sympathy originates from the Greek/Latin words sumpatheia, sumpathēs, when separated means: sun- ‘with’ and pathos ‘feeling’, so feeling with (Oxford Dictionaries). The definitions that are given by the Oxford dictionary are:

(18)

“1 Feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune. 2 Understanding between people; common feeling.

3 The state or fact of responding in a way similar, or corresponding to an action elsewhere (Oxford Dictionaries)”.

This means that sympathy is feeling something for someone or having a common feeling. In “I Followed the Rules, and They All Loved You More: Moral Judgment and Attitudes toward Fictional Characters in Film” Carl Plantinga entertains the concept of sympathy and why people feel sympathy6_{. He points out that people often gravitate towards}

having sympathy for individuals from groups that are closest to themselves. Hence people are most likely to sympathize with their own family and after that with groups that they belong to or that are close to them. He explains that along with caring for family members or people from groups that are close to ourselves, sympathy also describes that people are being concerned for other people. Humans possess sympathy as a human trait. They sympathize because it gives them pleasure and that pleasure evokes their willingness to sympathize with a fictional character as well (Plantinga 39). In addition to that, liking someone can be distinguished also from the notion of feeling sympathy for someone. Liking someone can be implicated because of someone being attractive or because of being similar to that person, whereas sympathy stems from someone being treated unfairly or having the need to be protected. As a consequence, having sympathy for a character does not mean that the audience has to necessarily like that character as well (42).

In his article, Alessandro Giovannelli, as well as Carl Plantinga, suggests that feelings of sympathy allow a spectator to feel pleasure when experiencing a narrative (Giovannelli 83). He proposes that when sympathy is felt with narrative characters, this does not only elicit feelings of pity for that character, but a much wider array of feelings, such as also positive ones (83). Giovannelli, moreover, does not see empathy and sympathy in contrast with each other. Instead, according to him, those are two interconnected concepts. This can be seen as similar to Smith’s structure of sympathy, in which, as seen before, the feelings of sympathy derive from feelings of empathy. Giovannelli argues that sympathy consists of two components: “I propose that sympathy be understood as a mechanism of one's engagement with another comprising (a) some form of empathic engagement with the target and (b) a concern for him or her, in a sense to be specified (Giovannelli 84)”. Hence, he states that empathy can be considered as being a part of sympathy (84). This, first of all, has to do with

6 Carl Plantinga uses theories of Frans de Waal, Adam Smith and George Lowenstein and Deborah Small for this.

(19)

why people are able to sympathize. It is seen as something positive when someone has the capability to express sympathetic feelings for someone else and this becomes more sincere when engagement is deeper. This is not just important from the perspectives of others, but has also something to do with the fact that the quality of the sympathy is higher when empathy is felt (85). In addition, sympathy has a component of concern for someone else. This however does not mean that the spectator has to be fully in favour with all the goals of the narrative character (91). The statements of Giovanelli seem to fit perfectly within Smiths structure of sympathy. It adds that the more empathy is felt with a character, the more profound the sympathy can be for narrative characters.

Now, since it has been established what sympathy is, it has to be considered how sympathy works in relation to morality. In response to Smiths structure of sympathy, Plantinga makes a distinction between sympathy and allegiance. He argues that sympathy is not dependent of a moral evaluation and therefore is more short term than allegiance, which does depend on the ethical assessment of a character (Plantinga 41). Extending on this matter, Plantinga explains that allegiance with a character has to be build up during a story and that this allegiance can survive momentary losses of sympathy for a character. He argues that allegiance with a character and the ethical evaluation of that character do not only originate from the character having good behaviour, but also from believing that the character is morally a good person (42). Hence, allegiance and sympathy are not the same, this means that when talking about sympathy, it is not a long term feeling. Characters in a narrative can get away with doing something that does not connect to the morals of the spectator and still have their engagement; a character can do something that is immoral or ‘bad’ and can still be seen as good. Plantinga also argues that moral evaluation for fictional characters does not resemble everyday life, because moral evaluations for fictional characters take place in a different context and are primed (44-47). Moral judgments are often in favour of people that are liked and also likely anchored and based on things that are already known or established. Therefore people rather look for confirmations of their moral evaluations, rather than to search for something that points to reasons against this already established evaluation (47). This means that moral judgments are often not really moral judgments at all, because they are dependent on so many other factors than only morality, like for instance the closeness to the person that is morally evaluating the character (47).

