An interesting and comprehensive look into the Lindy Chamberlain 1980's case of Azaria her missing baby taken by a dingo in Australia, as depicted in the film "A Cry
in the Dark" (or "Dark Angels" depending of where you live) and Lindy's trials to prove her innocence when the media trial on the woman and her husband was
alarming because the facts were too strange to get accepted. For those who watched the movie, it's a very good follow-up to Lindy's release from prison and the
more recent outcome that proved she was right all along when new evidence was brought to light.
Unlike many other of New York Times/Retro Report look back to memorable moments of journalism and its importance in the world, this one presents the main figure inside the events with a new interview with Lindy and the whole scenario she was put through. Lot of what is presented in the film does reflect Australians reactions to the case thinking she killed her daughter and that her cold expressions, lack of emmotion during trials and ordeals were the key factor. The documentary gives us a shock by presenting news clips from viewers of Schepisi's film in Australia and what we see are people who simply watched the whole thing and still weren't impressed by the story and still kept blaming Chamberlain for the killing/disappearance. The title of the documentary is a misquote that appears on the movie and that became part of popular culture (though on a darkly humourous manner) as presented in several clips from "The Simpsons", "Seinfeld" and "Tropic Thunder".
As usual, just with the other reports of the Retro series, this one is very enlightining to people about the media importance in presenting facts, the aftermath of the reported case and what can we learn (as citizens or as journalists) when stories comes to light and the way we react to them or inform them. With the Chamberlain affair we've become more dubious about the information which are spread to us (back then fake news wasn't a coined term, zero internet and printed media and television were the main feeders to public) and we started to think twice instead of rushing judgments. People are people, and they behave in many different patterns, certain speeches and reactions. The woman's condemnation by a majority in the 1980's was a matter of guilty or not guilty due to her way of being, to be somewhat distant and cool about everything around her. The skepticism of general public only gave her those two choices instead of a more analitical evaluation that people sometimes face great difficulty to display their real emotions, and in such scenarion everything will look strange because we don't act as Hollywood stars - I wonder how tough it was for Meryl Streep to play Lindy's role because you keep wondering where's her real emotion when facing tragedy. But that's how Lindy was. She lived the tragedy, went through many tough times but she always responded with mixed reactions. Her loss and her pain were all locked inside; sometimes the outside doesn't capture such pain. 9/10
Unlike many other of New York Times/Retro Report look back to memorable moments of journalism and its importance in the world, this one presents the main figure inside the events with a new interview with Lindy and the whole scenario she was put through. Lot of what is presented in the film does reflect Australians reactions to the case thinking she killed her daughter and that her cold expressions, lack of emmotion during trials and ordeals were the key factor. The documentary gives us a shock by presenting news clips from viewers of Schepisi's film in Australia and what we see are people who simply watched the whole thing and still weren't impressed by the story and still kept blaming Chamberlain for the killing/disappearance. The title of the documentary is a misquote that appears on the movie and that became part of popular culture (though on a darkly humourous manner) as presented in several clips from "The Simpsons", "Seinfeld" and "Tropic Thunder".
As usual, just with the other reports of the Retro series, this one is very enlightining to people about the media importance in presenting facts, the aftermath of the reported case and what can we learn (as citizens or as journalists) when stories comes to light and the way we react to them or inform them. With the Chamberlain affair we've become more dubious about the information which are spread to us (back then fake news wasn't a coined term, zero internet and printed media and television were the main feeders to public) and we started to think twice instead of rushing judgments. People are people, and they behave in many different patterns, certain speeches and reactions. The woman's condemnation by a majority in the 1980's was a matter of guilty or not guilty due to her way of being, to be somewhat distant and cool about everything around her. The skepticism of general public only gave her those two choices instead of a more analitical evaluation that people sometimes face great difficulty to display their real emotions, and in such scenarion everything will look strange because we don't act as Hollywood stars - I wonder how tough it was for Meryl Streep to play Lindy's role because you keep wondering where's her real emotion when facing tragedy. But that's how Lindy was. She lived the tragedy, went through many tough times but she always responded with mixed reactions. Her loss and her pain were all locked inside; sometimes the outside doesn't capture such pain. 9/10
