Casting JonBenet (2017) Reviews

• Think of it as a social experiment

  ghosthardware2018-02-10

  So, this film is obviously polarizing based on the reviews here. I felt compelled to write my own review because I think the film would make more sense if we thought of it as a social experiment and not a documentary. If you're looking for a typical documentary experience, or even looking for more information on the Jonbenet Ramsey murder, you're going to be disappointed. Some may even be incensed by what they watch in this film. As others have stated, the basic premise involves a group of local actors in or near the Boulder, CO area who are "auditioning" to portray the people involved in this case. Right off the bat, this description is misleading, as these actors are not industry professionals, but rather people who work as actors but are essentially regular people. And this auditioning process we see in the film is actually the role itself. This aspect was the first to make an impact with me. The decision to use these local actors is ingenious. As actors, they're able to immerse themselves in the character and speculate on what their character may have been thinking or feeling during the events that took place. However, they're also not so professional that they won't open up and begin chatting about their own theories. The thoughts flow naturally and the actors speak freely. We see this organic flow of thought when these people are placed in their "roles", essentially placing them within the mystery itself. We see a group of people who already have civilian knowledge of this case who are speculating on a mystery, while also projecting their own personal experiences, resulting in a wildly fluctuating and differing opinion of what they think may have happened and why. And this is exactly what we, the public, did back in the 90s. I was a freshman in college when the Jonbenet Ramsey murder occurred. The media storm that followed was intense. In 1996 and 1997, most people were still getting their news via newspaper, magazine and television. It seemed every publication had a Jonbenet story, in every issue. These media outlets were all trying to "out-scoop" each other by finding details or clues that their competitor may not have. This resulted in a media free-for-all and a fight for sales. There were/are so many blanks to fill in regarding this girl's murder and yet, there were also so many details being released to and scrutinized by the press, and we the public couldn't help falling into the same game. It's human nature to want to know the answer to a compelling mystery, especially one such as this. It's also not unusual for the human brain to try to fill gaps in information in an effort to decipher something which is incomplete and impossible to solve definitively. It's faulty thinking in the sense that the information we use to fill those gaps is manufactured and colored by our own personal experiences, opinions, and attitudes. The actors in the film projected their own experiences to form many differing theories. And that's what happened back in '96/'97. I count myself among them. These actors, strange or narcissistic or gossipy as they may seem, are all of us. I think some of the negative reviews here are a bit contradictory and missing the point. One reviewer said the film "seemed like it could add a new layer of commentary to a tired, old story" and was disappointed when that didn't seem to happen. Well...this isn't just a "story" and just because it's old doesn't mean it's "tired". This murder case isn't, and never was, a story for our personal consumption. It holds our fascination for the reality and shocking nature of the crime. But searching for additional meaning or commentary about the case or murder is pointless because there is none. This film doesn't seek to shed new light on the murder. It's shining the light on us and it isn't the most flattering light. We watch films about this little girl because we all have some sort of morbid curiosity about her or the murder. How could we not when the news would publish photos of Jonbenet's body showing the little marks on her skin that were supposedly caused by a stun gun? We were given so much that it drove our imaginations. Often, discussions about the case would begin with, "Well, if that were me..." or "I would never..." We projected. We interjected ourselves into this mystery and chatted with friends and co-workers about the ransom note or the suitcase under the window. We were torn between our intense desire for justice and our own morbid fascination. I use some of the negative reviews here as example because on the one hand, these negative reviews say how morbid and exploitative it was to watch such blase attitudes about a little girl's murder, while in the same review complaining that they didn't get what they wanted out of the film. And this is exactly what I'm talking about. Some people watch this film hoping to get something more about the case, something to fill whatever void they may have in this mystery. But isn't that our own exploitative nature being exposed? For these people, I would advise finding a more traditional documentary that will discuss all the details and facts. And after viewing it, I challenge any viewer who didn't witness the frenzy in the 90s to not create your own theory or speculate on at least one person involved. It's what we all did and continue to do and I think some of the negative reviews miss the contradiction. As a result, the actual murder case, the real people involved and any real facts fall to the wayside in this film. It's haunting in the way the actual case and Jonbenet herself seem like fading background photographs in this wildly colorful montage. I think it is here where the film's statement lies. When someone says, "This case took on a life of its own", I think this is what they're referring to. The public became so enmeshed in the tedium and sensationalism that the case itself fades into the background. Our theories, colored by our own experiences, feed the frenzy until you're left with what looks like a vapid, exploitative pony show. I think this is why there are so many reviews stating this film is pointless or exploitative. But that is the reality of what happened in this country in '96/'97. We all had an opinion, a theory. We personalized it. And we all just spoke up about what WE thought occurred. We became armchair detectives and regurgitated "case facts" that we read here or there like we knew what any of it meant. In an effort to satisfy our own curiosity, we interjected ourselves into the narrative and essentially took it away from the actual people involved. I think this film portrays that perfectly.