In summary, the amount of sympathy that a spectator feels for a fictional character is enhanced by empathy. Sympathy does not necessarily have something to do with a moral

(20)

evaluation of a character, and is dependent on other factors, like closeness to a person as well7_{. Allegiance can be seen as a long-term type of sympathy, as it is depending on moral}

evaluation and can overcome moments where there is no sympathy for a character. In the last two chapters of this thesis, the long-term allegiance with the characters in the Netflix documentaries will be discussed. But first, in the next section, it will be considered how engagement with morally ambiguous characters can take place in fiction films/series..

2.2. Engagement with morally ambiguous fictional characters

In "Gangsters, Cannibals, Aesthetes, or Apparently Perverse Allegiances." Smith explains that often emotion is evoked because of moral judgment about something; something can be unjust and therefore a spectator feels anger (Smith 218). According to Smith, there are two kinds of perversity. The first-order perversity means ‘liking something because it is perverse’, second-order perversity is ‘liking something despite it being perverse’ (219). For the second order perversity, he gives the example of Hannibal Lecter (Antony Hopkins) in Silence of the Lambs (1991). In this film the audience is able to engage with Lecter because he has various personality trades that can be considered attractive. In addition to that, in comparison to the other prisoners, he is more sophisticated (222-227). Another way that the audience can engage with an antihero is because some ‘bad-men’ in movies are portrayed as ‘good men’, or ‘victims of life’, as it is shown that they do not have another choice than to take immoral actions. Also, again, they are often contrasted with an even worse ‘bad man’ (223-224). In addition to that, Smith explains that because there is often a celebrity playing a fictional role, the audience watches the celebrity instead of the character, which underlines the fact that what the viewer is watching is not real, so the immoral actions do not have any consequences (227). And finally, the spectator is also more likely to overlook a person’s bad trades if he or she also has a lot of good ones, like charisma (228).

Smith argues that people have a curiosity for things that are out of the ordinary. This curiosity plays a part in being interested in characters that can be seen as morally perverse (Smith 234). This ‘amoral fascination’ is however also not truly a perverse allegiance (236). Considering first order perversity, Smith argues that it is also possible for people to engage with anti-heroes because of their immoral actions. He gives as reason that fiction offers people a way to imagine (237-238)8_{. “In other words, at another level the question I have}

posed asks us to consider not so much how we might derive pleasure from and approve

7 In chapter four it will be argued that sympathy is also depending on the admiration of a fictional character. 8 Smith refers here to “The Positive Desirability of Evil.” of Colin Redford.

(21)

particular actions that transgress the particular moral values according to which we generally live, as to recognize our “need” for the wrongdoer, a need that is hard to accept or admit to in reality (Smith 238)”.

Jason Mittell has another account of how sympathy is evoked for morally ambiguous characters. In “Lengthy Interactions with Hideous Men: Walter White and the Serial Poetics of Television Anti-Heroes.” Mittell explains that the audience feels more moral allegiance with characters, even morally ambiguous ones, which have more of a background story then flat characters with no background stories. So when there are multiple characters that perform ethically questionable actions, the ones that the audience is able to align with, are the ones of which the reasons for their actions is shown. The spectator will have more allegiance with that character than with a character where no background story is shown and no alignment takes place (76).

Mittell also considers what the influence is of a series consisting of multiple parts on character engagement with morally ambiguous characters. He states that a television series must hold the attention of the audience. Because the character is morally ambiguous, it should be motivated why the audience still needs to keep watching. Often that is because of the actors charisma or by how the other characters treat the main character (Mittell 76). Mittell explains that in Breaking Bad (2008-2013), the audience is made curious by showing Walter (Bryan Cranston), the main character, in a situation where he does not seem to belong. The audience then wants to know how he ended up in that situation and keeps watching (83). He explains that often there is awareness created for the fact that the immoral actions are part of a fictional story. This awareness makes sure that the audience can overlook the immoral behaviour or rationalize it by seeing it as part of the story world. However, in a television series that line blurs, because the character stays with the audience because of the nature of a series; consisting of multiple parts (Mittell 80). Finally, Mittell argues that the endings of series with leading anti-heroes are often complex, because it must have a motivated ending to the characters story arc and other arcs and provide an ethical stance/position towards the moral behaviour of the character.

