Nisman

If you have lived in a Latin American country you have experience this level of corruption. Everybody is corrupt the socialists, the conservatives, the church, the social workers and specially the media. This is a good example of a country drowned in political chaos, social resentment and disbelieve.

This is a huge issue in Argentina, and I was expecting to learn a lot coming from a foreign documentary, but the direction was responsible for a highly disjointed presentation. The show is made up of thousands of short snippets, usually disconnected, that made it almost impossible to get a sense of the "facts" (and I was quite familiar with the event). The editor shouldn't find work anywhere else...

After six episodes, I don't really know much more than what was in the public domain already. There is no coherence to the "narrative", and the final episode should have provided some clarity to this sad episode, but it ended without giving us some sense of the events.

I almost stopped watching after the third episode, but my appetite for some new information kept me watching. I'm sorry I did.

A typical example of how a possibly great story is exploited by an aesthetics of manipulating viewers into having certain emotions from the first moment, rather than letting the story unfold and do the work of making anyone care. I couldn't watch more than the first twenty minutes, a constant barrage of intense piano music violently implying how this is the story of the century, and trying to cover up the fact that so far nothing beyond basic teaser information had been said.

The documentary collects a huge amount of information about Nisman (his life, his jobs, his family, his friends, his contacts and so on). Almost every friend or contact speaks out and tell what they think.

The documentary is quite objective, which allows the viewer to reach his own conclusion. It's not propaganda of any kind.

You can have your own opinion about what happened with Nisman (whether it was a murder or a suicide - in my opinion, it seems pretty obvious), of course... but you can't say this documentary is biased.

Finally, even after seeing this documental one question still remains to be answered: who benefited after his death? Who didn't?

I had little knowledge of this case and I appreciate the unbiased approach to it.

Maybe it is too repetitive, and has too much back and forth, what makes it a bit confusing, at times.

I hope one day they get to know the truth.