Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky direct "Paradise Lost 1 and 2". Both films revolve around a gruesome case in which three young boys were sexually mutilated and murdered in West Memphis, Arkansas. The incident occurred in the mid 1990s. Three teenagers, subsequently known as the West Memphis Three, were arrested for the crime. They were cleared of charges in late 2011.
Much of both films focus on the travails of the three accused boys: Jessie Misskelley, Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin. All three were loners; ostracised young men from lower income families. Jessie is portrayed as being mentally handicapped or slow. His confession and admittance of murder is explicitly portrayed as being the result of police coercion. Damien, meanwhile, is painted as a victim of police scapegoating and community witch-hunts. Locals – politically conservative and strongly Evangelical – believe him to be the member of a satanic cult. Our film-makers argue that Damien is simply a moody teenager who just happened to be fond of dark literature, heavy metal and a little edgy nonconformity, all of which, we are told, are unfairly stigmatized.
The second film focuses on a West Memphis Three support group which believes the three accused teens to be innocent victims, falsely charged. It also focuses on John Mark Byers, the stepfather of one of the victims. Byers, the film argues, may actually have been the trio's killer.
Entertaining (in a sleazy, somewhat sensational way), both documentaries are nevertheless relentlessly manipulative. This case cries out for a more dispassionate tone, instead we're coerced from the on-set. Damien's past detention at mental health hospitals/clinics are ignored, his past confessions and writings on wishing to commit slayings are ignored, flunked polygraphs are omitted, the past violence of all three kids are ignored, various details found at the crime scene are ignored, the second film knowingly overplays the significance of "bite marks", Byers' dead wife and false teeth and fails to investigate the personalities behind the West Memphis Three support group, which may itself be a cult-like institution, enamoured by the photogenic, goth-like charm of Damien, who, while he may be entirely innocent, also demonstrates traits of psychopathy and manipulativeness. The point is, the film is exactly what it pretends to warn against: it's selective, biased, has a one-dimensional agenda and deliberately withholds information.
So what's the truth? Nobody knows. The fact is, everyone involved in this case (from the victims, to the suspects, to the police, to the courts, to the suspect's friends and relatives) has dark histories and/or behaved suspiciously during the event. With such muddied waters, it's almost impossible to determine exactly what really went on. The "Paradise" films bulldoze away all these far scarier nuances.
Regardless, the film's central point is worthwhile: the State of Arkansas has never convincingly demonstrated the trio's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And yet according to 24 jurors, they did. Confused? The three suspects were eventually released with the odd court enforced proviso that they essentially admit that they might actually be guilty, even if freedom of speech laws grant them the arena to trumpet the opposite. Bizarre. It's a double helix in which both sides (the courts and the suspects) simultaneously mutually admit their guilt AND win their freedom from accusations. In other words, the trio are essentially saying "we killed them, but we're free so we're innocent" while the courts, equally paradoxically, are saying "we railroaded them, but they're free now, even though we have enough evidence to commit them." This isn't justice, this is almost a form of psychosis.
The first film is the more engrossing of the two. The second is filled with filler material, passages designed to pad its meagre running time. The second nevertheless captures well the toll the passage of time takes on our three "victims", and contains an interesting subplot which focuses on a local lawyer who is convinced that the West Memphis Three were wrongly accused. Berlinger and Sinofsky released a third film, "Paradise Lost 3", in 2011. A study by Ronald Huff, director of the Criminal Justice Research Centre, and professor of sociology Arye Rattner, estimates that in the United States alone, over 10,000 people are wrongfully convicted of serious crimes each year.
8.5/10 – Worth one viewing. Similar fare: "In The Name of the Father", "The Wrong Man", "The Hurricane", "Conviction", "A Cry In The Dark", the excellent "Murder on a Sunday Morning", "The Thin Blue Line" and "Capturing the Friedmans".
Much of both films focus on the travails of the three accused boys: Jessie Misskelley, Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin. All three were loners; ostracised young men from lower income families. Jessie is portrayed as being mentally handicapped or slow. His confession and admittance of murder is explicitly portrayed as being the result of police coercion. Damien, meanwhile, is painted as a victim of police scapegoating and community witch-hunts. Locals – politically conservative and strongly Evangelical – believe him to be the member of a satanic cult. Our film-makers argue that Damien is simply a moody teenager who just happened to be fond of dark literature, heavy metal and a little edgy nonconformity, all of which, we are told, are unfairly stigmatized.
The second film focuses on a West Memphis Three support group which believes the three accused teens to be innocent victims, falsely charged. It also focuses on John Mark Byers, the stepfather of one of the victims. Byers, the film argues, may actually have been the trio's killer.
Entertaining (in a sleazy, somewhat sensational way), both documentaries are nevertheless relentlessly manipulative. This case cries out for a more dispassionate tone, instead we're coerced from the on-set. Damien's past detention at mental health hospitals/clinics are ignored, his past confessions and writings on wishing to commit slayings are ignored, flunked polygraphs are omitted, the past violence of all three kids are ignored, various details found at the crime scene are ignored, the second film knowingly overplays the significance of "bite marks", Byers' dead wife and false teeth and fails to investigate the personalities behind the West Memphis Three support group, which may itself be a cult-like institution, enamoured by the photogenic, goth-like charm of Damien, who, while he may be entirely innocent, also demonstrates traits of psychopathy and manipulativeness. The point is, the film is exactly what it pretends to warn against: it's selective, biased, has a one-dimensional agenda and deliberately withholds information.
So what's the truth? Nobody knows. The fact is, everyone involved in this case (from the victims, to the suspects, to the police, to the courts, to the suspect's friends and relatives) has dark histories and/or behaved suspiciously during the event. With such muddied waters, it's almost impossible to determine exactly what really went on. The "Paradise" films bulldoze away all these far scarier nuances.
Regardless, the film's central point is worthwhile: the State of Arkansas has never convincingly demonstrated the trio's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And yet according to 24 jurors, they did. Confused? The three suspects were eventually released with the odd court enforced proviso that they essentially admit that they might actually be guilty, even if freedom of speech laws grant them the arena to trumpet the opposite. Bizarre. It's a double helix in which both sides (the courts and the suspects) simultaneously mutually admit their guilt AND win their freedom from accusations. In other words, the trio are essentially saying "we killed them, but we're free so we're innocent" while the courts, equally paradoxically, are saying "we railroaded them, but they're free now, even though we have enough evidence to commit them." This isn't justice, this is almost a form of psychosis.
The first film is the more engrossing of the two. The second is filled with filler material, passages designed to pad its meagre running time. The second nevertheless captures well the toll the passage of time takes on our three "victims", and contains an interesting subplot which focuses on a local lawyer who is convinced that the West Memphis Three were wrongly accused. Berlinger and Sinofsky released a third film, "Paradise Lost 3", in 2011. A study by Ronald Huff, director of the Criminal Justice Research Centre, and professor of sociology Arye Rattner, estimates that in the United States alone, over 10,000 people are wrongfully convicted of serious crimes each year.
8.5/10 – Worth one viewing. Similar fare: "In The Name of the Father", "The Wrong Man", "The Hurricane", "Conviction", "A Cry In The Dark", the excellent "Murder on a Sunday Morning", "The Thin Blue Line" and "Capturing the Friedmans".