'Dear Zachary': Things to consider

•  Stephen Holden, in his NYTimes review, writes ‘It is impossible not to be fired up by Kurt Kuenne’s incendiary cri de coeur… it wants to provoke outrage.’  It’s hard to disagree that the filmmaker intends to create outrage, but is that the predominant feeling you leave the film with?  Did you feel ‘emotionally exhausted’ (DeBruge) by the film?  If you did feel outrage, what was Kuenne’s purpose in creating that in you?

•  Peter DeBruge writes in his Variety review that ‘Kuenne would probably be the first to admit he’s crafted a shamelessly manipulative version of events, one that works best for audiences who know nothing about the case’; he ‘transforms his personal tribute into a full-blown polemic’.  Do you agree that Dear Zachary is a ‘shamelessly manipulative polemic’?  If so, is it justified in this case?  (Why might it not be?)

•  Do you think that Kuenne’s ‘aggressive style’, as DeBruge puts it, is effective, or does it harm its message in any way?  The film obviously manipulates the order of events substantially – the effect making the film full of twists and turns, at times a cliffhanger; is this justified?

•  Consider how much film there was of Andrew Bagby during his short life; do you think that this film could have been made with all of that (unusually plentiful) footage?  If so, would it have been as effective?  If not, what does this say about the films that get made and the films that we see?

•  David and Kathleen (Andrew’s parents/ Zachary’s grandparents) put forth strongly the claim that those charged with premeditative murder should not be allowed bail.  What might the counterargument be?  Is their argument affected by the context – i.e., Shirley Turner’s release, the film itself – and would you have reacted differently to their claim if it had not been made in this (emotionally powerful) context?

•  Aufderheide writes about ‘the growth of personal documentary’ – like Dear Zachary – that ‘such films challenge viewers to recognize that truths exist in a context, in relationship to lies, and are selected from other truths…  Such films posit that there are important truths to be revealed and that they can be revealed in spite of – or even by calling attention to – the partiality of our understanding’ (105).  Can you explain Aufderheide’s point here?  Would you call Dear Zachary a ‘personal documentary’?  If so, how does it do what Aufderheide claims this type of film does?