In the spring of 1993 three pre-teen boys were murdered near West Memphis, Arkansas. This documentary focuses on the three young boys who were accused and tried for the murders.
I had a lot of trouble with this film. One of the things that makes it unusual is that the filmmakers were given incredible access to most all the people involved, from the accused, to the legal teams, to family and friends, even to the judge. We are even given behind-the-scenes looks at defense strategy sessions. All of the participants agreed to be filmed. This special access is all well and good, but it is well known that people behave differently when they know they are being filmed and I question how much of an impact the filming actually had on the trial. Are we seeing people's real reactions, or are we seeing performances--the whole affair has the feeling of being scripted. This question of performance for the camera is particularly relevant for Damien Echols, the accused that the film concentrates on. In one scene we see him preening before a mirror. The step-father of one of the murdered children actually turned over a knife to the film crew that was ultimately submitted as evidence! It is not good when those reporting on a story become part of the story.
The film is slanted toward making a case for the fact that the accused boys were wrongly convicted. I don't know how long the trials (one boy was tried separately) went on, but what we are given cannot be but a small percentage of what was presented to the jury. So many things were not covered that I began to feel that the biases of the filmmakers were dominating the proceedings. From what is presented I would not have been able to find the boys guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I felt that I was not given enough information to make a definitive decision.
So many questions were unanswered. It seemed clear that the murders took place in a location other than where the bodies were found. How far was that location from a road from where it would have been convenient to carry the bodies. What was the relationship among the three accused? It was stated that one of them had an IQ of 72; could that guy have been a good friend to the other two seemingly intelligent guys? Was he a good enough friend to be trusted to remain silent? Were alibis checked out? Was the evidence connecting the accused boys to the crime really as tenuous as shown? And so on.
Out of respect for the dead shouldn't we have been told at least something about the victims? The only role they played was to have their horrible deaths exploited by the sensational trial, the media, and by the filmmakers. Instead of a reasoned narrative to provide initial background the audience is first hit with shocking footage of the crime scene where lay the three naked young bodies. I immediately began to wonder if the filmmakers were more interested in shocking us than in objective story telling. Later we are shown a close-up photo of the castration perpetrated on one of the victims--was that necessary?
I thought the Metallica soundtrack set the wrong tone, totally at odds with the gravity of the events being covered.
I had a lot of trouble with this film. One of the things that makes it unusual is that the filmmakers were given incredible access to most all the people involved, from the accused, to the legal teams, to family and friends, even to the judge. We are even given behind-the-scenes looks at defense strategy sessions. All of the participants agreed to be filmed. This special access is all well and good, but it is well known that people behave differently when they know they are being filmed and I question how much of an impact the filming actually had on the trial. Are we seeing people's real reactions, or are we seeing performances--the whole affair has the feeling of being scripted. This question of performance for the camera is particularly relevant for Damien Echols, the accused that the film concentrates on. In one scene we see him preening before a mirror. The step-father of one of the murdered children actually turned over a knife to the film crew that was ultimately submitted as evidence! It is not good when those reporting on a story become part of the story.
The film is slanted toward making a case for the fact that the accused boys were wrongly convicted. I don't know how long the trials (one boy was tried separately) went on, but what we are given cannot be but a small percentage of what was presented to the jury. So many things were not covered that I began to feel that the biases of the filmmakers were dominating the proceedings. From what is presented I would not have been able to find the boys guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I felt that I was not given enough information to make a definitive decision.
So many questions were unanswered. It seemed clear that the murders took place in a location other than where the bodies were found. How far was that location from a road from where it would have been convenient to carry the bodies. What was the relationship among the three accused? It was stated that one of them had an IQ of 72; could that guy have been a good friend to the other two seemingly intelligent guys? Was he a good enough friend to be trusted to remain silent? Were alibis checked out? Was the evidence connecting the accused boys to the crime really as tenuous as shown? And so on.
Out of respect for the dead shouldn't we have been told at least something about the victims? The only role they played was to have their horrible deaths exploited by the sensational trial, the media, and by the filmmakers. Instead of a reasoned narrative to provide initial background the audience is first hit with shocking footage of the crime scene where lay the three naked young bodies. I immediately began to wonder if the filmmakers were more interested in shocking us than in objective story telling. Later we are shown a close-up photo of the castration perpetrated on one of the victims--was that necessary?
I thought the Metallica soundtrack set the wrong tone, totally at odds with the gravity of the events being covered.