Margrethe Bruun Vaage argues that in television series, engagement with the antihero can be evoked because of the long period that the spectator gets engaged with the character and because there is enough time for the filmmakers to give justifications for the antihero’s immoral behaviour (Vaage 90). “The spectator is blinded by the familiarity with him, and perceives others as morally worse. Suspenseful sequences are also used to undermine a rational evaluation of the antihero (Vaage 90)”. Vaage states that engagement with the

(22)

antihero also comes from the appeal of the characters “bad side”. As example she mentions that a character that is in a powerful position can be attractive. Vaage explains that it is a natural phenomenon to derive pleasure from power, and therefore this can be a reason to engage with an antihero. Another reason that is given, as seen before, is the contrast between the character that the spectator can engage with, and other characters, that are even more immoral than the antihero in question (90). Liking the antihero in a story is a process that has two sides; liking the antihero for his immorality and disliking him for it (91).9_{Vaage asks the}

question, just like Murray Smith, whether the spectator engages with the antihero because or despite his immorality. She argues that the spectator likes the antihero and therefore engages with him, but also at times is able to reflect on this engagement. This is when the narrative is making the spectator distanced from the film text, and calls this reality checks. In everyday life the spectator would not engage with a person with the same moral standards as the antihero (92). Vaage states that one of the explanations of why people engage with the antihero could be fascination (94). Vaage explains that Smiths account of the good-bad guy shows that the character can also just be partially or temporarily immoral, so it is not a real immoral engagement (95).

In “Sympathy for the Devil.” Carroll argues that the audience can align with Tony (James Gandolfini), the main character of The Sopranos (1999-2007), because compared to other characters, Tony has a greater sense of what is ethically right (Carroll 130-32). Carroll points out a paradox; the viewer would be able to identify with Tony as a fictional character, but not in real life (133). But this paradox is being justified by the fact that every character in The Sopranos has less of a morality than Tony, which would not be true in real life, therefore it is easy for Tony to be the most moral character (133-134). Carroll argues that the audience would not entirely sympathize with Tony, because they would still disapprove many of his crimes (34).

This is an interesting note to end this section with because in the Netflix documentaries that are analysed in chapter three and four of this thesis, sympathy is evoked for morally ambiguous characters in documentaries, hence, for people that exist in real life. In this section it became clear that sympathetic allegiances can be formed because and despite the immoral behaviour of the main characters, but is this also the case in non-fiction films?

9 There is however also a group of people that completely dislikes the antihero, as there is a group that does not have the ability to reflect upon the antiheros bad side (Vaage 91).

(23)

2.3. Engagement with non-fictional villains

With the help of previous theories it became clear how sympathy is evoked for villains in fiction films. In his article "Sympathy for the devil: Cinema, history, and the politics of emotion." Johannes Von Moltke takes a look at how sympathy for Hitler as a narrative character is evoked in Der Untergang (2004). In his article Von Moltke argues that historical figures like Hitler are revised because of films like Der Untergang.

Von Moltke analyses how the film elicits empathy for real life historical morally ambiguous characters. First of all, he argues that there are two characters that are put alongside Hitler. The characters are involved in melodramatic narratives that evoke feelings of empathy for them (Von Moltke 26). “When we review the film's opening with this question in mind, two aspects stand out: first, the spectator's curiosity is aroused through classic suspense built around a series of delays, or retardations; second, through character construction, editing, and narration, the film generates intimacy designed to draw in the spectator (Von Moltke 32)”. Besides the two characters there is the character of Hitler himself, who is introduced later in the movie. In the movie, besides Hitler’s bursts of rage, the softer side of his character is shown throughout (26-27).10_{The film’s opening evokes suspense}

and tries to gets the spectator’s attention by creating ‘intimacy’ (32). Von Moltke explains that Hitler in a scene with his secretary seems to be less dangerous than other soldiers that appear in another scene (35). The film puts Hitler in a position of intimacy together with his secretary. Von Moltke discusses ‘the primacy effect’ that is evoked by the anxious secretary of Hitler: “This alignment, which is at once cognitive and emotional, is reinforced by the so-called primacy effect, which causes us to give the first character we encounter the benefit of the doubt and to follow her (emotional) lead more readily than that of all characters introduced later (Von Moltke 35)”. Hence there is a double alignment established with both the secretary as well as with Hitler (35).

