Analysis of the Documentary Who Killed Dr. Bogle and Mrs. Chandler - Movie Review Example

Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Analysis of the Documentary Who Killed Dr Bogle and Mrs Chandler? (2006). Overview of the Documentary Who Killed Dr Bogle and Mrs Chandler? is a documentary about the unexplained deaths of Mrs Margaret Chandler and Dr Gilbert Bogle on the New Year’s Day of 1963 in Sydney, Australia. Written and directed by Australian documentary film producer Peter Butt, the documentary gives an account of how it was widely thought that the couple were murdered. However, as explained in the film, investigators from the police and other departments could not uncover or produce any evidence to suggest that the two were actually murdered. The documentary produces a new twist in the investigation when it presents some totally new evidence that could have caused the deaths of the couple. The twist in the documentary is that it avers that the key witness in the case, and which could have caused the death, is a river at the site of the deaths. The river is said to have been contaminated with hydrogen sulphide, which was released into the air, causing the deaths of Mrs Chandler and Dr Bogle, who were in a recreation park adjacent to the river at the time of their deaths. Analysis The documentary starts by noting that the discovery of the partially clothed bodies of renowned physicist Dr Gilbert Bogle and Mrs Margaret Chandler near Lane Cove River in Sydney, Australia, led to an unprecedented investigation into the cause of death of the couple. Using narration, exposition, dramatisation, direct commentary, and witness accounts, the documentary shows how NSW police and other detectives failed to uncover the cause of the deaths of Mrs Chandler and Dr Bogle, despite the involvement of many teams and witnesses. The documentary uses interviews of various witnesses and experts, archival footage inserted between various scenes, real-life re-enactments and background music. According to Caldwell, such features can evoke a particular feeling and make the story more convincing (140). The use of different camera positions when filming the interviewees involved in the documentary also affects how the audience will respond (Caldwell 140). The documentary employs an expository mode, where a narrator addresses the audience directly and presents an explanation or exposition, giving an account of what the audience is seeing on the screen (Kilborn and Izod 58). Through the expository mode, the narrator also interprets what the audience is seeing, in effect telling them what they should think in regard to the visual material before their eyes (Kilborn and Izod 58). The narrator, whether represented visually or not, acts as the ultimate interpretation of visual content being viewed by the audience. In addition, the images that are relayed during the narration are “edited in strict accordance with the dictates of the script” (Kilborn and Izod 59). In the documentary, exposition is clear because the narrator, acting in the voice-of-God mode because he is disembodied, explains what is happening in pictures running on the screen. The narrator’s voice and details are supported by different accounts given by various experts and witnesses who have information about the case, Mr Geoffrey Chandler, who was Mrs Chandler’s husband and perceived to be the main suspect in the case, as well as scenes of dramatisations of various events before and after the deaths. In Who Killed Dr Bogle and Mrs Chandler?, the narrator explains the events before the deaths of Mrs Chandler and Dr Bogle, how their dead bodies were found, and the events that took place after the deaths. It is noted that Dr Bogle and Mr Geoffrey Chandler worked in the same organisation. Dr Bogle, a scientist and musician, had met Mrs Chandler for the first time at a party ten days before their deaths occurred. They met again at another party on the day that they died. On both occasions, Mr. Chandler was present, and he describes the events that transpired on both occasions. This is supported by characterisation of the events that took place during the meetings. It is worth noting that the person that characterises Mr Chandler in the events of 1963 is a relatively young man whereas the real Mr. Chandler explaining details of what happened about four decades ago is an older man. The dramatisation and use of real witnesses makes the documentary story real and more interesting. In fact, one may think that the documentary was actually shot in 1963 given that young ‘Mr. Chandler’ is bearded and moustached, just like the real Mr. Chandler. According to the documentary, the deaths of Mrs Chandler and Dr Bogle elicited the interrogation of Mr Chandler since he was believed to be the main suspect, being the husband of Mrs Chandler. NSW police believed that Mr Chandler could have had something to do with the two deaths since he might have thought that his wife had an affair with Dr Bogle. This is supported by an account given by a detective when he notes that Mr Chandler obviously had to be the prime suspect. Similarly, Mr Chandler says he was interrogated in manner to suggest that he had something to do with the deaths. What was puzzling however is that the half-naked bodies of