series HBO Max, Stairs, have to bear the double pressure. On the one hand, to talk about the famous case of the death of Kathleen Peterson, analyzed in dozens of different aspects for more than a decade. On the other pole build a believable narrative about the various dimensions of crime which is still a mystery. But between the two things, the production must also find its own identity. Stepping back from Jean-Xavier de Lestrade’s 2004 documentary to delve into what no one should know about the crime. In other words, reinvent yourself as an independent story.
Despite the ambitions of creator Antonio Campos, Stairs it does not satisfy the idea of a new description of a known fact. The reconstruction has some deja vu late. Also from parts conveniently assembled to mimic the successful 2004 documentary, but without success.
The result is an unconvincing mixture of inevitable understanding of the motive for the murder and something more confusing. Why can someone kill? Are we all capable of this? The argument is not asked aloud, but hints that its purpose is to unravel such a dilemma. And to do so from a Manichaean perspective or perception that the guilty party is an obvious figure in the context of history.
After all, it can be. The high-profile murder case of Kathleen Peterson has a significant resonance in pop culture. The dilemma of a murderer hiding in the circle of relatives turned into a procedural nightmare in what seemed to be an accident. Michael Peterson, who claimed that his wife died in an accident, became a indirect perpetrator. HBO Max version with Stairs turns the transition from the horror of a painful incident to a lawsuit complete rule. And also, in an ambiguous view of reality. Do you have graduation to blame? Can a killer deny responsibility enough times to create a new scenario?
Again and again crime with two votes
Kathleen Peterson (Toni Collette) slides down the stairs and dies after hitting her head. This is the version of her husband Michael (Colin Firth) and everything seems to match his explanation. After all, the scene of the event responds to the meticulous details of the grieving survivor about what happened. Or no? The HBO Max series plays with the idea of creating a kaleidoscope of different versions of Kathleen’s death. And most of them lead to Michael. Cracks in your version, which suddenly became not so convincing. That little by little does not fit with the bloodstains, with the conjectures of the police. Especially with the burden of secrecy he carries on his back.
Stairs he risks substituting the fictional for the real in a complex game of mirrors without permission. But the ruse isn’t as effective when it’s expanded into a series of similar scenes in which different versions of the murder collide with each other. Could Kathleen have died in a simple accident, as Michael claims? The series spends a fair amount of time showing off the script, described over and over again by the accused. makeCould Kathleen have been the victim of an insidious murder? There are also scenes where the criminal intent is much more obvious, where Michael’s manipulation is obvious. So the question is inevitable and, perhaps because it’s obvious, tedious. Really? What does it mean to try to present a premise based on a case in which the truth has become a complex and increasingly confusing legal process?
The HBO Max series struggles to extrapolate the idea of reality to fiction, which in turn mimics what could have happened. Of course, this is a dilemma and a trap that the dispute falls into more than once. Try to reconstruct Kathleen’s crime in all available versions? Or is it just a game of cat and mouse riddled with inconsistencies? whatever the answer Stairs can’t build a convincing idea of what it’s bringing up. And for the third re-creation of the victim’s death, the question boils down to an uncomfortable idea. Does the script try to create a sense of confusing unreality, or does it just bypass the main point about Michael’s guilt?
Stairs: no answers, no meaning, no form
In a documentary version released in 2004, Kathleen Peterson’s story thrilled French audiences. Director Jean-Xavier de Lestrade recounted the chaotic trial with depressing narrowness. In addition, the way the culture judged Michael, and even the possibility of his innocence, were questioned. All of this, without making a value judgment or even more so, introduces some sort of bias into the narrative. Such a story prodigy allowed the documentary to become a benchmark for storytelling based on real events. Also in connection the idea of a crime turned into an event.
Maybe that’s why, Stairs HBO Max looks dull by contrast.. The script fails to build such a solid foundation, much less a story strong enough to reveal the secrets of an ambiguous fact. Full of cracks and weaknesses, the argument is more interested in showing that the law can go wrong. But no, Michael could just be the victim of unexplained events. The thread that connects both ideas is a twisted version of the truth. One that does not survive, let alone be maintained, and which is ultimately just a complex web between the plausible and the obvious. The lowest point of the site.
Source: Hiper Textual