  More

• Fascinating film on the human condition

  timothyongb2017-05-04

  A brief look at the IMDb reviews put up there and one will be able to find a lot of hate for this movie. They say: there are no new insights to the case, basically a bunch of random strangers gossiping about and dramatizing the death of a child. This film is all of that, and because of that, it is great. I came into the film not knowing a single thing about the case. (I've yet to reach twenty and I do not live in the west) And it is through this film, through these gossips by these strangers that I have managed to piece together a vague sense of what the case is all about. But this understanding of mine that I received on what happened to the child is a dramatized and subjective rendition of the proceedings.The people interviewed are your regular Tom and Jane on the street. The answers they share are less of an expert's and more of the opinion being spread out on the streets, what the people believe. The subjects feel very assured of what they believe, which theory they believe. Their answers to the questions are filled with the passion of a group of people sharing their ideas on the case. They draw from their personal experiences and from their subjective ideas. Many of the interviewees personalize the case too much and as such it is definitely not something to be taken as the truth. Though this leads to some extremely fascinating scenes where the interviewees appear to be relating and perhaps even sympathizing with the proposed perpetrator in their theories of the case. Further more the fact that these interviewees are actually auditioning to be acting as the people they talk about serves to further blur the identities between the 'perpetrator' and the regular human being. Perhaps we all have the potential commit an act or play a part in something so horrifying. After all, we are all human. We make mistakes. In this respect, the film reminds me of the great documentary 'The Act of Killing' where the lines between the identity of fiction and reality, history are blurred. Of course 'Casting JonBenet' does not solely focus on the blurring of identity and the aspects of human nature, but there are moments where the tragic loss of the child can be felt from through the subjects, how they felt about it, how they can relate to the death. A little superficial perhaps, but it does not feel sentimental as many conventional documentaries would have done if they were in the shoes of such a topic. It feels earnest and real. This movie is not the typical documentary typically known to the mainstream, it's goal is less focused on delivering information to the public in an entertaining manner but rather, just as some of the best documentaries do, it focuses on exploring the human condition. This film is less about the case of Jonbenet but more about the normal person's interpretation, reaction and their personal bits of introspection regarding the tragic incident. The film certainly is not without faults, there are plenty. But my main complaint would be that the reaches not much of a conclusion and the montage near the end emphasizes a little too much on the film's concept and ends up feeling more manufactured than earnest and emotional.

  More

• Less to do with casting, more to do with public opinion

  Shenoa772017-04-28

  Fascinating performances by Colorado local actors. Who would have thought this state garnered so much talent. I was memorized by personal stories told by Hack Hyland, Suzanne Yazzi, Kit Thompson and Ronda Belser. This film is less to do with JonBenet and more to do with human emotions.

• Drek

  jeremystulberg2017-05-01

  I never review films on IMDb, but I had a particularly strong reaction to this one. It started out as an intriguing concept, and I was very impressed with the creative vision of the film, which seemed like it could add a new layer of commentary to a tired, old story...That impression lasted for about 10 minutes. After that, the film very quickly devolved into a one-note gimmick, which somehow managed to be disturbing, ghoulish and often boring at the same time. Ultimately, I was left with a hollow feeling of numbness about this murder, as well as the non-professional actors profiled. The film felt so craven in its blatant exploitation of the crime (as well as the interviewees). It was downright grotesque if you give more than a passing thought to the fact that it's all based upon a child's murder...one that has been examined ad nauseam over the course of the past 20 years. In the end this film felt like more of an exercise, or an experiment gone awry. It had no heart, or center. It was utterly empty.

  More

• A unique, uncomfortable, but utterly compelling documentary

  themikeman-658662017-04-29

  This is not your average true crime documentary at but boy is it a good one! The recollections from the locals is very haunting as well as their own personal experiences and how it connects to the murders. There are uncomfortable parts but that just makes it more compelling and emotional.