kenmorefield
Joined Aug 2004
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges4
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews1
kenmorefield's rating
Saw this at the Full-Frame Documentary Film Festival in Durham, North Carolina. It is a powerful indictment of the death penalty--at times maddening, at times heart-breaking.
If there is a fault in the film as a film (rather than as a polemic) it is that it can't quite decide whether it wants to be a profile of Pickett and really probe the psychological and spiritual costs of the death penalty or whether it wants to parley his testimony into a piece of anti-death penalty activism anchored on claims of wrongful execution and the investigative reporters' examination of the De Luna case
The most powerful and effective parts are comprised of Pickett's narrative, not just about the De Luna case but about how being in such a job has shaped and cost him. Perhaps because Pickett has been (and is) more of an outspoken activist since leaving his position, the film almost feels compelled to follow the narrative outside of the prison and the accounts of being "At the Death House Door" to a more overt and underlined conclusion than is necessary. It would probably be more powerful if it told Pickett's (and De Luna's) story and trusted in the power of the words and images to make the points it hammers home in the last 15-20 minutes of the film. (Maybe a slight edit would help, too.)
Still, this is picking nits at what is an effective and important piece of documentary film-making. For or against the death penalty, one has to acknowledge that Pickett has first-hand, eye-witness experience with the process and is thus uniquely situated to comment on it.
If there is a fault in the film as a film (rather than as a polemic) it is that it can't quite decide whether it wants to be a profile of Pickett and really probe the psychological and spiritual costs of the death penalty or whether it wants to parley his testimony into a piece of anti-death penalty activism anchored on claims of wrongful execution and the investigative reporters' examination of the De Luna case
The most powerful and effective parts are comprised of Pickett's narrative, not just about the De Luna case but about how being in such a job has shaped and cost him. Perhaps because Pickett has been (and is) more of an outspoken activist since leaving his position, the film almost feels compelled to follow the narrative outside of the prison and the accounts of being "At the Death House Door" to a more overt and underlined conclusion than is necessary. It would probably be more powerful if it told Pickett's (and De Luna's) story and trusted in the power of the words and images to make the points it hammers home in the last 15-20 minutes of the film. (Maybe a slight edit would help, too.)
Still, this is picking nits at what is an effective and important piece of documentary film-making. For or against the death penalty, one has to acknowledge that Pickett has first-hand, eye-witness experience with the process and is thus uniquely situated to comment on it.