Mrs Chandler and Dr Bogle were neatly covered, and had no signs of struggle or injury caused by aggressors. Several forensic tests, including radioactivity tests, also did not show the presence of any harmful chemicals in the two bodies. Evidence of this is presented by some of the people who were involved in the investigation, including detective Ronald Rudgley and George Lindsay, a scientific detective. Other witnesses whose evidence is presented in the documentary include the dog trainer who sold dog worming tablets to Mrs Chandler and others who are believed to have seen and even covered the dead bodies. Because of the baffling lack of evidence of what caused the deaths of Dr Bogle and Mrs Chandler, the matter became a subject of speculation. The documentary shows evidence of various newspapers’ headlines addressing the issue. This is also supported by a direct account from Daily Mirror feature writer Gerald Stone, who wrote widely about the case. The documentary also highlights the theories that arose relating to the deaths, such as the theory of assassination of Dr Bogle due to his scientific research that involved governments, and the idea that Dr Bogle could have been killed because of his illicit affairs with several women. Several tendencies of documentary practice can be seen in Who Killed Dr Bogle and Mrs Chandler? According to Renov, in a documentary, there are four tendencies that the active voice uses in a “poesis” or “active making” role. These are “to record, reveal or preserve”; “to persuade or promote”; “to analyze or interrogate”; and “to express” (21). All these tendencies are used in the documentary by Peter Butt. It is clear from the beginning that the documentary aims to reveal the mystery behind the cause of the deaths of Dr Bogle and Mrs Chandler in spite of the fact that criminal and forensic investigations into the matter had failed to unravel the mystery. From the outset, the documentary highlights that the investigation was some kind of unfinished business, and that it intends to shed light on the unresolved business. To shed light on the subject matter, the documentary analyses the case from the time prior to the occurrence of the deaths of Dr Bogle and Mrs Chandler, on the day the two died, and the investigations that followed. It interrogates Mr Chandler and various experts such as George Lindsay, Gerald Stone, Ronald Rudgley, and toxicologist Vivian Mahoney among others. The fact that various experts give their side of the story regarding the case implies that much investigation was involved in compiling the details about the unprecedented investigation. As such, the documentary can persuade viewers that in spite of the high level of investigation that was conducted, the process failed to bear any fruit – the culprit that killed Dr Bogle and Mrs Chandler was never uncovered. More importantly, the documentary expresses reservations regarding the investigation that was conducted to identify the killer of Mrs Chandler and Dr Bogle. Towards the end of the documentary, it is revealed that some evidence that could have been used to help resolve the cause of the deaths was not considered in the investigations. This is the semen that was found on Dr Bogle’s clothes. It was withheld by the coroner probably because of the conservative nature of the society at that time as illustrated in the documentary. The key witness in the case turns out to be the river itself as the documentary asserts that it is the hydrogen sulphide gas produced in the river that could have killed Mrs Chandler and Dr Bogle. Again, this is supported by evidence from experts such as maritime scientist Maurice Fry and Thomas Milby, a toxicologist who investigated the Lane Cove River. Thomas Milby explains that hydrogen sulphide is denser than air and thus tends to be concentrated in areas close to where it is produced – the same spot where Mrs Chandler and Dr Bogle were having fun when they allegedly inhaled the noxious gas. This is further supported by the fact that on the day that the deaths occurred, the water was murky and some fish had died, meaning that the river had been contaminated with hydrogen sulphide. Conclusion In conclusion, the Who Killed Dr Bogle and Mrs Chandler? documentary used the expository mode to communicate its purpose. The voice-of-God narration in the film is supported by accounts of interviews with key witnesses, experts on the subject matter, newspaper archives, real-life re-enacted scenes, use of archival footage, and background music. Through these features, the documentary’s writer and director shows the tendencies of revealing an uncovered issue, analysing information in detail, persuading the audience, and expressing an opinion regarding the unresolved mystery that is of public interest. Works Cited Caldwell, Thomas. Film Analysis Handbook: Essential Guide to Understanding, Analysing and Writing on Film. St Kilda, Victoria: Insight Publications Pty Ltd. Kilborn, Richard and John Izod. An Introduction to Television Documentary: Confronting Reality. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997. Renov, Michael. “Towards a Poetics of Documentary”. Theorizing Documentary. Ed. Renov, Michael. London: Routldge, 1993. 12-36. Who Killed Dr Bogle and Mrs Chandler? (2006).   Read More

