'On Death Row' Is Odd, Incisive, and Unsettling

On Death Row shows how violence -- however chaotic or planned -- is a function of systems and cycles, not only individual pathologies.

On Death Row

Airtime: Fridays, 10pm ET
Cast: James Barnes, Linda Carty, Joseph Garcia, George Rivas
Subtitle: Series Premiere
Network: Investigation Discovery
Director: Werner Herzog
Air date: 2012-03-09

Sometimes, James Barnes says, a bird nests in a window for a few days. He's describing his daily existence for Werner Herzog, who wonders, "How big of an event is that?" Barnes nods. The question makes sense to him, a Florida prison inmate since 1998, and currently on death row. Though some of his fellow prisoners "can't stand that it's making a noise," he takes pleasure in it, a sign of the world beyond the walls around him. "I love the rain," he adds, "I love when I can her it beat." Herzog presses: when was the last time you felt the rain, he asks. It was 2002, recalls Barnes. "So," concludes Herzog, from off-screen. "Eight years ago, you had rain on you."

It’s a simple enough story. But it's also utterly complicated, typical of the kinds of stories Herzog solicits from his interview subjects in On Death Row, a four-part series that premieres on Investigation Discovery on 9 March. Following his documentary Into the Abyss, the filmmaker turns again to the horror he feels toward the American death penalty. He opens each episode in the same way: "As a German coming from a different historical background, and being a guest in the United States," he says, "I respectfully disagree with capital punishment." This as the camera hovers near a death chamber, floating by Bibles on a table, intimating the system's pervasive moral and spiritual hypocrisies.

As Herzog interviews each inmate, he remains off camera, his hovering presence indicated by his unmistakable voice and phrasing, his ability to trust in his subjects in any given moment even as he realizes -- and articulates -- the likelihood that they would lie to him, intentionally or not. He tells Barnes on their meeting, "Even though I might be sympathizing with your quest to have procedural injustices corrected in your case, it does not necessarily mean that I have to like you." Barnes answers, though he doesn't have to: "Correct."

This exchange typifies the dynamic between Herzog and his subjects, who include the inmates, some, like Barnes, quite open about their crimes and circumstances, and others, like Joseph Garcia or Linda Carty -- on death row in Texas, under Governor Rick Perry -- absolutely rejecting the guilty verdict. He also speaks with detectives and lawyers and relatives. All of them speak to Herzog as a kind of confessor, detailing their own cases, explaining what went wrong or how they've come to their current places, or more accurately, their sense of being out of place. Herzog listens and interjects his own helpfully perverse insights. (That these insights are punctuated by Paula Zahn's post-commercial break re-introductions is only more disconcerting, Paula Zahn seeming the most out-of-place person on the planet in her Investigation Discovery gig.)

For Barnes, this relationship means telling a bit of his life story, which he does with unnerving elegance. "I was one of those that wasn’t wired like everybody else. I needed constant supervision," he says, now. That is, now after you know that he's a serial murderer. Seated in an undecorated visiting room and wearing an orange jumpsuit, Barnes appears at once serene and ever agitated, self-aware and doing his best not to think about his dreadful future and the horrors he's committed.

By the time he's done confessing to Herzog -- and opening up possibilities for unsolved cases -- you're as uneasy with him as Herzog sounds. To commit one murder, the one for which he was sentenced to death, he hid naked in a woman's closet and, Herzog narrates over footage of the crime scene, "He watched her as she did household chores and watched TV," finally beating her with a hammer and then setting her bed on fire (vividly evoked by crime scene photos of the charred aftermath). The show never backs off the monstrosity of the crimes that send someone to death row. But it quietly presses the question as to how the penalty can help anyone. "This is what I've done," says Barnes, "This is what happened in this case and now I'm going to be executed."

When Herzog asks how Barnes can live with the idea that he has a set date to die, Barnes notes that it's a "very specific situation," for it's not only the date but also the stories about what goes wrong in the lethal injection process. "Mentally and psychologically, it comes with a lot of anxiety," he says. "Whether the procedure is working properly or not, once they start it, it has to be finished," he says.

Or not. As Herzog points out, indirectly as well as directly, the death penalty rarely leads to resolution. Even if, as Barnes asserts, his action "was very ugly, it was very brutal, it was very messy, and there's no way to take it back," the system that's supposed to restore order only makes a bigger mess. Herzog discusses this question with lawyers (as the death penalty is not a deterrent, the "only support for it is retribution") and relatives. As Barnes' twin sister Jeannice remembers their difficult childhood, their abusive father, her brother's fear and pain, the camera zooms in on the father's face in a photo, eerily like James' but also not, suggesting that he's a source for all the trouble. (When Herzog asks the self-described "bad girl" Jeannice why she won't be traveling to Florida to see her brother before he dis, she says, "I think I might have a warrant down there for a misdemeanor.")

The zoom into the smiling dad in the photo suggests as well that such violence -- however chaotic or planned -- is a function of systems and cycles, not only individual pathologies. But even as this is the political and ethical point of On Death Row, the series lays out as well the specific effects on specific people. And this, after all, is the great cost of capital punishment, the effects on everyone involved with it in so many ways.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.