Desaparecida: El caso Lucie Blackman

The only thing I could personally think of throughout the entire thing was who in their right mind would let their 21 year old daughter go across the world to completely unknown place to work in a hardly legal semi anonymous dark place baiting old men for money, knowingly putting themselves in harm's ways.

The fact that the father never addressed that is baffling. World must had felt a safer place 20 years ago when no parent questioned this. I find this beyond comprehension. The fact that she disappeared less than a month into a job is scary. These are the issues that should had been addressed.

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.

Internationally known as "Missing: The Lucie Blackman Csse", this is a feature-length documentary of a true crime case. Taking place in 2000's Japan, a 21-year british girl has gone missing in Tokyo. This documentary gives an overview of the facts that happened since she went missing.

What makes this true crime documentary interesting is not only the large (inter-)national attention that the case a caught in the 2000's, but also how exactly her father was able to gain all the attention and thereby pressure the japanese police to take all the actions possible to push this case forward. In my opinion, it is exactly this pressure that got this case eventually solved.

The documentary is based on (1) interviews with many involved parties - e.g. Family, press, police, (forensic) investigators - combined with (2) footage from 2000 that was taped during the course of the investigation, and (3) newly recorded footage on-site. It is an attractive combination of material that gives the viewer an overview of many relevant facts of the investigation that took place. Unfortunately, we get to see practically nothing of the trial(s) itself.

What I found missing in this documentary, is more information on whom exactly Lucie Blackman was. Yes, we get some information on her having been a stewardess and now a hostess in Japan. But other than that, we only get to see a photo of how she looked. It would have been more fair to her, if the documentary would have put more time in describing her youth, interests and upbringing. Some interviews with former friends would have given the viewer some emotional connection with her.

What I also would have liked to see, is more information on the "profession" of being a hostess in Japan. This topic was only covered very shortly by interviews with two authors that wrote a book on this profession. These short interviews got me as viewer left with more questions than answers - a fact that I think other viewers will also experience.

Summarizing, I found the documentary an interesting watch. For someone interested in true crime, it will also give an idea of how cases are investigated in Japan. As such, I award this documentary a score of 7.2/10, thereby making it a 7-star IMDb rating.

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!

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.