Plausible deniability?

First: this is not another post to debate Carter's guilt or innocence. I mention "plausible deniability" as something that might be applicable to the film's director Norman Jewison's handling of Carter's story, as it's depicted in Jewison's film.

Also: I did look for this subject, but couldn't find it anywhere. If I missed it, my apologies to the person who's already brought it up here on this board.

Anyway... Specifically, I'm intrigued by the way Jewison intersperses shots of Hurricane's hands, typing up his story, as a personal narrative of the events unfolding on screen. Does anyone feel as though this is, possibly, Jewison's way of distancing himself from whether or not the story his film tells is actually factual?

I'm hoping that some film buff, or maybe even an industry insider, might be able to shed some light on this for me... But I know this topic is too obscure or esoteric for most folks -- so I'm expecting it to go unanswered...

But, it's worth a shot...

Basically, I'm saying that, yes, it's obvious that Jewison gives us an idealized, romanticized and at least partially fictionalized depiction of the Rubin "Hurricane" Carter story. Maybe Jewison truly believed, then -- or even still believes -- Carter's version of events. However, IMHO, those typewriter shots succeed in giving Jewison solidly plausible deniability as regards any assertion that Jewison was "duped," or that he is flagrantly promoting some "Hollywood liberal agenda," or any other personal attack on either his intelligence or his integrity.

IMHO, the typewriter shots amount to director Jewison telling us: "This film is a dramatization of Rubin "Hurricane" Carter's own account of his life's story. Take it for what it is: just that and nothing more."




Quid novi? Vidistine nuper imagines moventes bonas?