The examples that Von Moltke gives seem to be largely in accordance with the techniques that were used in fiction films to evoke sympathy. However to be able to establish if the same techniques are used to evoke sympathy for the morally ambiguous characters in Netflix documentaries, will be explored in the next two chapters.

In summary, it has become clear that sympathy is enhanced by empathy. Having sympathy for someone does not always entail making a moral evaluation; it can mean

10 To analyze empathy in Der Untergang, Von Moltke uses Plantinga’s “The scene of Empathy and the Human Face on Film”.

(24)

concerning for someone’s wellbeing or appreciating someone’s attractive trades. Allegiance, however, is depending on moral evaluation. However it became clear that moral evaluation does not always have to do with moral judgment, as it depends on the characters likability as well (Plantinga). Hence, in the last two chapters of this thesis it will be argued that sympathy for the morally ambiguous characters in the Netflix documentaries is not solely created based on an evaluation of how morally righteous they are.

There are two kinds of engagements with morally ambiguous characters: engagement despite the characters immorality and engagement because of it (Smith). Most of the time engagement takes place despite of the immoral behaviour of the character. The character is often part of an environment where there are other, more immoral characters. Or it is being argued, in the shape of a background story, that the immoral behaviour of the character is the result of the situation he or she is in. Often the charisma or admiration attribute to a villain being liked. Non-fiction films can use the same techniques to evoke sympathy for a villain, despite the fact that the villain existed in real life. This is done by putting the villain in contrast to other, seemingly even worse characters, and by showing his softer side and putting other, empathic characters alongside him.

(25)

Chapter 3. Making a Murderer

“I’m in the same situation as I was before. There’s a couple of them that want to nail me. And the other ones didn’t, but nobody speaks up. And I got to go through this over and over. Sometimes I just wonder, I don’t know. It’s just hard to take it all in you know (Avery, Making a Murderer, S1Ep7, “Framing Defense”)”.

The quote above is a subtraction of a voice over from Steven Avery in Episode 7 “Framing Defense” of Making a Murderer and shows Stevens helplessness. As explained before, Making a Murderer is a true crime series about a man named Steven Avery. The series consists of ten parts in which it becomes clear how Steven Avery has, according to the filmmakers, been falsely accused of two crimes.11_{The first crime that he was accused of is the}

sexual assault on Penny Beemtsen. Steven served eighteen years in prison, after which he got exonerated based on new DNA evidence. After being exonerated, Steven filed a lawsuit against the Manitowoc Country, but before the end of the lawsuit, Steven was arrested again. This time he was accused of murdering Teresa Halbach. Steven claimed, and to this date claims to be innocent. He accuses the police department of Manitowoc County for framing him for crimes that he did not commit. In the documentary it is shown how not only Steven, but also Brendan Dassey, Stevens’s nephew, is falsely accused. Brendan is charged with the murder on Teresa Halbach as well. His conviction is based on confessions that he made when he was under interrogation. The filmmakers claim that these confessions where coerced confessions and that Brendan Dassey is innocent.

In this chapter it will be examined how the series evokes sympathy for the main characters, Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey, with the help of the theories on character engagement with morally ambiguous characters that have been considered in the previous chapters. First the narrative construct of both, the series as a whole and of the separate episodes is analyzed (Chapter 3.1). Also, it will be examined how the characters stand in relation to each other (Chapter 3.2). After that, the aesthetic elements that evoke sympathy for

11 In this thesis, no claims are made about whether or not Steven Avery is guilty of the crimes that he is accused of. Everything that is stated in this thesis is only to show how the filmmakers evoke sympathy for Steven Avery (and Brendan Dassey).

(26)

the main characters are analyzed (Chapter 3.3). The final section of the chapter is a close analysis of a scene from the series.

