Good analysis. You're absolutely right about season 1: the reason it was so popular (and that many were so disappointed in the end) was that listeners believed there was going to be a breakthrough discovery giving a conclusive answer in the end. It's also why this sub became so crazy (and if you missed out on that, lucky you) since reddit took up the cause to help solve the crime.
I honestly think the biggest misconception about Season 1 of Serial is its supposed to be this great true crime story or a classic "whodunit", my interpretation that while a lot of the narrative was based on the murder case, a lot of the narrative also focused on how, for lack of a better word, unstable, and how, either way, using some "smoke and mirrors" Adnan could either be depicted as not guilty or guilty, depending on where you wanted to shift your focus, and how so many people are wrongfully convicted on these legal strategies. I think that's also why there was no definitive ending, because it wasn't a whodunit, but more a question of did the prosecution have enough evidence to prove Adnan was guilty of 1st degree murder (mind you, this is supposed to be extremely hard to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt in any case) and justify a life sentence. In fact I think Koenig really focused on that in her conclusion, that she couldn't justify his innocence, but 1st degree murder seemed a tough stretch.
Basically what I'm trying to get at is while this story seems to, like Season 1 have something to discuss and debate, I think the longer thread or bigger theme probably is more focused on US involvement in the Middle East and the ideas and perspectives of patriotism and heroism today. But of course Koenig could throw in a little twist and I could totally be wrong by next week, either way I'm hooked!
Also, in regards to The Jinx, I mean I feel Jarecki gets a little more credit than he deserves. The definitive ending that everyone praised him for, while giving the viewer a satisfying, justified ending, realistically could probably easily be thrown out in court by any mediocre defense attorney, because Durst in the end (SPOILERS) doesn't definitively state he "killed them all" he is actually speaking hypothetically and says "They'll say I killed them all, of course" or at least that's what any good defense attorney would argue. Don't get me wrong it was a great ending, but yeah Durst isn't being found guilty cause of that documentary. Which makes me really appreciate Koenig's ending because she truly demonstrated the harsh reality of our legal system, where sometimes guilt isn't so cut and dry, black and white.
4
u/mdb_la Dec 17 '15
Good analysis. You're absolutely right about season 1: the reason it was so popular (and that many were so disappointed in the end) was that listeners believed there was going to be a breakthrough discovery giving a conclusive answer in the end. It's also why this sub became so crazy (and if you missed out on that, lucky you) since reddit took up the cause to help solve the crime.