They are often very one sided and bias and have been known to eliminate facts in order to create a thrilling rather then informative story. In the documentary “The Killings at Thurston High” the motive behind Kipland Kinkle's actions are explored. Was it really his fault? That's what the director is asking in this documentary which I believe attempts to shift the blame off Kinkle and on to other factors in his life like his parental condition or his alleged schizophrenia.
Documentary makers attempt to subtly position you one way or another, while trying to continue operating under the neutrality façade. In the case of the “Killings at Thurston High”, Kip Kinkle is portrayed as being a victim of his environment when I feel that its apparent at 16 Kinkle was capable of making his own choices. He also at his age should be aware of the consequences of his actions and how they affect the people around him. Even though it's apparent that Kinkle is guilty of his crimes the director of this documentary continually tries to portray Kinkle as the victim in this situation. A victim after he killed 4 people in cold blood and attempted to kill 24 others? Surely it must be the facts that we base our opinions of Kipland Kinkle on and if it is then our opinions of him surely can't be influenced by a documentary that suggests otherwise.
Documentary makers are really no different from film makers they both have pressure on them to make a profit from there films so they attempt to do what's known as “Holly wooding” a film. This means change facts from true events in order to make them more appealing to a mainstream audience. Documentary makers also manipulate events to make them seem more significant then others. An example of this in the documentary is when after the discussion with Kipland's sister describing the level of competition there was between Kip and his sister. Following this the doco cuts to some family footage which attempts to highlight the gulf in talent between Kip and his sister by showing footage of the family in a park attempting gymnastics, it is clear here that Kip's sister is better but its revealed by Kips father that his sister has had several years of gymnastics training so it must be asked what is the significance of being better then a brother four years her junior with no training at all. The clip is not actually relevant but its purpose is to reinforce the message of how poor and unfortunate Kip is.
It could be argued however that there is logic in what the directors trying to say. It certainly is the easier way to dismiss Kinkle as being just plain evil and the director for trying to excuse him of being in the wrong, but there maybe more to it then that. The reasons for Kit's actions that are being displayed may not be entirely untruthful. In fact it could possibly be a decisive factor into figuring out why Kinkle did what he did and how it can be prevented from happening again to another person who perhaps could be led away from that troubled path.
And some people would be inclined to agree with this line of thinking, as it represents a more humanitarian approach to the problem of troubled teens, rather then simply labeling them as psychopaths, this method offers another way for people to accept without forgiving the people involved with the crimes. And understandably this approach is more favorable for people with different moral codes to me.
I fully believe that film makers cannot be trusted, they are very few who are more interested in telling an accurate story then making a money at the expense of the story. Thus is the case I feel with in regards to Kipland Kinkle he is portrayed almost as a contemporary Romeo except rather then being driven from his lover his been driven from his guns and he reacts the same way as Romeo did, with extreme violence towards people who loved him. I am almost disgusted with the director's goal of keeping Kinkle as blameless as possible.