The reason why Making a Murderer was chosen to be examined in this chapter is related with the fact that Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey can both be seen as morally ambiguous characters, since it is not clear whether they did or did not commit the crimes they are accused of. Yet, sympathy is evoked for them by suggesting that they are innocent. However, when it would turn out that they are guilty, would the sympathy for them still hold?

3.1. Narrative structure

Making a Murderer aims to portray Steven Avery as an innocent man that got wrongfully convicted not just once, but two times. To support this argument, the narrative structure is build up in a way that Stevens’ innocence comes across the strongest. Steven Avery is being portrayed as a victim of a failing system of judgment. The fact that Steven is being portrayed as a victim gives the audience the ability to sympathize with him. The viewer can imagine what it would be like to be in Steven Avery’s position and how awful it would be to be incarcerated for something that they did not do. Hence sympathy in this case is entirely built around feelings of pity for Steven Avery. But only if the viewer goes along with thinking that Steven is innocent, which will be further considered later in this chapter.

Accepting Stevens’ innocence is not a hard thing to do in the first episode, which is called: “Eighteen Years Lost”. In this episode the story is told of the eighteen years that Steven had been wrongfully incarcerated. He was released because of DNA evidence, which makes it easy to accept his role as a victim for the audience in the beginning of the series. The first episode begins with Steven Avery being released from prison. Archive images are shown of a happy Steven Avery, while he is smiling and hugging his family. Along with the happy images, voice-overs are heard. One of them is a voice over of a family member that states that she knew, even though Steven was released from prison that it was not over yet. Earlier in this thesis it has been shown that for the duration of a series, the viewers’ attention must be kept. A way to do that is by making the viewer curious about what will happen to the character (Mittell). The statement that the family member gives in the voice over makes sure that, along with portraying the character of Steven Avery as victim, the viewer is made curious for how the story will unfold.

(27)

In the first episode Steven wonders what he did wrong: “They had the evidence back then that I didn’t do it, but nobody said anything. I don’t see what I really did wrong to the sheriff for him to pick on me like that (Avery, Making a Murderer, S1Ep7, “Framing Defense”)”. The only thing he can think of is the fact that he ran one of the sheriff’s cousins off the road. In Making a Murderer both of Stevens lawyers, as well as the filmmakers of the documentary, argue that Steven was framed by the detectives of the police department of Manitowoc County. In the first episode it is suggested that they framed him, because they despised the Avery family and because Steven had ran someone off the road that had a relationship with one of the officers of the county. In the second episode it is shown how the framing took place. The people involved are questioned and it becomes apparent how the false accusation of Steven took place.

The first two episodes make a strong argument for Steven Avery’s innocence. As argued before, Steven is portrayed as a victim and as a good and reliable guy. As discussed in the previous chapters, when a spectator is watching a film, the spectator is looking for confirmation of established engagement and of what he or she already knows (Plantinga). The spectator knows that Steven is innocent (at least with the first crime) and that he is a guy that is generally a good person. Sympathy for Steven has already been evoked and according to Plantinga’s searchlight function’ the spectator will look for emotions that are in accordance with that (Plantinga).

In the episodes that follow, the process of the second accusation, the murder of Teresa Halbach, is portrayed. As an argument for Stevens’s innocence, the previous proof that he was innocent and supposedly innocently framed in the previous case, is often addressed and repeated. This statement of innocence comes back in the title: Making a Murderer. In addition to that, the episode titles that are all in a linear order, tell the story of what happened from Stevens perspective. In order of appearance: “Eighteen Years Lost” and “Turning the Tables” are about Stevens wrongful conviction and the proving of his innocence. “Plight of the Accused”, “The Last Person to See Teresa Alive”, “Testing the Evidence” and “Framing Defense” are all about the process in court. “The Great Burden”, “Lack of Humility” and “Fighting for their Lives” are about the final verdict and what happens after Steven is found guilty of the crimes that he is accused of, just as Brendan Dassey is found guilty, which will be considered in the next section.