In Who Killed Dr Bogle and Mrs Chandler?, the narrator explains the events before the deaths of Mrs Chandler and Dr Bogle, how their dead bodies were found, and the events that took place after the deaths. It is noted that Dr Bogle and Mr Geoffrey Chandler worked in the same organisation. Dr Bogle, a scientist and musician, had met Mrs Chandler for the first time at a party ten days before their deaths occurred. They met again at another party on the day that they died. On both occasions, Mr. Chandler was present, and he describes the events that transpired on both occasions.

This is supported by characterisation of the events that took place during the meetings. It is worth noting that the person that characterises Mr Chandler in the events of 1963 is a relatively young man whereas the real Mr. Chandler explaining details of what happened about four decades ago is an older man. The dramatisation and use of real witnesses makes the documentary story real and more interesting. In fact, one may think that the documentary was actually shot in 1963 given that young ‘Mr.

Chandler’ is bearded and moustached, just like the real Mr. Chandler. According to the documentary, the deaths of Mrs Chandler and Dr Bogle elicited the interrogation of Mr Chandler since he was believed to be the main suspect, being the husband of Mrs Chandler. NSW police believed that Mr Chandler could have had something to do with the two deaths since he might have thought that his wife had an affair with Dr Bogle. This is supported by an account given by a detective when he notes that Mr Chandler obviously had to be the prime suspect.

Similarly, Mr Chandler says he was interrogated in manner to suggest that he had something to do with the deaths. What was puzzling however is that the half-naked bodies of Mrs Chandler and Dr Bogle were neatly covered, and had no signs of struggle or injury caused by aggressors. Several forensic tests, including radioactivity tests, also did not show the presence of any harmful chemicals in the two bodies. Evidence of this is presented by some of the people who were involved in the investigation, including detective Ronald Rudgley and George Lindsay, a scientific detective.

Other witnesses whose evidence is presented in the documentary include the dog trainer who sold dog worming tablets to Mrs Chandler and others who are believed to have seen and even covered the dead bodies. Because of the baffling lack of evidence of what caused the deaths of Dr Bogle and Mrs Chandler, the matter became a subject of speculation. The documentary shows evidence of various newspapers’ headlines addressing the issue. This is also supported by a direct account from Daily Mirror feature writer Gerald Stone, who wrote widely about the case.

The documentary also highlights the theories that arose relating to the deaths, such as the theory of assassination of Dr Bogle due to his scientific research that involved governments, and the idea that Dr Bogle could have been killed because of his illicit affairs with several women. Several tendencies of documentary practice can be seen in Who Killed Dr Bogle and Mrs Chandler? According to Renov, in a documentary, there are four tendencies that the active voice uses in a “poesis” or “active making” role.

These are “to record, reveal or preserve”; “to persuade or promote”; “to analyze or interrogate”; and “to express” (21). All these tendencies are used in the documentary by Peter Butt. It is clear from the beginning that the documentary aims to reveal the mystery behind the cause of the deaths of Dr Bogle and Mrs Chandler in spite of the fact that criminal and forensic investigations into the matter had failed to unravel the mystery. From the outset, the documentary highlights that the investigation was some kind of unfinished business, and that it intends to shed light on the unresolved business.

To shed light on the subject matter, the documentary analyses the case from the time prior to the occurrence of the deaths of Dr Bogle and Mrs Chandler, on the day the two died, and the investigations that followed.

Read More