"Death on the Staircase" deals with the arrest and subsequent trial of Michael Peterson, a writer accused of murdering his wife. Directed by Jean-Xavier de Lestrade - the man behind the documentary masterpiece "Murder On A Sunday Morning" - this mammoth 360 minute documentary is intriguing for most of its running time.
The film grants us an inside look into the workings of Peterson's defence team and focuses on procedures usually omitted from most works of fiction. For example, the buying and coaching of "expert witnesses", the severe denial people undergo when family members are accused of a crime (Peterson's daughters undergo Stockholm Syndrome before our eyes), the lengths defence attorneys go to distance themselves from their clients (they could care less whether Peterson is guilty or not), the staggering amount of research, surveys and preparation that goes into a case etc etc.
Most interesting, though, is the way Peterson's past is dissected by the prosecutors, his bi-sexuality (and liaisons with prostitutes) brazenly brought up in court. Of course Peterson denies these things at first, and so its all the more fascinating to watch as he slowly confides his sordid past to both his family and his lawyers.
Lestrade touches upon the media's biased coverage of the crime, but mostly he's interested in painting this case as a gigantic failure of justice. The director wants us to believe that America is a puritanical and uptight country that unfairly convicted a man based on his wealth and bisexuality. That small town Americans are conservative, racist and classist, and that the (largely black) jury believe that bisexuals are criminals, innately sick and so must be punished.
But of course Lestrade would have been unable to make this documentary had Michael Peterson not granted the director permission to document his life and trial. No doubt Peterson provided a series of very strict rules for the documentary crew to follow. Is it therefore any surprise that the film is so pro-defence? That it deliberately omits facts and paints Peterson as a man betrayed by justice?
8/10 – Though this documentary borrows elements from "Capturing The Friedmans", "The Thin Blue Line" and "Murder on a Sunday Morning", it's not as good as either of those films. The rich psycho-horrors of "Capturing The Friedmans" is lacking, the moral integrity of "Murder on a Sunday Morning" is absent and the brevity of "The Thin Blue Line" non existent. Still, for fans of the genre, Lestrade delivers a couple hours of good stuff.
Worth one viewing.
The film grants us an inside look into the workings of Peterson's defence team and focuses on procedures usually omitted from most works of fiction. For example, the buying and coaching of "expert witnesses", the severe denial people undergo when family members are accused of a crime (Peterson's daughters undergo Stockholm Syndrome before our eyes), the lengths defence attorneys go to distance themselves from their clients (they could care less whether Peterson is guilty or not), the staggering amount of research, surveys and preparation that goes into a case etc etc.
Most interesting, though, is the way Peterson's past is dissected by the prosecutors, his bi-sexuality (and liaisons with prostitutes) brazenly brought up in court. Of course Peterson denies these things at first, and so its all the more fascinating to watch as he slowly confides his sordid past to both his family and his lawyers.
Lestrade touches upon the media's biased coverage of the crime, but mostly he's interested in painting this case as a gigantic failure of justice. The director wants us to believe that America is a puritanical and uptight country that unfairly convicted a man based on his wealth and bisexuality. That small town Americans are conservative, racist and classist, and that the (largely black) jury believe that bisexuals are criminals, innately sick and so must be punished.
But of course Lestrade would have been unable to make this documentary had Michael Peterson not granted the director permission to document his life and trial. No doubt Peterson provided a series of very strict rules for the documentary crew to follow. Is it therefore any surprise that the film is so pro-defence? That it deliberately omits facts and paints Peterson as a man betrayed by justice?
8/10 – Though this documentary borrows elements from "Capturing The Friedmans", "The Thin Blue Line" and "Murder on a Sunday Morning", it's not as good as either of those films. The rich psycho-horrors of "Capturing The Friedmans" is lacking, the moral integrity of "Murder on a Sunday Morning" is absent and the brevity of "The Thin Blue Line" non existent. Still, for fans of the genre, Lestrade delivers a couple hours of good stuff.
Worth one viewing.