(28)

3.2. Characters in relation to one another

The Avery family, straight from the beginning of the first episode, is being portrayed as an outsider family to the community. Kim Ducat, a cousin of Steven, says that the Avery’s where seen as troublemakers. Unlike the rest of the community, the Averies dealt with old car parts, they had a salvage yard and where uneducated. The inhabitants of Manitowoc Country where working class farmers who did not like the Avery family. Hence, Steven was already born in a disadvantaged position. The documentary builds up his background story such that the impression appears with spectators that Steven got in trouble because of this position in society. Briefly, in the beginning of the first episode, it is also mentioned that Steven is not entirely innocent12_{. It becomes apparent then, that he committed a variety of smaller crimes.}

However, not a lot of attention is given to this in the documentary. In addition to that, the severity of those crimes is reduced by Kim Ducat, by saying that he always owned up to them, just spend some time in jail and afterwards got on with the rest of his life. As shown before, characters can do something that is bad and still be seen as good characters (Plantinga).

A big part of the documentary consists of the bond that Steven has with his family. Many interviews with family members are being shown. In those interviews, the family members are always positive about Steven and convinced of his innocence. Especially his mother and father make a lot of appearances in Making a Murderer. They appear not only in interview settings, but also while visiting Steven in prison or supporting him in court. This family bond enhances the sympathy that can be felt for Steven Avery. This increases because sympathy/empathy is also evoked for the father and mother themselves. They are shown in the setting of their daily lifes and come across somewhat clumsy and uneducated. In addition to that, the spectator can see their grief over their ‘Stevie’ being imprisoned while he is innocent. The fact that his father calls him ‘Stevie’, emphasizes the bond between them as well. As shown already in earlier chapters, other characters that the viewer can sympathize with and who are put alongside the main character, help to enhance the sympathy for that main character (Von Moltke). In addition to that, Steven’s lawyers argue for his innocence and the goodness of him as a person.

What is also emphasized in the series, is the softer side of Stevens’ character. That Steven has a side to him that calls for antipathy rather than sympathy is hardly ever shown. Steven for example sends letters to Lori, threatening her, but this makes up such a tiny

12 This is not a reference to the two big crimes that he was incarcerated for, but a reference to the smaller crimes that he was found guilty of when he was younger.

(29)

fragment of the documentary that the fact is quickly overlooked when morally evaluating Steven Avery. What is shown multiple times in the series is Stevens care for other people. In the first episode he talks a lot about him just wanting to be with Lori and with the kids when he is locked up. In the series there are many overs of Steven. In many of these voice-overs Steven talks about his own innocence, but also how sorry he feels for the victims of the crimes that he is accused of and for their families.

Sympathy is also evoked for Brendan Dassey, Steven’s sixteen year old cousin at the time. Dassey is accused of helping his uncle to kill Teresa Halbach. The series argues that this accusation is only based on a false confession that Brendan gave: he admitted to being guilty during police interviews in which neither his mother nor his lawyer where present. Sympathy is then evoked in a similar way with Dassey as with Steven Avery. It is mostly founded in feelings of pity for his character. Brendan is being portrayed as a helpless kid that has a much lower IQ than people have in average. In phone calls with his mother it can be heard that he just said what the police officers wanted to hear, and that he was guessing what they wanted to hear, just like he did with his homework in school (“Plight of the Accused.” Episode 3). The fact that Brendan is not very smart is being conjoined with the argument that the detectives coerced a confession out of Brendan by asking questions in such a way that he would be able to guess what they wanted to hear. Brendan’s confession meant that Steven’s innocence was on the line even more, as Brendan argued that he killed Teresa in the presence of his uncle. A phone call between Dassel’s mother and Steven is played-in, in which it can be heard that Steven is still on their side, which makes Steven even more of a sympathetic character.

Not only the bond between Steven and the members of his family evoke sympathy, but also the fact that Steven is contrasted with other, immoral characters. This causes also that the viewer is easier able to sympathize with him (Smith). The first person that Steven is contrasted with is Gregory Allen. The first time that Steven was falsely accused and imprisoned it became clear, after Steven was released, who was the actual perpetrator: Gregory Allen. Gregory Allen is a multiple time sexual offender. The other ‘bad guys’ that Steven is contrasted with are the detectives of the Manitowoc County sheriff’s department. It is being argued that Steven was framed by them, his whole defense in court rests on that. Gregory Allen is proved to be an actual immoral character and the police that supposedly framed Steven in the documentary are also the bad guys, opposed to Steven who is portrayed

(30)

as an innocent man that is a victim of the bad guy’s immoral actions, which builds a strong sympathy base.

