Verschwunden - Der Fall Lucie Blackman
Originaltitel: Keishichô sôsaikka rûshî burakku man jiken
IMDb-BEWERTUNG
6,4/10
4139
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Das Verschwinden der 21-jährigen Lucie Blackman am 1. Juli 2000 in Tokio entfachte internationale Ermittlungen und einen unnachgiebigen Kampf für Gerechtigkeit.Das Verschwinden der 21-jährigen Lucie Blackman am 1. Juli 2000 in Tokio entfachte internationale Ermittlungen und einen unnachgiebigen Kampf für Gerechtigkeit.Das Verschwinden der 21-jährigen Lucie Blackman am 1. Juli 2000 in Tokio entfachte internationale Ermittlungen und einen unnachgiebigen Kampf für Gerechtigkeit.
Lucie Blackman
- Self
- (Archivfilmmaterial)
Sophie Blackman
- Self - Lucie's Sister
- (Archivfilmmaterial)
Tony Blair
- Self - Former Prime Minister of England
- (Archivfilmmaterial)
Graham Norton
- Self
- (Archivfilmmaterial)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
Shamelessly disregarding the clumsiness and stupidity of the Japanese police, never talking about the phone calls Philippe recieved on the first day of Lucie missing and police not bothering to trace ,nor about the £450,000 (in 2006) Tim Blackman received to "forgive" Obara. Why was no one else from Lucie's friends and family interviewed? Why was Caritas liver biopsied 15 years later? Why only the people that walked over her blood were there? Why was there no mention of the phone calls Lucie made on the day to inform her friend of her whereabouts which the police decided to ignore? Utterly biased and shamelessly fooling!
This is obviously a tragic case, the anguish and desperation are perfectly understandable.
However, the attitude? Why do British nationals so often behave like this in an international setting? From British journalists throwing stereotypical comments about another culture, to Tim Blackman's initial disrespect and antagonistic attitude to random Japanese people/cops who are just trying to go about their lives. Again, it's a serious case, and it's understandable that certain standard behavior is out-of-the-window here, but trying to stick your posters anywhere then giving an officer a hard time for nicely telling him not to?
Imagine a foreigner who made a scene in London after their hostess daughter went missing. They then tried to stick posters everywhere downtown, then their entourage of journalists/friends throw stereotypical comments like "oh you know the Brits, they may seem reserved, but there's a dark side under the belly," sneering at the police instead of trying to engage with them first... they might be tackled to the ground forthwith, let alone being given big platforms to present their case to the media and being allowed to do whatever they want (including setting up a hotline, which the Tokyo Met claims might interfere with investigation), all the while with many locals offering assistance.
Look, not suggesting that the Tokyo Met is beyond reproach here, all police forces are flawed, including the Scotland Yard, and their actions deserve scrutiny. Just saying that a sense of self-entitlement isn't going to help anything.
However, the attitude? Why do British nationals so often behave like this in an international setting? From British journalists throwing stereotypical comments about another culture, to Tim Blackman's initial disrespect and antagonistic attitude to random Japanese people/cops who are just trying to go about their lives. Again, it's a serious case, and it's understandable that certain standard behavior is out-of-the-window here, but trying to stick your posters anywhere then giving an officer a hard time for nicely telling him not to?
Imagine a foreigner who made a scene in London after their hostess daughter went missing. They then tried to stick posters everywhere downtown, then their entourage of journalists/friends throw stereotypical comments like "oh you know the Brits, they may seem reserved, but there's a dark side under the belly," sneering at the police instead of trying to engage with them first... they might be tackled to the ground forthwith, let alone being given big platforms to present their case to the media and being allowed to do whatever they want (including setting up a hotline, which the Tokyo Met claims might interfere with investigation), all the while with many locals offering assistance.
Look, not suggesting that the Tokyo Met is beyond reproach here, all police forces are flawed, including the Scotland Yard, and their actions deserve scrutiny. Just saying that a sense of self-entitlement isn't going to help anything.
This is a very well done and compelling true crime documentary about the disappearance of a British foreign National in Japan who becomes the linchpin for the investigation into sexual deviance and sexual crime in Japan. The case unveiled a look at how The Japanese police treated sex crimes and crimes against foreigners. The show features archival footage, contemporary interviews, and documents associated with the case. Jake Adelstein, the subject of HOB's Tokyo Vice, is featured as a Western reporter with intimate knowledge of Japan and the Japanese police. The show is good. It is sad, but good. The show has a lot of cultural undertones, and it is tight as far as documentaries go.
