DVD Review: Of Dolls & Murder

Text © Robert Barry Francos/FFanzeen, 2012
Images from the Internet

Of Dolls & Murder: Extended Version
Written and directed by Susan Marks
I See Dead Dolls Films / Da Silva Pictures / Seminal Films, 2012
70 minutes, USD $14.95
Seminalfilms.com
OfDollsAndMurder.com
MVDvisual.com

At the turn of the century, a woman’s “place” was considered to be in the home, especially for an heiress from Chicago. This was the culture into which Frances Glessner Lee was born, locked out of a professional life in those pre-suffrage days.



Frances Glessner Lee

 But Lee was not one to shirk away. After an unhappy marriage, into her 50s, the socialite turned her interest in forensics (and a talent for textile art) into not only a career, but she revolutionized the science. Before her influence, police work relied more sleuthing, rather than an exact, scientific study. By the time she was done, she also founded Harvard’s Legal Medicine department.

In 1939, she started the yearly Seminar of Homicide Investigations for State Police, which is still being held, years after her death in 1962, while in her mid-80s. For many of these seminars, she personally created what are known as the Nutshell Studies of Unexplained Deaths, a series of 1-foot = 1-inch dioramas of actual death scenes using dolls, which were employed in the colloquium as teaching tools. In fact, 18 of the 20 known Nutshells (one was crushed in transit, one is missing) are still used as teaching tools in Harvard to this day.

This is merely the starting point of this fascinating documentary, about not only Lee and her dioramas, but what cultural outcome has resulted from her work.

Now, the whole dolls-death-diorama thing may sound familiar. If it does, odds are you watched the season of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation where there was a serial killer who did similar dollhouse scenes. This was a nod to Lee, and is discussed in detail in this film. In fact, the whole relationship of the television show to culture is a topic as much as Lee. There are clips from the program, and one of the interviewees is connected to the TV series. There are also plenty of shots of the Nutshells (called that after the expression, “...in a nutshell”), including some fine details.

Along with dissecting the Nutshells as the camera lovingly flows around the scenes, forensic science is compared with the television show, such as the fact that even though all the machinery is real, there is no actual existing single police-related space that is that sophisticated; a producer sadly states that the CSI set has the best forensic lab in the world. Also, they tell of the real amount of time it takes the police to get pertinent information, such as DNA or fingerprint identification.

A quite shocking focus of the film is what’s known colloquially as the Body Farm. Apparently, people donate their bodies to this scientific space, and their corporeal remains are tested for rates of rot by being left exposed to the air, or put into peculiar situations (such as being in a sealed garbage bin or plastic bag), for example. We get to see particular body parts covered with bugs and maggots, skulls, and the like, which is occasionally gruesome; but honestly, there is nothing here that is more gross than the fake CSI show.

One aspect I found particularly interesting was the two-sided question about evidence. On one hand, thanks to the plethora of sophisticated television cop shows (not to mention how many times they are rerun), jurors are more likely to pay attention during the trial to scientific information, and understand it better. On the other hand, it is becoming harder to get a conviction without DNA evidence. For example, just this week (end of March 2012), a man was found innocent of murdering his wife in a wide-publicized trial because all of the evidence against him – of which the police felt was sufficient and substantial – was circumstantial. One has to wonder if there may have been a different outcome pre-CSI.

As a strange choice, the narrator of this very serious documentary is legendary auteur-of-the-outcast-and-bizarre filmmaker John Waters (part of this documentary takes place in his beloved Baltimore, which is the locus of all his films). Waters is an admitted crime buff, so his interest in the topic is understandable. It was a brave choice to use him, but he does an outstanding job, without camping it up (and, I am proud to admit that I am a Waters’ fan). Each section of this release goes into detail about a particular Nutshell, with Waters describing the real-life circumstances that led to the death depicted in the dollhouse.

There are five extras included: the first is “John Waters on the Nutshells,” in which he describes what they mean to him, and how he sees them as a hidden (i.e., not public) art project (2:40). The second is “John Waters on Frances Glessner Lee,” where director Susan Marks interviews Waters, who jokingly refers to Lee as possibly having been “…a cop hag,” and how he is “intrigued by true crime treatise.” (2:30).

The third short is “The Patron Saint of Forensic Medicine,” which goes deeper into detail about Lee and her relationship to her Nutshells. For example, she hand-knit all the clothes, and it is explained that she was more interested in them being an aid to investigative thinking in processing evidence than actually solving the crimes they depict (5:30). The last of the films is “The Missing Nutshells,” which describes the two missing ones indicated above, and includes still pictures of them (1:00).

The last extra is a full-length film commentary, which is quite interesting, though occasionally frustrating. People who make films, listen up: If there are more than two people talking (there are four here), since we can’t see you, it is hard to tell who is saying what. No, we don’t necessarily want multiple commentary tracks; just make it as easy for us as possible, okay? Note I am saying this with a smile, and not a finger-point.

This is a film that is fascinating viewing, on a weird topic as its thread. Director Susan Marks keeps the pace steady and the topics interesting. As documentaries go, it never loses the audience’s attention while covering many topics, and yet is never obtuse, without talking down to its audience. It’s as much a cultural study about forensic science as it pertains to our perceptions as it is about Lee and her Nutshell Studies. Good viewing all the way around.