3.3. Aesthetics and close analysis

Not only narrative elements make sure that sympathy can be evoked with the audience of Making a Murderer, also the chosen esthetic elements contribute to the eliciting of sympathetic emotions. In order to establish the justification how aesthetics attributes to the feeling of sympathy for Steven Avery, the part is analyzed in which Steven hears his verdict. This is taken from the episode “The Great Burden”.

The scene begins with Steven in his striped prison outfit in front of the camera. Before this moment in the series, Steven appeared mostly only being heard trough voice-overs. In the scene, now he faces the camera it immediately becomes clear that something important and impactful will happen. The person interviewing Steven asks him how he feels about the trial. Steven answers that he just wonders if this time the verdict will be just (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Steven Avery during his verdict

As he speaks, slightly eerie and sad music plays and the camera zooms in on Stevens head. While Steven expresses that he hopes that the verdict will not be the same as the first time, archive footage is played of a younger Steven, awaiting his verdict in court (Figure 2).

(31)

Figure 2: The younger Steven during a previous verdict earlier

The camera cuts back to Steven being interviewed. The music plays on and a shot of empty seats in the courthouse is shown. The music stops and a journalist is shown as he reports that they reached to a verdict about the case. In a hurry, a camera man comes running towards the court house. There is a shot of Steven’s lawyer talking on the phone with Steven’s mother. Also in a hurry, other reporters come walking towards where the verdict will take place (Figure 3).

This intensifies the situation. Then, members of Teresa Halbach’s family come in, as is Stevens Family. Stevens’ lawyer briefs Steven’s family before they enter the courthouse. He expresses his concern and tells them that they have to make sure that no one follows them home in case Steven is found not guilty; people might come after them.

Suspenseful music is played as Steven’s family walks in the hallway to the courtroom. In the courtroom, the camera zooms in on the judge. A cut to Steven Avery is made and then back to the judge while the judge is inspecting the papers in front of him. There is silence. Then the judge starts to read the verdict, the camera cuts back to Steven.

(32)

Figure 3: Reporters suddenly hurrying towards the court house for capturing the verdict

When the judge states that Steven is found guilty of the murder of Teresa Halbach, the camera stays with Steven who reacts in despair. Stevens Lawyer gives him a comforting pat on his back. (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Steven hearing the verdict of being found guilty of murder on Theresa Halbach

The judge reads the rest of the verdict, while the camera stays on Steven when he is shaking his head. Sad music starts to play and there is a quick shot of Stevens family (Figure

(33)

5). The camera is back with a close-up of Steven. As the Judge thanks the jury, the music swells and the voice of the judge fades away. Then, a quick shot of Teresa’s family. The voice of the judge sounds softly in the background and the music on the foreground when Steven is sitting there, processing what he just heard. The judge tells the jurors they are excused. People get up and Steven’s lawyer says something to him. Only the music can be heard. A close up is shown of Stevens mother. Then Steven leaves the courtroom and soon after that Stevens family and the rest of the people in the room follow .The music keeps playing.

Figure 5: Stevens familiy during hearing the verdict

In the scene that has been discussed, suspense is created. After the suspense is built up and comes to a peak when the judge reads the verdict, Steven’s reaction is filmed. The use of close ups of both Steven and his mother after the verdict is read, elicit empathy. In addition to that the music and the fading voice of the judge while Steven is filmed, contribute to understand Stevens despair, and contributes to the feeling of empathy. This scene, evoking empathy, can contribute to the overall feeling of sympathy for Steven Avery.

In summary, in Making a Murderer, sympathy is evoked for Steven Avery because of the narrative structure of the series. In the beginning of the series it becomes apparent that Steven did not commit the crime that he was accused of. He served eighteen years in prison for that crime, which can evoke feeling of a lot of pity for him. In addition to being portrayed

Ambiguous Engagement: An analysis on sympathy for morally ambiguous characters in Netflix documentaries

University of Amsterdam