The Perfect Neighbor

Over my many years I’ve had little interaction with the police. I’ve gotten two speeding tickets in over 50 years driving, we were burglarized and called the cops, and when I was a tiny girl my grandmother called the cops on the neighborhood kids stealing peaches off her tree. I remember the BIG gun on his hip, and how dismissive he was to her. I was little, she was my grandmother, I was a little traumatized at how he treated her.

I tell you this so you might understand where I’m coming from in this review. I don’t have automatic respect for police, but I’ve also never cussed one out or flipped them the finger. Also, I have watched youtubes of police acting badly. This made me used to seeing interactions from the view of the officer’s body camera, and how they can be cut together to create a narrative. This is also a case I was familiar with because of watching those police videos.

But, I don’t remember anyone creating an entire film solely from body camera video, 911 calls, and police interviews. I knew it was a terribly sad case but being a heartless reviewer, I was interested in the mechanics of it all. How well can a coherent film be cobbled together from only the side of the police officers’ body camera? Did the filmmakers accomplish that? Is there noticeable bias in the way it was put together, in either direction? Is the original video cut up so much that the story, or its believability might, be affected? Is this the kind of documentary we might see more of in the future? I had reasons beyond morbid curiosity to watch it, but I have to say, I still feel dirty for having done so.

The story is about the shooting death in summer of 2023 of Ajike Owens in Florida by her neighbor, Susan Lorincz. The original youtube that showed bits of police body camera video, that I had seen previous to watching the documentary, made a point of blaming the police for not doing enough, and for the care the police showed to the shooter, letting her go home for her cats and some personal things. They told the public they couldn’t arrest or hold the shooter because they were investigating. That astounding statement was so upsetting to me.

The youtube video that I saw, presented by a lawyer, is one of many this person has made, and they are almost entirely anti-police in the way they are presented to the viewer. I remember being skeptical of the lawyer’s angle because I knew of his bias, and thinking how the whole situation is utterly sad and wondering how it got so bad. Watching his videos also has made me more sensitive to how body camera video can be cut together in such a way as to make someone look bad.

After watching the documentary, I was left with more questions. Why wasn’t more done about a more than simple, continual and contentious, neighborhood dispute? Was there no offer of mediation after dozens of calls to the police? Did no one think to question the obviously weak mental health of the shooter? Maybe before she killed someone?

My takeaways from seeing very long stretches of police body camera video, of more than a couple of officers going to the neighborhood and getting versions of the same story repeatedly, was that the officers weren’t taking the situation seriously. It was an irritation to them and some mild intervention attempts. Almost all of the police officers were great with the kids, sympathetic and speaking to them with respect and the right level of seriousness for their age. That made me happy to see.

What didn’t I see? Conversation between the officers amongst themselves while on camera. What were they truly thinking about the situation? Did they think the woman who kept calling the cops on neighborhood kids was a loony toons jerk and nothing more? Did they want to read the kids the riot act for playing loudly on property that didn’t seem to belong to anyone, and blame them for having to come out repeatedly? I found that a really telling omission.

It’s a tricky, delicate business to get a story from raw drama, so not seeing anything beyond the police interactions with the antagonists made me think there was bias going on. I realize this is the hook from the filmmakers, since I don’t think the solely police body camera angle has been done before. But doesn’t that create a purely one sided view? They talked to people, but we only ever see it from the police point of view. Literally. Professional opinions would have helped this documentary, even if the whole idea is using this new kind of found footage.

I also didn’t see more than a brief interview with the victim, during one of the police visits to the neighborhood. I didn’t see as much interaction with the neighborhood people as with the shooter. Is that because the police spent significantly less time with the neighbors as with the shooter? Or is there more bias by omission going on?

Whew, that’s a lot of questions. My opinion on the whole thing is that the filmmakers are super sympathetic with the victim and her family and have made a biased documentary on the subject. Gaps and omissions in the whole story that, as you’ve noticed, left me with a lot of questions. The film shows the police in the best light possible, makes the shooter out to be unstable and that the killing was unjustified but apparently unavoidable. I feel like a better documentary would be to ask some of the questions I’ve asked in this review. How serious were the police in this ongoing dispute? Did anyone even look at the shooter’s mental health and maybe take into account the escalation in tension? Was there ever any advice from the government agents – police officers – about maybe seeking legal council to explain how the law would read the situation, or maybe even to invest in a ring doorbell evidence? Absolutely, I feel like the filmmakers could make a great case about how the legal system fails people. They also seemed afraid to get too much into the racial aspect of the case, and I think this is where some talking heads professionals could have helped. There was just a touch on Florida’s Stand Your Ground law that could have been made more understandable with some talking heads.

There I go with the multitude of questions. Basically, I think this shooting was a terrible tragedy. I think the victim was failed by the system for whatever reason or reasons. I’m happy the shooter was found guilty and will be safely away from society for a while. The documentary itself was disappointing to me. The use of body camera video seems more gimmick than improvement over storytelling, which is probably why I was left with a lot of questions and reservations. It remains to be seen whether this new technique will become important, or become a filmmaking footnote, like found footage movies beginning with The Blair Witch Project. Beyond feeling terrible about what happened to the victim, I was also saddened with the idea that it’s just too easy to create a narrative that seems deep, detailed and fair when it’s really not that.

Triggers: a woman is murdered

Available: Netflix

LINKS:

• The Perfect Neighbor – Netflix Official Site
• The Perfect Neighbor – IMDB
• The Perfect Neighbor – Wikipedia

CFR: In Addition:

Oh wow. So Cranky told me when she sent me this review that this documentary was depressing. I can see that from her review. Our justice system failig PoC? Word of sorry and rage fail me.

I eventually might watch it. I have a lot of grading to do. Then again, should I watch something that will make me angry when grading? You are right. Probably not.