Musings on Broadcast Television in May 2009

Text © Robert Barry Francos
Images from the Internet

The 2008/09 broadcast television season is ending this month, and the collision of the new digital-only demand make a perfect storm of the best and the worst of what is out there. Due to this, I was having some random thoughts about the state of television. In no particular order:

• As a follower of Media Ecology, I found a particular point of interest in the last half hour of The Celebrity Apprentice, a show of which I’ve probably seen maybe two hours worth if you include all of its seasons. In the live finale, Donald Trump asked Clint Black whom he would fire if he had the power, and his response was, “The editor.” These two words say so much about what we know as Reality TV, but it was followed by the sounds of crickets as critics and talk shows ignored it, or missed its significance. It’s a perfect example of what Daniel J. Boorstin coined a “pseudo-event.”

• So far, since there are no other official candidates as of yet, we are being bombarded by commercials for Michael Bloomberg’s illegal run for a third term, even if his own board gave him permission. The people did not give him that, and in fact the voters have twice voted against third terms. It figures he would run though, because he has continually shown he does not care about the people of this city, except those few stockholders of corporate New York. He claims in the ad that he will fight against “special interests,” though he represents them. For example, we taxpayers paid for three stadiums in New York (one still to be built in a ruined historic neighborhood in Brooklyn), and yet we are charged exorbitant fees to attend them. When there was talk of him running for president, the first thing I said was, “Wow, just think of all the stadiums he could build across the country!” Another example of his being in bed with corporate greed was dealing with the closure of CBGB. There he was, in full photo opp mode as he stood there promoting the club, but when it came time to actually do anything for support, again, the sound of crickets. Sadly, he will probably win thanks to tall the people who believe his publicity, but I will not be one of them, as I was rightfully not twice before. Not my mayor, especially again.

• Also, I’ve had enough already with all the commercials for cable. Wonder where all high fees go each month? No commercial break, especially in daytime, passes without one of these better-get-it-or-else-if-you-want-television fear tactics. I just don’t want to see that bland guy in the blue sweater against the red walls in the background drone on, the whinny red headed guy with the beard, the three spinning hip-hop stooges, the gawd-awful Caribbean rap one, the one with the three women singing where the leader had bad make-up and looks like a clown-face, or the singing and conga-line dancing puppets, or any of the others. I now have to sit with the remote in my hand, ready to change the channel whenever these abominations come on.

• Who is that high-pitched Nathan Thurm look-alike guy who seems to be trying to hoodwink people on so many repeated infomercials? I turned on the television recently during the middle of the night when I had trouble sleeping and that half-hour ad was on four broadcast channels concurrently. Are really that many gullible or desperate people out there?

• Then there is Billy Mays, that guy with the beard who sells cleaning products by screaming. I’ve seen him interviewed on some infotainment show, and he was talking normally. Is he trying to replicate the guy who used to hock Crazy Eddie? Well, he doesn’t have the shtick or the personality. Talk normally or shut the hell up!

• For some reason, I do like the woman with tons of make-up who sells Progressive car insurance. Did you know actor Stephanie Courtney’s character has a name? It is Flo. Some of these ads are amusing, but it’s Flo who makes it interesting.

• A new show I like is The Big Bang Theory. While this season seems to be too focused on Sheldon’s neuroses and his companions’ fear of him rather than the group’s friendship, the show is still sharply written. I am hoping it does not become the Sheldon show, ignoring the other great characters, including some of the minor ones, like Leonard's rival from the comic store, the group’s competitor with the bad lisp, and especially Wallowitz’s unseen but definitely heard mother. BBT won me over when the foursome all dressed up as the Flash for a Halloween party, and Sheldon consequently went as the Doppler Effect. Also, they all have great comic genre t-shirts (though they are starting to repeat some of them). Some of my favorite moments from the season have included Penny’s shock when she uses a Star Trek metaphor, and when she matches Sheldon’s idiosyncratic door rapping rhythm back at him (both solo and in tandem). I am sorry they got rid of Sara Rule, though I realize in the story’s arc it was necessary.

• While I still like the original CSI (i.e., Vegas), I find Laurence Fishburne, though a fine actor, has really been slowing down the pace to a David Caruso drip. He’s a new CSI, yet he is already the authority on everything, going on solo cases, which makes no sense. That being said, there was an exceptional episode recently revolving around a “Solar Quest” convention (filling in for Star Trek. While they never mentioned any of the real characters or actors from the original show, during some fantasy sequences and the use of memorabilia, it was always obvious which particular episodes to which they were referring, even to a ST fan like me who is not a Trekker.

• Speaking of which, I recently turned on The View because Leonard Nimoy was going to be on to promote the new film, Star Trek. Seems a staff member of the show named Dave is a huge fan of all things Trek, but especially the original series. When Nimoy came on, he turned to him and said, fingers splayed, “Live long and prosper, Dave.” Dave, who gave the Hebraic-based sign back, was clearly in tears. It was a very nice and touching moment. By the way, did Nimoy get new teeth recently? His speech had a hard “shh” tone, like talking through some kind of dentures.

• Am I the only person who watches Reaper? The show has consistently been humorous, and a cast that keeps getting stronger. Yes, it is occasionally sophomoric, but it also has some thoughtful moments and themes. The introduction of Jenny Wade’s demon character, Nina, was a pleasant addition this year. I hope they don’t cancel it, when they keep all the other ‘tween romance bullshit on. This really is the only show on the CW I can stand.

• I am fully willing to admit that I didn’t appreciate Arrested Development, though I respected its work; however, the new animated show, Sit Down, Shut Up is just terrible. Hopefully, Cleveland will be better (I’m guessing it will fall somewhere between the exceedingly sharp Family Guy and the lukewarm American Dad).

• Someone should bring back The Uncle Floyd Show, already.