Political and poetic documentaries both exist in isolation of other. When considering them, one would consider the fact that they are almost completely at odds from each other; political documentaries are usually structured in a linear manner and focuses heavily on the presentation of factual information and serve as an intriguing experience as such. Contrastingly, poetic documentaries focus more on the aesthetics of the craft, often using unusual techniques to conjure a reaction from audiences. Whilst the two exist in different realms however, that is not to say that something cannot be both political and poetic. Many filmmakers have attempted to combine the two forms, with the focus of trying to provide content that demands emotional reaction from audiences, as well as guiding them through the topic at hand.

One prime example of this is the 1988 documentary by Errol Morris, “The Thin Blue Line”. Considered by many to be one of the greatest documentaries ever made, the film depicts the story of Randall Adams, a man convicted and sentenced to life in prison for a murder of a policeman he did not commit. Although the narrative at hand is about a man who is a victim of the system, it serves as a critique of the legal system of the United States, and attempts to explore how this verdict came to be after the trial. As such fits the political documentary role in the sense that the linear format of the film enables the viewer to understand the beginning and progression of the case as well as all the details, including how the real killer, David Harris, manages to escape punishment by the system. However Morris used techniques in the film that one would consider experimental for its time to evoke a sense of understanding as to the linear progression of the film. It was one of the first documentary films to contain re-enactment scenes, which are built from witness statements throughout the film. The audience would start to build knowledge of the case due to the experimental way these scenes panned out, so audiences would have a clear understanding of how it would occur. Even though the film recreates several versions of the shooting, it does not recreate one in which David Harris shoots the officer, the interpretation for which it argues is true.

Furthermore the style in which the film is shot, almost entirely through face-on camera interviews is a poetic decision by Morris, because it humanizes the complexities of the case by having the people who were involved tell it to the audience. The audience very much understands the mentality of the witnesses who testified in court through their grimaces and stone cold faces to the questioning of their knowledge of the situation.

Although the film focuses on the American justice system and the way in which it could condemn an innocent man to a crime punishable by death, without the elements of creative experimentation in the film, the linear progression would not necessarily have been evident nor would the audience be emotionally inclined to agree that Adams was innocent.