“Describe an encounter with a squirrel”

Into the Abyss 11/04/12

Director/writer: Werner Herzog

2012 (UK)

            I have previously watched director Werner Herzog’s Grizzly Man (2005) and was deeply impressed. It is a formula that is hard to beat in documentary (and presumably hard to find), where a filmmaker combines the roadside-accident appeal of a crime or tragic event with the human realities of such a situation. There has to be a balance of sensationalism to bring viewers in and true emotion to make them leave changed, or you risk going for the easy sell. I also feel it is important for a documentary to present fact in such a way that the audience has room to think and feel for themselves, they must not be manipulated but they need to have an impression made on them.  In Grizzly Man Herzog achieved that, and often it is the interviewee’s reactions and emotions that become the spectacle. But that can be hard to watch.

            So, what is the draw for audiences here? In October 2001, according to the state of Texas, Michael Perry murdered a fifty year old nurse – Sandra Stotler – and was suspected in two other murders, which his accomplice Jason Burkett was convicted for. Perry received the death sentence, which in Texas means lethal injection, while Burkett received a life sentence. Each man denies his involvement and blames the other. Herzog interviews them both (Perry days before his scheduled execution), family of the victims and relatives of Perry and Burkett. Another focal theme in this documentary is whether the death sentence should exist at all, and this film’s release was rushed in the USA to make the greatest impact in relation to Rick Perry’s execution record and a national debate on the death penalty. So there is plenty of grim appeal, as well as interest for the politically minded. However those attributes do not make a good documentary by themselves.

            It was necessary for Herzog to paint a picture of the crime itself, and he does so in a way I found rather chilling. While interviewing a police officer that dealt with the crime they visit the two main crime scenes, as well as intercutting with crime scene video taken as the officers discovered the scene. It’s this P.O.V exploration of a crime scene, the mix of half ready cookie dough and blood splatter that reminds the audience that this isn’t just a T.V. drama, an innocent woman died. We also visit and see real footage of the lake where Sandra Stotler’s body was discovered. We see the body in the water, and it goes past that point of morbid fascination into unpleasant. We also see the bodies of Adam Stotler and Jeremy Richardson in the same way, while hearing details of the crime. It turns out that these three people were murdered because Perry and Burkett wanted to steal a car. At this point it is difficult not to want their murderers to be punished harshly. Herzog matches this chapter in the film to an eerie score and creates an intense atmosphere; he is drawing us in to the film.

            Herzog establishes the film’s preoccupation with the death penalty in before we learn any of the above. He interviews a pastor who is present at state executions. This man goes and, with the prisoner’s permission, holds their ankle as they die, presumably to bring comfort. Herzog asks, in his distinctive voice “Why does God allow capital punishment?” and I recall the question much better than the answer. All this is conducted in a graveyard, and probably as an attempt to lighten the mood Herzog asks the pastor to expand on a comment about a squirrel. At first I thought this was a hilarious question, however somehow it elicited choked tears from the pastor, the squirrels reminded him about the nature of mortality, and of those he sees killed by the state. That Herzog managed to get such a reaction in that way is amazing, and says a lot about the nature of documentaries – usually people already have things they want to say, you just need to ask the right questions. I found the long take of the pastor’s emotional face uncomfortable, and it is far from the only such moment.

Charles Richardson, brother of the victim Jeremy, tells us how their dad was in prison for murder, how Jeremy was the good brother and Charles was the bad apple that introduced him to his killers. He blames himself, and seeing such a tough looking young man break down and cry in the way that he does is hard. Moments like these are what set this film and Grizzly Man apart from others; they make us think twice about why we are watching, make us reflective and receptive, and maybe feel some voyeuristic guilt. They illicit a real response, more than sympathy and we start to think about ourselves in these people’s place. Also part of that feeling are the punishingly sad interviews with Linda Stotler, daughter of Sandra, sister to Adam. The murders took away the last of her family and she became a shut in for 4 years. All this comes together and we begin to hate the murderers.

When we meet Michael Perry he is smiling. He is not scary, perhaps even boyish as he cleans the glass divider between him and Herzog. We come to find he must live largely in denial, always maintaining innocence and hoping his appeal will save him from his scheduled fate a week later. Here Herzog says something very important that he doesn’t have to like him as they talk yet “I think human beings should not be executed”. This sentiment is echoed by a former state executioner, who at one point was performing two executions a week until a change of heart.

We also meet Jason Burkett, who seems more down to earth than Perry, yet also says he is innocent, even a victim of police brutality. We meet Burkett’s father, who is imprisoned across the street, and explains how Jason never had much of a chance with a father like him. His father was the one that got him off the death sentence by pleading with the jury. This is one of the things about this story that keeps you thinking and changing how you feel. Personally I have always had a hard time sticking to one side of this debate for long, and this film wasn’t designed to sway me any way in particular. However I do think it’s something that can never be debated too much; when it comes to mortality you must never take things lightly, and that this film will stimulate debate.

I came to the decision that ultimately it is the families of the victims that stand to benefit emotionally from executions, or not as the case may be, and anybody else’s opinion is just from the outside looking in. But we should still do what this film does, and look. Oh and some of the end scenes have spectacular revelations as well as interesting insights by those interviewed, it left an impression. The framing and editing belies the nature of a documentary, the soundtrack is strong and ultimately the content is provocative.