{shortcode-ab55740a57d542a85ae8c56ad1cfb7ffbcde976b}

The HBO documentary “Jim: The James Foley Story” recounts the life and imprisonment of American journalist James Foley in the years leading up to his brutal execution. Directed by Jim’s childhood friend Brian Oakes, the film is more personal tribute than hard journalism. Despite this fact, it still deals adeptly with broader themes of war and civilian life, as well as the deep regret and confusion that Foley’s family and friends experienced in the aftermath of his death.

The first half of the documentary focuses mainly on Foley’s career. Using interviews from family and fellow journalists, as well some of Foley’s own video footage, Oakes explores the personal profile of a man who was driven to the unconventional. Relatives describe Foley’s forays into various careers, including Teach for America. In this segment, Oakes seeks primarily to make sense of Foley’s trajectory from suburban New England to turbulent Libya and Syria—but the question is never fully answered, creating a lingering sense of ambiguity that mirrors the emotionally unsettled state of Foley’s family.

Oakes trusts the audience to connect with Foley, and his interviews reflect this fact, teasing out insights into the world of contrasts Foley inhabited. In one scene, a conflict journalist discusses the “deep absurdity” present in everyday life, then reflects upon the contrast between the abundance of the United States and the intense turmoil of the countries in which Foley worked. The comparison felt natural, and Oakes did not fall back on the “us vs them” dichotomy that characterizes many documentaries of the Middle East. Foley’s own footage shows his engagement with people whose struggles he wanted to make known. Oakes does not foist Foley’s goodness on us; rather he uses interviews and stories to convey a beautifully human image.

Unfortunately, the strength of the first half of the documentary is not matched by the second, which primarily focuses on Foley’s imprisonment and death. It is in this section that Oakes withdraws his trust in the audience. Instead of the same subtle emotion he used in the first half, the director relies on dim lighting and tritely emotional music. The result is a contrived mood that takes away from the interviews with Foley’s fellow prisoners. During these interviews, the tone shifts from the good-natured reflection of Jake’s family members and fellow reporters to eulogy. Instead of the endearingly realistic Foley who showed up to an interview with paint-splattered trousers, the Foley in this half is, according to a German prisoner, a force of “pure good,”a descriptor that undermines the nuanced portrait created in the documentary’s first half.

One of the only strengths of the documentary’s latter half is the emotional range conveyed by Foley’s fellow prisoners. Their commentary ranges from political insight to personal memories and adds a level of nuance not found elsewhere in the film. Their reflections on the psychological and physical torture that they experienced are especially effective when contrasted with shots of the serenely suburban setting of the Foley family home. Luckily, the documentary ends on this note; as the Foleys reflect on their son’s death, there is a return to the same sense of emotion present at the beginning of the documentary. Oakes once again allows his interview subjects to reflect at their own pace, this time without the weighty thud of formulaic music.

“Jim: The James Foley Story” is a well-told homage from one childhood friend to another. While it occasionally suffers from manufactured moments, it recovers from this flaw with intimate interviews with Foley’s family and friends. The overarching narrative effectively illustrates the nuances of Foley’s life and mission while simultaneously drawing attention to the larger ideas of war and loss that interweave in Foley’s story.

—Staff writer Hanaa J. Masalmeh can be reached at hanaa.masalmeh@thecrimson.com