In the event you’re the form of television viewer — like me — who watches true-crime documentaries and spends the entire time wondering exactly the way you’re being manipulated, this week brings a chance to peek behind the scenes.
It is available in the shape of two pretty good series, one released last 12 months and one which premiered in America on Thursday, a few harrowing and seemingly limitless case, the 1996 murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier at her vacation home on the southern coast of Ireland.
The case has so lots of the ingredients of true-crime fascination that it hardly seems real. The victim was beautiful, demi-famous (her husband, Daniel, was a number one French film producer) and removed from home in a haunting, dramatic landscape. The killing, two days before Christmas, was brutal and without eyewitnesses.
A suspect, a contract journalist named Ian Bailey who aggressively reported on the murder, was arrested twice by police and released for gratis each times by prosecutors. The investigation by the Garda, Ireland’s national police force, was dogged by charges of incompetence and corruption. Bailey went to court twice, suing a gaggle of newspapers after which the police; he lost every time, cementing his status in the general public mind as a murderer who got away with it.
Meanwhile, Toscan du Plantier’s bereaved relations were waiting impatiently in France for Ireland to search out her killer. Utterly convinced of Bailey’s guilt, they pushed to have him tried in absentia in France, where he was convicted and sentenced to 25 years. Arrested once more by the Garda, he was freed once more by the Irish state, which refused to extradite him. That’s where things stand today, 1 / 4 century after the murder.
It’s loads. I actually have all of it in my head since it’s all covered, coherently and dramatically, in each the three-episode “Sophie: A Murder in West Cork,” which got here to Netflix last 12 months, and the five-episode “Murder on the Cottage: The Seek for Justice for Sophie,” premiering on the boutique streamer Topic after its broadcast last 12 months in Britain.
But while the 2 tell the identical story overall, they leave you with very different feelings about Ian Bailey. At the top of “Sophie,” you’re liable to see him as a wierd and off-putting figure and be reasonably convinced of his guilt. At the top of “Murder on the Cottage,” you’re more more likely to see his guilt as possible but not proven and to weigh his eccentric behavior against the undeniable toll the case has taken on him, guilty or not.
A few of this difference has to do, as you’d expect, with selection and emphasis. Suggestions that the victim knew Bailey, which he denies, receive more of an airing in “Sophie.” A report of a speeding Ford Fiesta, driver unknown, near the victim’s house on the night of the murder appears only in “Murder on the Cottage.” There are lots of other examples.
Much more of it has to do with representation. “Sophie” hews closer to the point of view of Toscan du Plantier’s parents, son and other relatives, interviewing them extensively and closely tracking their crusade. The principal characters in “Murder on the Cottage” are Bailey and his steadfast romantic partner through many of the case, Jules Thomas. (The victim’s relations were interviewed for “Murder on the Cottage” but asked that the footage be removed after previewing the series; they seem in archival interviews.)
But perhaps a very powerful element is provenance. “Sophie,” directed by John Dower (“Thrilla in Manila”), is a solid example of the Netflix form of true crime. It’s pitched toward drama and surprise, without being overtly sensational; it’s polished and crisp but not noticeably inventive or inquisitive, being more concerned with packaging the story’s elements into a well-recognized, easily digestible form.
And its focus is on guilt — on identifying a suspect or suspects and making a case. That’s the M.O. of most true crime, to assume the role of prosecutor and to heighten the emotions of we, the jury, and guide them in a selected direction. Within the case of “Sophie,” the best direction — and possibly the proper one — is toward Bailey’s guilt.
But guilt will not be the central query in “Murder on the Cottage,” which fills the necessities of the true-crime documentary without being captive to the format. It’s, within the descriptive sense, a murals, written and directed by the gifted Irish filmmaker Jim Sheridan, who appears onscreen as narrator, interviewer and spirit guide. It is usually clearly a passion project, one which Sheridan had been working on since at the very least 2015, and also you wonder about its relationship to his film profession, which had an excellent early run — “My Left Foot,” “Within the Name of the Father,” “In America” — but petered out during the last decade.
Within the Netflix series, information is expertly arranged to embody an existing story, one which had already been told through the media through the years, and to agree with an existing moral calculus. In “Murder on the Cottage,” Sheridan goes in the hunt for a story that may make sense of the maddening events. His approach is definitely more straightforward than that of “Sophie,” which jumps around in time to heighten surprise. He goes station to station, chronologically, sacrificing some drama for the sake of clarity.
His progress is driven by his own ideas and feelings, in ways in which work against easy answers or epiphanies. He can’t contain his irritation at what he sees because the shoddy and possibly unscrupulous work of the Garda, or the highhanded actions of the French court. But he’s scrupulous relating to maintaining perspective. At an important moment, a journalist comes onscreen to indicate that there isn’t any reason that “the Garda is corrupt” and “Ian Bailey is guilty” can’t each be true. (This summer the Garda announced it could officially review the case.)
More problematically — actually for Toscan du Plantier’s family — he has the storyteller’s eye for character, and the erratic, imposing, undeniably charismatic Bailey holds the screen in a way that the buttoned down, pensive relations don’t. Sheridan and Bailey clearly became close through the years of filming — throughout the French trial, Sheridan telephones updates to Bailey, purportedly to get his responses on film — and surely Sheridan knows that the screen time and the intimacy will generate sympathy for the accused killer. But Sheridan is just following the story to where his instincts, and the circumstances, lead him.
Along the way in which, viewers will benefit from the textures Sheridan brings to a genre that is mostly executed by the numbers. On a pictorial level, visually and rhythmically, the series is a pleasure. And concepts emerge and mix with an unaccustomed subtlety. Early within the series, Bailey says, “It’s difficult, the gap between knowing something and having the ability to prove” it. Several episodes later, when the lead cop on the case talks about feeling helpless within the face of accusations of corruption, it hits you that his criticism is identical as Bailey’s.
Other selections of Sheridan’s are more immediate and vivid, similar to a shot of Bailey pulling out one among his own teeth with a pliers that’s paired with a discussion of the French court’s description of him as borderline psychotic. But again, it’s complicated: It could possibly be evidence of psychosis, or it could simply be evidence of a high-pitched, theatrical personality that turns people against him.
In a rumination near the top of the series, Sheridan addresses the uncertainties of the story and of his part in it: “Is he able to murder? Aren’t all of us? Is he guilty? I don’t know. I don’t think we will say needless to say.” If “Murder on the Cottage” will not be, at the top of the day, something greater than a very well made and nuanced example of the true-crime series, it’s due to one other query Sheridan leaves unanswered: why he cares a lot.
He hints at a private connection and talks about his rage at the shortage of justice for Toscan du Plantier, but there’s something missing, a level of emotion that will justify the trouble. We may yet get the reply, as he’s reportedly still following the case.