The Netflix documentary “The Truth About Jussie Smollett?” promises to dissect a complicated case, but according to a recent review, delivers only ‘Utter Nonsense.’ The documentary, from the creators of “The Tinder Swindler,” re-examines the alleged 2019 hate crime involving actor Jussie Smollett, and the subsequent accusations that he staged the entire event. The Guardian’s review suggests the documentary fails to provide credible evidence for its more sensational claims, deeming it an exercise in “icky, irresponsible television.”
Smollett’s Story Under Scrutiny
The core of the controversy revolves around Jussie Smollett’s initial claim that he was the victim of a hate crime in January 2019. He reported being attacked by two men who allegedly hurled racial and homophobic slurs, poured bleach on him, and placed a noose around his neck. The alleged incident sparked widespread outrage and prompted a large-scale police investigation.
However, the narrative quickly shifted as Chicago police began to uncover inconsistencies in Smollett’s account. The Guardian’s review highlights that the documentary itself includes testimonies from Chicago police outlining these discrepancies. These inconsistencies ultimately led investigators to suspect that Smollett had orchestrated the attack with the help of two brothers, Abimbola and Olabinjo Osundairo.
Netflix’s “Truth” or Sensationalism?
The documentary seemingly teases a different angle, suggesting a possible conspiracy within the Chicago criminal justice system to frame Smollett. The review in The Guardian strongly refutes this premise, labeling it as “bold, shocking – and utter nonsense.” The core criticism lies in the documentary’s alleged failure to provide substantial evidence to support such a claim. Instead, the review argues that the documentary relies on flimsy arguments and questionable sources to create a sensationalized narrative.
Questionable Authorities
One of the key concerns raised by The Guardian’s review is the credibility of some of the individuals presented as “authorities” on the case within the documentary. The review describes their contributions as too lightweight, implying that they lack the expertise or inside knowledge necessary to offer meaningful insights into the complexities of the case. This raises questions about the documentary’s overall objectivity and its commitment to presenting a balanced and well-researched account of events.
Smollett’s Defense and the Steroid Claim
Despite the overwhelming evidence presented against him, Jussie Smollett has consistently maintained his innocence. The documentary includes an interview with Smollett himself, where he reiterates his claim that he was indeed the victim of a hate crime. He attempts to explain a check written to the Osundairo brothers, claiming it was for herbal steroids, a claim that has been widely disputed.
The review points out the inherent implausibility of this explanation, given the other evidence presented in the case. It highlights the challenge the documentary faces in reconciling Smollett’s continued denials with the findings of the Chicago police investigation and the testimony of the Osundairo brothers, who confessed to participating in the staged attack.
Lack of Compelling Evidence
The central argument of The Guardian’s review is that the documentary fails to provide any compelling evidence to support its insinuation of a conspiracy against Jussie Smollett. While the documentary may raise questions and present alternative perspectives, it ultimately falls short of offering a credible counter-narrative to the established facts of the case.
According to the review, the documentary relies heavily on speculation and conjecture, rather than on concrete evidence or verifiable information. This lack of evidentiary support undermines the documentary’s credibility and reinforces the reviewer’s conclusion that it is ultimately “icky, irresponsible television.”
The Verdict: “Utter Nonsense” Prevails
In conclusion, The Guardian’s review paints a damning picture of “The Truth About Jussie Smollett?” documentary. It criticizes the documentary for its flimsy arguments, questionable sources, and lack of compelling evidence to support its sensational claims. By branding the documentary as “utter nonsense,” the review effectively dismisses its attempt to rewrite the narrative surrounding the Jussie Smollett case, instead reinforcing the widely held belief that Smollett orchestrated the alleged hate crime.
