Blue Caprice (Moore, 2013)
I remember being eight years old and hearing about the D.C. sniper attacks on the radio. I didn't live anywhere near the area, but still my family talked about it like it was a local event. Everybody thought that it could happen to them. More often than not, that is the aim of terrorism. The relatively few lives that are claimed are intended to cause widespread panic. Blue Caprice examines the circumstances which birth these militaristic acts, the dangers of authority, as well as the one way mirror with which terrorism is often viewed.
Alexandre Moore's approach to biographic cinema is unconventional. By mostly avoiding the heinous acts which dominated headlines, he detracts from the intentions of the killers behind them. He successfully demystifies the would be bogeymen instead of feeding into their aura. While more traditional story telling might satisfy an audience to a greater degree, I think Moore's aims are more appropriate for material of this nature.
In the process of humanizing (declawing) the figures who carried out the attacks, Moore sets his sights on an antagonist that remains relevant in driving terrorism to this day: war. The events of the film play out in the periphery of a nation in the midst of a misguided war sparked by the greatest act of terror in its history. Moore forces the audience to challenge the cognitive dissonance which allows them to support a system which molds young men into weapons while simultaneously finding the actions onscreen repellent.
While Moore crafts an interesting film in theory, in practice the rules which it breaks hurt its appeal. That might say more about the way movies have shaped our expectations than about the quality of Blue Caprice, but it still rings true. Hitchcock's notorious comments on "surprise" versus "suspense" regarding the situation with a bomb under the table apply well here. Moore opted out of the dichotomy and instead documents how the bomb was made.
Addendum: My biggest gripe regarding the accuracy of the story being told are that Moore omits the role sexual abuse played in their relationship. While avoiding overly graphic violence serves a commendable purpose, leaving out the predatory nature of the mentor does nothing but minimize his actions.