For a bit of context, I watched this documentary having never heard of this case before.
I'll just cut to the chase. Generally speaking, this documentary begs so many questions that are never addressed or answered. For starters, logistically, how on earth did Fritzl manage to keep FOUR children underground without anyone noticing? How big was the cellar? How did he feed them? Did he teach them stuff? Did they have radio, television? Could any of them read? Did Elisabeth teach her own children stuff? Childbirth is a loud, messy, life-threatening affair; how did that happen seven times down there? Why were so many family members and neighbors suspicious but so eager to look the other way? Did she try to escape? Did her children? There is some mention that following the discovery of the truth about Elisabeth and her children, "questions" arose about the original investigation into her disappearance; what this investigation entailed or why it may have been viewed as insufficient at the time is not discussed in any meaningful way.
The documentary barely delves into Fritzl as a person, or the circumstances of what was going on in his home. At the end there is a psychiatrist who spouts off a series of hypothetical justifications that fathers may attach to engaging in incest with their children - though a) none of the stuff she says is apparently specific to Frtizl and b) it is pretty clear that incest was a tiny portion of the horrible things wrong with this man. Also, throughout the movie there is a voice-over of an actor reading things that Fritzl presumably said at some point - but under what circumstances? Did he write a tell- all? Was it part of his confession? Trial? This is never made clear, and the answer to that question may very well affect how the listener interprets what he is saying, the veracity of what is being said, or whether what the psychiatrist is saying resonates with any of what Josef apparently said (it doesn't seem to, oddly).
I can see that the filmmakers were, understandably, maybe trying to downplay the sensationalism of this case and rather focus on something else... but what? There are no interesting insights; the whole thing lacks any kind of organizing principle, and I was essentially left wondering what the point of watching it was. I just read the Wikipedia entry after and feel like I learned a lot more.
I'll just cut to the chase. Generally speaking, this documentary begs so many questions that are never addressed or answered. For starters, logistically, how on earth did Fritzl manage to keep FOUR children underground without anyone noticing? How big was the cellar? How did he feed them? Did he teach them stuff? Did they have radio, television? Could any of them read? Did Elisabeth teach her own children stuff? Childbirth is a loud, messy, life-threatening affair; how did that happen seven times down there? Why were so many family members and neighbors suspicious but so eager to look the other way? Did she try to escape? Did her children? There is some mention that following the discovery of the truth about Elisabeth and her children, "questions" arose about the original investigation into her disappearance; what this investigation entailed or why it may have been viewed as insufficient at the time is not discussed in any meaningful way.
The documentary barely delves into Fritzl as a person, or the circumstances of what was going on in his home. At the end there is a psychiatrist who spouts off a series of hypothetical justifications that fathers may attach to engaging in incest with their children - though a) none of the stuff she says is apparently specific to Frtizl and b) it is pretty clear that incest was a tiny portion of the horrible things wrong with this man. Also, throughout the movie there is a voice-over of an actor reading things that Fritzl presumably said at some point - but under what circumstances? Did he write a tell- all? Was it part of his confession? Trial? This is never made clear, and the answer to that question may very well affect how the listener interprets what he is saying, the veracity of what is being said, or whether what the psychiatrist is saying resonates with any of what Josef apparently said (it doesn't seem to, oddly).
I can see that the filmmakers were, understandably, maybe trying to downplay the sensationalism of this case and rather focus on something else... but what? There are no interesting insights; the whole thing lacks any kind of organizing principle, and I was essentially left wondering what the point of watching it was. I just read the Wikipedia entry after and feel like I learned a lot more.