There is a movie called the "earthquake bird" that takes a really similar tone and everything to this story and even worst because this is real life, the story of lucie was tragic indeed but there are so many others with stories similar to this one and no voice to speak up i think netflix should be doing more documentaries like this so we know about those sad cases there is a similiar active case about a 21 year old girl that flew to japan 16 years ago with a one way ticket and never return to this day no one knows anything about her i there are thousands stories like this we need more, but i agree that we needed to know more about lucie who she was.
There's been a sort of backlash against true crime sensationalism lately, to the sort of degree where there's been an intentional shift towards a focus on the victims of crime rather than the criminals or police. Though even that has gradually started to see this leading to exploitation.
This documentary goes a very odd route by seemingly avoiding the victim to a large degree. Lucie Blackman's disappearance is the driving force here, but from the very start we are essentially following the police and their investigation. We don't know who Lucie Blackman is, what she was doing before she disappeared, who she knew, anything that a typical documentary would, setting up the person, brief backstory, then their disappearance and then the investigation.
Instead we jump straight into the investigation. At the same time, focus is being given to Lucie's father who apparently has to harangue the police into actually investigating this as a crime.
Even from there there's not much actually going on in terms of a narrative here around Lucie Blackman. We're shown her father railing against the cops and their apparent ineptitude but we never actually see or hear how they are mishandling the case at first.
Once the cops start down the case, leads are picked up on and followed but we aren't very clear in terms of how said leads were picked up on and how they even relate to the Blackman case, possibly in large part because we skipped over the basic facts of the case and started the documentary with her already missing and without ever really looking back into the "who what where why how" of her actual disappearance.
This is a documentary, so it's supposed to be informative first, with the entertainment aspect being a sort of uncomfortable pushed-aside element that is implied but never made obvious.
Because of this, it's hard to review a documentary, since critiquing it for being boring or otherwise not entertaining is kind of missing the point and a lot like critiquing the news for constantly moving on to new topics of reporting and discussion.
As a result, my problem with this documentary isn't with the entertainment but with the information given. Namely, we aren't given a lot of information. As mentioned, they start off 3 days after the disappearance, and don't give us the starting facts that almost every missing persons case starts with. As well, when we're being told about certain things, we aren't actually shown enough information that would support what is being shown.
As an example, at one point we are told about a trial and the results of a trial. However we are not given any information as to why the result of the trial ended up how it went, particularly considering that we went along with the discovery of the key bits of evidence with the police. Why did this happen? Why did it fail? From just this documentary alone, we don't know.
This documentary goes a very odd route by seemingly avoiding the victim to a large degree. Lucie Blackman's disappearance is the driving force here, but from the very start we are essentially following the police and their investigation. We don't know who Lucie Blackman is, what she was doing before she disappeared, who she knew, anything that a typical documentary would, setting up the person, brief backstory, then their disappearance and then the investigation.
Instead we jump straight into the investigation. At the same time, focus is being given to Lucie's father who apparently has to harangue the police into actually investigating this as a crime.
Even from there there's not much actually going on in terms of a narrative here around Lucie Blackman. We're shown her father railing against the cops and their apparent ineptitude but we never actually see or hear how they are mishandling the case at first.
Once the cops start down the case, leads are picked up on and followed but we aren't very clear in terms of how said leads were picked up on and how they even relate to the Blackman case, possibly in large part because we skipped over the basic facts of the case and started the documentary with her already missing and without ever really looking back into the "who what where why how" of her actual disappearance.
This is a documentary, so it's supposed to be informative first, with the entertainment aspect being a sort of uncomfortable pushed-aside element that is implied but never made obvious.
Because of this, it's hard to review a documentary, since critiquing it for being boring or otherwise not entertaining is kind of missing the point and a lot like critiquing the news for constantly moving on to new topics of reporting and discussion.
As a result, my problem with this documentary isn't with the entertainment but with the information given. Namely, we aren't given a lot of information. As mentioned, they start off 3 days after the disappearance, and don't give us the starting facts that almost every missing persons case starts with. As well, when we're being told about certain things, we aren't actually shown enough information that would support what is being shown.
As an example, at one point we are told about a trial and the results of a trial. However we are not given any information as to why the result of the trial ended up how it went, particularly considering that we went along with the discovery of the key bits of evidence with the police. Why did this happen? Why did it fail? From just this documentary alone, we don't know.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesNetflix's first documentary film from Singapore.
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is Missing: The Lucie Blackman Case?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsländer
- Offizieller Standort
- Sprachen
- Auch bekannt als
- Missing: The Lucie Blackman Case
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
- Laufzeit
- 1 Std. 23 Min.(83 min)
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen