Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


I'm not sure if it's ever been mentioned on here because I lost track of the thread but I stumbled across Just Melvin: Just Evil which is I believe a HBO film from 2000. There's elements to it that are dated (Some of the music and film making) but it's not lacking for power. To hear people talk so openly about their abuse is staggering. It's probably one of the best films about how sexual abuse destroys people and destroys families. There's no real surprises or twists, it's pretty open upfront about what happened.

I just hope that the people in the film find some happiness, whatever little they can at this point. For anyone who wants to watch it, and everyone should, it's here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY4eHaiVK9s

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


Paper Jam Dipper posted:

Watching this right now. I loving love how Reeves is narrating. There is zero pretension or "I'M THE STAR OF THE SHOW" in his voice. He's even fine showing himself with notes.

From what people say it's pretty much what he's like in real life too. He's remarkably ego-less, no one seems to have a bad thing to say about him at all and according to Laurence Fishburne he'll embarrass you in Chess.

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


Bolek posted:

There's no words. I can't even begin. Just... gently caress.

Sadly it seems there's literally no information on the family or anything else post-documentary. Even the guy who directed it has a hilariously outdated website that if I didn't know any better I'd say was a Geocities site. I kind of want to know what happened next but I have a feeling that they continued to spiral out of control.

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


bobkatt013 posted:

Finally watched Overnight. Holy poo poo is Troy Duffy human garbage. Is the normal reaction to this is wanting everyone in the film to have something horrible happen to them?

He still maintains it's an editing job that screwed him and in some instances that might be true (It's not quite the Billy Mitchell hatchet job in King of Kong) but there's plenty of instances where they point the camera at him and he just says the most ridiculous things or generally acts like an rear end in a top hat. He's so thoroughly unlikeable that he makes Harvey Weinstein seem decent. To that end I wonder how he acted on the sequel, from what I understand it wasn't all that different.

He was a brash rear end in a top hat without the talent to back it up. I don't hate Boondock Saints like some people do, I think it's just OK, but it's best remembered as just being one of those post Tarantino films that came out at that time.

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


magnificent7 posted:

I tried watching the Boondock Saints this morning - it was godawful. I mean, God Bless Willem DaFoe for committing to it, but the writing was loving bad. The whole thing was like a movie studio had 15 million dollars they HAD to get rid of, and found this sap to think he was good, instead of a tax loop hole or some poo poo.

So now I'm watching the documentary. Or trying. Listening to him talk himself up, after watching the goddamn horrible job he did with writing, it's painful.

Yeah I mean Miramax were riding high at the time, and it was a period where anything that was 'cool' and had violence was being greenlit. I can see the attraction in his script, but it just makes it seem like he sort of happened across writing something decent by accident and then just completely killed his own career. It's a great warning for any aspiring filmmaker though.

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


magnificent7 posted:

I think part of the glory of Pulp Fiction was finding Tarantino and letting him run wild. If you've read the story behind that script, (PF) most studios passed on it and didn't expect it to do jack poo poo. Anytime there's an amazing blow up like this, I'm guessing most studios just cover their eyes and say "we know jack poo poo, the public wants crap, lets give em crap."

Even so, Duffy was able to make this crazy deal where they sign his band and buy his lovely bar and all that stuff. That's going above and beyond just greenlighting a movie. I really can't understand quite why Miramax bent over backwards just to accommodate him. Were they that desperate for a hit?

Actually, someone on the imdb boards said that the film has parrallels to the dot.com era and I can totally see that. There was just this time of "Is that going to be a success? Then just throw money at it!" It seems like an incredibly 90's thing.

However having said that, Duffy does have his defenders. Billy Connelly is a nice enough guy and insists that Duffy got screwed on the original film (I will say that in his favour he was the victim of some shady business deals. He was naive and they took advantage of that) and Norman Reedus refused to talk to the guys who made Overnight because he felt like they were going to twist his words, a sentiment echoed by Willem Defoe who says they interviewed him a lot and only used his most negative comments.

DrVenkman fucked around with this message at 21:25 on May 11, 2013

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


Paper Jam Dipper posted:

I'd say 2/3rds of my friends love that movie, including 2/3rds of my former girlfriends. Every time I watch it I die a little inside knowing I didn't like it the first time but it still keeps coming around, being shown at pubs or at somebody's house. I'm convinced people believe that enjoying St. Patrick's Day means you have to enjoy that loving movie.

I think I also hated it so much because it got way more love than The Big Hit, which was a loving dumb Tarantino rip off but at least it was usually entertaining dumb.

Bokeen Woodbine and Lou Diamond Phillips are great in that movie. Yeah it was sort of a sub-Tarantino film but it had its tongue firmly in cheek.

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


Fellblade posted:

This is indeed where I started (and then covered again in History of Rome).

I started with The History of Rome. It's as thorough and exhausting as the title suggests it is but it's well worth the listen. I'm curious as to why they tried making a film about Hannibal for years since, as brilliant as he was, there were huge stretches of time where he did very little (Other than march around and take over towns).

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

I find it really, really depressing, like moreso than any crime show.

There's something very desperate about it all. I don't mean the show is trying to hard or anything like that, but it really hammers home how important those first hours are and how in a lot of cases it's just a lost cause. You also realise how people are willing to kill someone over some of pettiest poo poo.

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


OldTennisCourt posted:

I've seen the first, I'm not really interested in 2 or 3 as I've heard they have a real bad habit of the documentarians trying really hard to make themselves part of the story. 2 in particular I've heard is basically "Well we're not SAYING this guy did it, but he sure looks and sounds crazy huh?"

The Cheshire Murders one was really great.

That's an unfair assessment of 2, and I don't recall that happening at all. And to be fair the documentary focuses on Mark Steven Byers and his behaviour because the the dude was all kinds of shady. He gave one of the crew a knife as a gift that happened to have blood on it, had his teeth removed and was generally acting manic. Of course, you can make the case that the smear campaign against the WM3 is not dissimilar to that of the smear campaign and Byers (Who has now spoken out in support of the WM3) and Terry Hobbs. I don't think it's really the fault of the movies, since those people behave that way while the camera is on them, but the irony isn't lost on me either.

Part 2 isn't as good as Part 1, but it's still powerful stuff.

Also, I'd like an impartial book on the subject since I wouldn't mind seeing what's true and what's not (I had read that rather than being held for 12 hours before confessing, Misskelley was questioned over about 6). Vince Bugliosi, who did a great job with the Kennedy assassination, would be a prime candidate.

I still think they're innocent and they were victims of prejudice. But they're not quite the Stephen King loving, misunderstood teens that they're made out to be either (Echols in particular had a history of violence, including trying to rip a kids eye out).

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


BiggerBoat posted:

Beaten, but Paradise Lost 1, 2 and 3 and West of Memphis. PL2 is basically a "John Mark Byers did it" hit piece and is the weakest of the bunch but still interesting in the way it demonstrates all of the problems with the State's case. I've been knee deep in the WM3 case for a long time, know it well, have donated money to the defense and have spoken with Mark Byers several times on the phone. He didn't do it by the way.

What do you make of some of the information that got held back from the movies that painted Echols et al in a less than innocent light. I found it interesting that a 500 page report of Echols previous mental history was presented to the court and it wasn't mentioned at all during the movie (Or any of the others). I'd be interested to know if the filmmakers were aware of that stuff, though given they were there at all times you'd have to assume so.

There's a surprising number of sites that believe the 3 are guilty and while I wouldn't say the evidence is compelling (There are leaps in logic abound), a few of them at least do a job of looking at the evidence presented to the court, rather than just news reports.

While I think something like http://wm3truth.com/the-west-memphis-three-were-guilty/ is still a hit piece, it does quite logically poke holes in some of the case for the defense (Links are on the left hand side for those who want to read them). The site http://www.callahan.8k.com/ has the largest library available on the subject, offering hundreds of court transcripts and evidence etc. Amusingly it's owned by two guys, one who thinks they're guilty and one who thinks they're innocent.

DrVenkman fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Jul 30, 2014

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


BiggerBoat posted:

Exhibit 500 was presented by Echols' defense team in order to reduce Damien Echols' sentence. There's no doubt the kid was hosed up and had a questionable background, etc. but the WM3 are innocent. I know about Callhan's, the WM3 truth website and several others. There's a group of people who have a serious hard on for the WM3, believe they are guilty and post everywhere about it. You'll see the same names all over the place.

To answer your question regarding exhibit 500 and "the things the movie(s) held back, I don't make much of it at all beyond the fact that Damien Echols was mentally ill and suffered from depression because nothing in exhibit 500 links Echols to the crime, nor do any of the "WM3 Guilty" websites. There's not one single shred of physical evidence linking any of those boys to the crime.

Leading forensic experts have testified that most, if not all of the wounds on the murdered children were the result of animal predation and that the cause of death was drowning. I personally believe that Terry Wayne Hobbs murdered those kids, tied them up with their own shoelaces, moved them to the ditch and got away with it.

If you want to know more about what I know, PM me, otherwise I'm happy to post it here but I don't want to derail the thread too much. Remember the bite mark from PL2? It's a perfect match for Terry Hobbs' partial denture. Hobbs killed those kids.

While I agree (Though I can't quite agree on Hobbs), it's even murkier since now Echols actually discredits the Exhibit 500 completely and claims it was written by one person who clearly had a vendetta (For those that don't know, it's a massive document of Echols mental history, written by various social workers, nurses, doctors and even Echols himself and was used to essentially get him out of the death penalty). He's given a few interviews where he handwaves it away as his team having nothing to do with it.

While I don't think it points to his guilt at all (Though stomping a dog to death and telling people he was going to sacrifice his first born didn't help - no wonder he tries to discredit it) what I do think is that it has become sort of image management by him and his people and that's a story I kind of find fascinating.

I agree it probably needs a thread of its own somewhere though so we don't derail this thread.

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


bunky posted:

Also there was no blood at the crime scene. The defense spoke of a satanic ritual at the creek where the boys were found. If that was a murder scene, blood would be abundant. It was a dump site. The murders happened elsewhere, which disputed Miskelley's testimony.

There was. The early case summary noted that the bank looked 'slicked off' as if someone had tried washing something away. Ok that's vague enough however the police went back and sprayed Luminol around the crime scene which highlighted the blood. You can see the pictures here http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img2/luminol_photos.html - they also reported that after eliminating any blood patterns that pointed to blood being spilled in the process of the bodies being moved, they found more than enough blood to indicate that something happened at the ditch. The issue in court came around asking the question of 'visible blood', of which there was none. But again that's what the luminol testing was for.

The last sighting of the boys also has them heading into the direction of the woods the day they were killed. The other thing of course is that their clothes were also dumped there, which doesn't make sense seeing as they were tied up after their clothes were removed. Unless whoever killed them also thought to bring their clothes along too and just toss them to one side.

Of all the defence objections I always found that the weakest one. It's understandable why they'd persue it as it means they can invalidate Miskelley's testimony, but there's nothing concrete there to support them either. But at that point you can't blame them for just going for it.

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


bunky posted:

Whoa, I guess I was mislead by the documentaries that we are currently talking about in this thread because they told me that there was no blood at the crime scene.

It's a strange issue because, no matter how it's put, there was blood at the crime scene. However the judge eventually came to the decision that he couldn't allow the luminol testing - that site has the transcript of that conversation with the lawyers - but I'm not entirely sure why. He rules it's not 'strong' enough to be used as evidence against the three, but concedes that it does show blood was at the scene. It was actually one of the decisions that the judge made in favour of the defence, but it's left out of the movie (As is the whole blood issue).

Having watched the second movie again I've come away with a bit more of a sour take on it, mainly because it does spend so long going "look at this guy!" in regards to Byers. He's clearly attention seeking and either the film-makers were sucked in by it or just documented it in lieu of anything else. By all accounts it was known for a while that Byers was having his teeth removed and replaced with dentures but the movie still frames it as 'There's teeth marks on the body...Oh my God this guy suddenly had his teeth removed!'.

I think the first movie works as well as it does because they just document what's happening, the second and third movies instead want to play detective, to their detriment.

Anyway. Everyone should watch 'Art of Flight' because it's gorgeous to look at and if you want a thorough look at how movies and their sequels are made, watch 'Never Sleep Again'. It's a great, candid, look at all the Nightmare on Elm Street movies from almost everyone involved. Marvel as execs blame the creative teams for them forcing movies into production without finished scripts because they had to milk a franchise as quick as they could.

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


Kojiro posted:

Really loved this, and I believe it's on Netflix right now. Enjoyed the stuff about how the effects were done, especially the famous 'blood fountain from the bed' part from the first movie.

It's given me a new appreciation of Nightmare 5. It's still not a very good movie, but Stephen Hopkins tried bless him. Being hired in February for an August release date and working without a finished script couldn't have been easy. Then Bob Shaye just shrugs it off with "Oh they didn't do a very good job with that one". Well no Bob, they probably did the best job they could with New Line placing those constraints on them.

The whole section about Nightmare 2 is great though and I love it seemed to get through production without people really realising the very heavy gay slant it had.

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


appleskates posted:

Hey this movie is FOUR HOURS LONG by the way. We made it about 45 minutes in before my partner (who doesn't especially like horror movies) asked me to save it for the gym or when he is at work or something. How can anyone make a four-hour long movie about anything?!? It is really good though. I can't wait to get to part 3, The Dream Warrior. That one is my favorite.

The Friday the 13th one is 7 hours.

The stuff about Part 3 is pretty good, though I had to laugh that Wes couldn't be involved because he was about to start Deadly Friend.

It's a shame they couldn't talk to Darabont though, who hasn't really done much interviews about his horror days.

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


BiggerBoat posted:

No they didn't.


Neither of those things happened.


There was no urine found in anyone's stomachs.

Yeah there's some major leaps going on there. I'm sure some of the most venimous anti-WM3 sites cite that stuff but it's all bullshit. There's still the talk that Echols 'confessed' to some people before he was arrested, but it's only going to be conjecture at this point.

The 'Miskelley was questioned for 12 hours before he confessed' angle is one of those things that's oft repeated without being true though. He's interviewed from what, 10am? And by 2pm he's talking about the crime. The police do go on interviewing him on and off that day, but it's a fallacy to say that there was 12 hours of questioning before he admits to it. Hell, Miskelley's lawyers hired an interrogation expert who had to admit that actually, the questioning wasn't excessive.

From his cross-examination.

quote:

Davis: Okay. And would it be accurate to say that when you train officers to conduct interrogations that you tell them that, at a minimum, in an important case, that you want them to go 4 hours, uninterrupted, with a suspect?

Holmes: True.

Davis: Okay. So, in this particular case, the time period that the officers were with the suspect doesn’t pose a problem for you, does it?

Holmes: No.

It's fair enough to question the detail of his confession (He does actually state that the one boy was cut in the face) but the titlecard in PL2 "...and was questioned for 12 hours" is a carefully worded lie, as is the idea that he was denied access to his parents (His Father met with WMPD twice that day) and that he was denied access to legal representation (He was offered it 3 times before he confesses).

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


bunky posted:

Jessie Misskelley, a dude with a 70-ish IQ was interrogated long enough (who cares if it was actually a full 12 hours) for him to admit exactly what the detectives needed him to say. That's what cops do. His confession was the crux of the trial. Misskelley wasn't friends with Damien and Jason; they were hardly acquaintances. Misskelley didn't even know what time the murders took place until detectives planted it in his testimony.

It matters if it's a full 12 hours or not because one of the big soundbites of the whole thing is that he was questioned for 12 hours, not allowed access to his parents and denied a lawyer, therefore he must be totally innocent and everything recanted. The problem is that those 3 things are repeated again and again but are not true. Saying he goes into the police station at 10am and isn't questioned any longer than two hours at a time (He's interviewed for an hour, then his father signs off on a polygraph, Miskelley takes the polygraph and then is questioned again) doesn't quite have the same ring to it. The real truth of the matter is that there's not enough to convict them and sadly there's not enough to say they definitely didn't do it either. Personally, yes I think they're innocent, but for my own curiosity I like to look at what's widely reported (That 12 hour confessions has been recently blooming to over 18 hours by the way) and what actually happened.

For what it's worth, for all the talk of police coercing him into saying what they want, Miskelley actually incriminates himself more in his initial confession and says that he tried to stop one of the boys escaping. It's a while after that he changes his story to say that he left before anyone was killed. He also repeats his initial confession when he meets with his defence lawyer, and doesn't recant it until some sixteen weeks later when Echol's defence team bring up the idea of a false confession. He then maintains that they did it when he meets with his lawyer privately in February of 94, much to his Lawyer's chargrin.

That transcript is here for anyone who wants it http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img2/jm_2_8_94_statement.html

I just find it interesting that we take for granted that everything in those movies happened the way that they want us to think they did. We see a title card and just accept that it's true.

DrVenkman fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Aug 9, 2014

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


bunky posted:

I don't know if this is directed at me, but I know the police manipulated Misskelley by reading the transcripts. He initially says that they went into the woods at 9am and that the young boys skipped school (they didn't). Then he says noon. Then he later meanders between entering the woods between 6:30 and 7:00 PM while obviously trying to give Ridge the answers he wants to hear. Jessie also claims to have left the scene about four times, probably because he doesn't want to implicate himself further in these lies, but that's not the story the dectivies want, so they push him further. They had no evidence other than a retarded kid's testimony that was less of a confession and more of a satanic fairy tale drawn up by bored hillbilly cops.

No, sorry it wasn't directed at you. I took the same for granted that it's as the movie says and he was questioned over 12 hours with no representation etc. It's more the fiction around the case that makes me curious, like the issue of Echols psych file. To play Devil's Advocate, in regards to his initial confession, Miskelley seems muddled on his times and the cops establish that fact because he says he received a call that morning, that he was in the woods that morning and that he had a call that evening. In his initial confession itself there's nothing more untoward than police doing what they do and actually trying to establish something.

I agree that if his confession later suddenly gains more clarity then it's likely he's being prodded in the right direction. What doesn't make sense to me is that he maintains his guilt to his defence lawyer, right until February of 94. There's also the thorny issue of their alibis, though West of Memphis claimed that Jennifer Bearden wasn't allowed to testify, which also isn't true. Her Alibi contradicted Echol's own one.

As was noted earlier, the problem with the case is that there's lies coming from both sides, there's shoddy police work and the whole thing is clouded in myth that it's hard to parse what's true and what's not. It's too easy to make the assumption that anything that goes against the 3 is the result of shady cops or intimidated witnesses just as it's easy to make the claim that a hole in a story means that they did it.

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


BiggerBoat posted:

Thy will be done:

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3657059

Can you guys C&P your questions over there to get it going (or do you mind if I do)? I may just drag and drop our exchanges from this thread over there to light a fire. With your permission of course.

Yeah go crazy with whatever you think will be useful.

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


I watched Beware of Mr Baker on Netflix and it's great if you like stories about drug addled misanthropes who are terrible to their families. A fantastic talent, but a horrible man.

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


Rattle and Hum is a great documentary for a group who are just on the edge of Spinal Tap territory. It would a few years until U2 became straight up insufferable, but this is where it really starts. I'm not sure what the intention behind the documentary was, except to show that the group had just learned about Americana, but they also seem to place themselves in this weird pantheon of The Rolling Stones AND blues guys like BB King. All while screaming about politics.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


Viginti posted:

Well Jarecki says he 'accidentally' stumbled into the story while trying to make another documentary, which is suspect. The way he treats the case seems initially to be even-handed, but turns out to be pretty biased in favour of the accused (which isn't inherently bad for a movie, its just troubling when you advocate unannounced) who he is supporting and shifting the story in favour of. The way that he chooses to pace the reveal of certain critical facts - those that he didn't just exclude altogether - is misleading in a way that goes beyond simple storytelling technique. Etc.

Overall my issue is that he clearly has an agenda in making this movie, but he hides it throughout and many have accused him of doing so to align himself with the praise the film first received during festival showings. There is a movie to be made about the difficulty of rationally handling a case like this, one that involves children, and the way that some societies don't fare well in doing so; The Hunt is an excellent example of this. There is also a place for movies that try to bring to light what appear to be mishandled cases and miscarriages of justice; West of Memphis, etc. Though despite containing these elements that's not really what Friedmans is, it's something seemingly more malicious than either of those; propoganda hidden behind the veil of objectivity, a personal act presented as that of a stranger. Whatever Jarecki's relationship with the family was before filming he seems to have gotten too close to them to make this movie in the way he was trying too, they are too much a part of it, his camera too close (to the point that he uses their footage for a majority of the screentime)and because of that it's warped things in worrying ways.

People praise the movie as an example of ambiguity, of the fact that there are no facts, that you can never truly know the truth and it can operate as that, but I don't believe that was the intention for the film going in. It's hard to nail it down, but there's something very troubling about the way that the movie is made.

But intent sort of doesn't matter. It's the end result. So regardless of what Jarecki intends to do with that movie, the final result is what it is.

To be honest I've not seen it in a while so I don't know exactly what the objections are. What's his agenda exactly? From memory I've always thought that it was fairly even handed, and while the father was certainly guilty, it was less clear if Jesse was (And still isn't. The prosecution have still refused to hand over their evidence against him, despite having a court order telling them to).

As for your Jarecki's 'suspect' story, I don't think that's fair. He shot and completed a short film called 'Just a Clown' about children's entertainers before he knew about the Friedman's story. I believe that it all started from him interviewing the victims and then decided to entwine the story about the accused and the accusers. Even though Jarecki has since come out and said the case against Jesse was handled poorly I still think that he successfully sows in enough ambiguity to cast doubt upon everyone.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply