GIRL IN THE PICTURE. Yes, It Leaves an Impression

Replacing other non-fiction productions that continuously fill streaming platforms’ libraries month after month, out of nowhere Girl in the Picture suddenly becomes a widely discussed topic, reaching not only film enthusiasts but even the front pages of non-film websites. The girl in the photo, available on Netflix, after the premiere made successive rounds in online bubbles labeled “disgusting,” “shocking,” and “terrifying.” So what exactly does Skye Borgman’s film contain, and what makes it stand out among other streaming releases?

Girl in the Picture begins by describing an incident from 1990, when the victim of a suspected hit-and-run was found by the roadside near Oklahoma City, identified as Tonya Hughes. As it would later turn out, this was the moment when a tragic story full of lies and violence came into the authorities’ and law enforcement’s field of view. Almost from the start, Tonya’s case raised many questions — beginning with suspicious injuries and ambiguous circumstances surrounding her death, as well as the suspicious behavior of a man who used the name Clarence and claimed to be her husband and the father of young Michael, whom the deceased had left orphaned.

Due to the involvement of child welfare agencies and the police, further facts emerged, leading to additional dramatic events that pushed officials to continue investigating, uncovering shocking truths about Tonya’s and Clarence’s identities and pasts.

It would be inappropriate to reveal more — although information about the people featured in Girl in the Picture can be found in fairly comprehensive online discussions, and a 2004 report A Beautiful Child by Matt Bribek (who also appears in the film) was dedicated to their case — the development of the story should be considered part of the film’s narrative and not disclosed in a review. Borgman goes out of her way to maintain tension during the viewing, presenting successive “plot twists” (and there are many) with deliberate pacing.

At this point, however, it can be noted that the epithets mentioned at the beginning, used online to describe Girl in the Picture — “disgusting,” “horrifying,” “sick,” etc. — refer to the story being told, not the documentary itself. The factual layer of the film can indeed be chilling, as we are looking into the records of an exceptionally cruel and morally degenerate case of psychopathic oppression. Although at first glance it may seem like just another tale of a dysfunctional relationship, the accumulation of themes such as psychological abuse, exploitation, physical violence, manipulation, and harm can leave an impression even on veterans of this type of reporting.

In terms of reconstructing the dramatic story of the titular girl and the man accompanying her, the director performs diligent work. One might complain that the film lacks some authorial investigation and contact with certain key people (or explanation as to why this was impossible), but the format of Girl in the Picture is, by design, reporting-based. Borgman simply collects available narratives and facts, compiling them into a coherent story. Approaching a tragic tale, the experienced director does not impose stylistic stamps or formal tricks. She creates a straightforward, fact-focused documentary, more reporting on the case than crafting a story.

However, she does this perhaps too faithfully. I cannot shake the impression that Borgman’s team (including the marketers promoting the film online) hides behind the story being told, in a purely cinematic sense. Girl in the Picture is at times painfully formulaic, full of “talking heads,” people moving between chairs and desks, staged blurry reenactments, and voice-over commentary. As I mentioned, it is solid journalistic work, but when hundreds of similar documentaries are available, one can expect more from a documentary film. Formally, Borgman offers nothing for the audience to engage with.

I understand that this is the convention, but it is precisely this convention that I am evaluating. The film is memorable due to its use of a high-profile, compelling (a controversial word in the context of the events discussed, but narratively accurate) topic, but it only capitalizes on it without building anything from it. It’s somewhat like a Wikipedia article brought to the screen. Yes, it leaves an impression, but it is not particularly connected to cinematic merits.