Tremendously disturbing and well-acted film. What is most troubling is the fact that this episode really occurred. Remarkable portrayal of how easily something like this can get so totally out of control. It is hard to imagine this feeding frenzy among, supposedly, educated and sophisticated people. James Woods is dead-on perfect as an initially slimy, opportunistic attorney, who finds himself slowly horrified by what he finds himself in the middle of. His courtroom questioning of Dr. McFarlane (Lolita Davidovich)is riveting. An impressive, well-done movie, but extremely troubling for what it says about our justice system.
42 Reviews
Innocent of Irrelevance
reelreviewsandrecommendations5 September 2023
It is 1983, and Ray Buckey- a teacher at his grandmother's preschool- is arrested after numerous children accuse him of sexual assault. Awaiting trial, Buckey is assigned fast-talking defence attorney Danny Davis, who isn't interested in whether he in innocent or not; only caring about the mechanics of the law. As the trial unfurls, however, Davis becomes increasingly disturbed by the way social worker Kee MacFarlane extracted the children's confessions of abuse, and starts to believe in Buckey's innocence. Will Davis be able to convince the jury, or will Buckey be found guilty on all counts?
Directed by Mick Jackson from a screenplay by Abby and Myra Mann, 'Indictment: The McMartin Trial' is a riveting retelling of a sadly true story that is prescient and relevant- perhaps even more so now than when it was first broadcast. A frightening and gripping court-room procedural, the Mann's narrative moves at a brisk pace and is brimming with strong dialogue, both humorous and dramatic. They raise interesting questions about the reliability of memory, the validity of testimony and the ethics of investigation, while their examination of the McMartin case exposes a multitude of flaws, in the world of social care work, the legal profession and- particularly- society in general.
The Mann's use the McMartin case to shine a light on one of the more troublesome aspects of modern society: the rush to judgement after an accusation is made. The media controlled the discourse around Buckey, painting him as a criminal before his trial even started, dictating the opinion of the masses in regards to same. The film criticises the idea that accusations should be- and are- considered as fact before proper investigation, and that accusers should always be believed. Though in the 90s, when the film was made, this was certainly topical; in the era of MeToo it feels even more so.
While the filmmakers lean on the side of Buckey, they don't take a simplistic or one-sided view of the case, rather exploring the complexities and ambiguities of the evidence and relating testimonies. In addition, the procedural elements are well-realized, with the scenes involving Davis preparing Buckey for court being especially grounded and believable. Furthermore, Jackson's inclusion of actual archival footage and real-life interviews adds a sense of stark realism to proceedings that bolsters the overall narrative impact.
Moreover, Rodrigo García's muted cinematography is subtle, contributing to the mood of the piece but never distracting or dominating scenes. His use of close-ups and artificial lighting in the court-room sequences is particularly effective, while he manifests suspense with his utilisation of low-angles and wide shots. He creates a realistic and immersive atmosphere, which is only compounded by Peter Rodgers Melnick's subdued score and Howard Cummings's unobtrusive production design.
'Indictment: The McMartin Trial' finds James Woods starring as Danny Davis, delivering a typically energetic performance both engaging and entertaining. Woods handles the comic and dramatic with equal aplomb, never appearing as anything other than authentic, whether in court or out of it. He carries the film, and works well alongside co-stars Mercedes Ruehl and Henry Thomas. Ruehl, for her part, does strong work as the prosecuting attorney, who has her own stake in the game; while Thomas's performance as Ray Buckey is nuanced and sympathetic. Also worth mentioning is Lolita Davidovich, who steals all her scenes as the sinister and saccharine Kee MacFarlane with ease.
A powerful and pointed made for TV Movie, 'Indictment: The McMartin Trial' retells an important chapter of modern history that should never be forgotten. An indictment of society and those who rush to judgement, it is both relevant and compelling, featuring punchy dialogue, sharp cinematography and a fine score. Boasting strong performances from the likes of James Woods, Henry Thomas and Lolita Davidovich, Mick Jackson's 'Indictment: The McMartin Trial' is a film innocent of irrelevance and guilty of greatness.
Directed by Mick Jackson from a screenplay by Abby and Myra Mann, 'Indictment: The McMartin Trial' is a riveting retelling of a sadly true story that is prescient and relevant- perhaps even more so now than when it was first broadcast. A frightening and gripping court-room procedural, the Mann's narrative moves at a brisk pace and is brimming with strong dialogue, both humorous and dramatic. They raise interesting questions about the reliability of memory, the validity of testimony and the ethics of investigation, while their examination of the McMartin case exposes a multitude of flaws, in the world of social care work, the legal profession and- particularly- society in general.
The Mann's use the McMartin case to shine a light on one of the more troublesome aspects of modern society: the rush to judgement after an accusation is made. The media controlled the discourse around Buckey, painting him as a criminal before his trial even started, dictating the opinion of the masses in regards to same. The film criticises the idea that accusations should be- and are- considered as fact before proper investigation, and that accusers should always be believed. Though in the 90s, when the film was made, this was certainly topical; in the era of MeToo it feels even more so.
While the filmmakers lean on the side of Buckey, they don't take a simplistic or one-sided view of the case, rather exploring the complexities and ambiguities of the evidence and relating testimonies. In addition, the procedural elements are well-realized, with the scenes involving Davis preparing Buckey for court being especially grounded and believable. Furthermore, Jackson's inclusion of actual archival footage and real-life interviews adds a sense of stark realism to proceedings that bolsters the overall narrative impact.
Moreover, Rodrigo García's muted cinematography is subtle, contributing to the mood of the piece but never distracting or dominating scenes. His use of close-ups and artificial lighting in the court-room sequences is particularly effective, while he manifests suspense with his utilisation of low-angles and wide shots. He creates a realistic and immersive atmosphere, which is only compounded by Peter Rodgers Melnick's subdued score and Howard Cummings's unobtrusive production design.
'Indictment: The McMartin Trial' finds James Woods starring as Danny Davis, delivering a typically energetic performance both engaging and entertaining. Woods handles the comic and dramatic with equal aplomb, never appearing as anything other than authentic, whether in court or out of it. He carries the film, and works well alongside co-stars Mercedes Ruehl and Henry Thomas. Ruehl, for her part, does strong work as the prosecuting attorney, who has her own stake in the game; while Thomas's performance as Ray Buckey is nuanced and sympathetic. Also worth mentioning is Lolita Davidovich, who steals all her scenes as the sinister and saccharine Kee MacFarlane with ease.
A powerful and pointed made for TV Movie, 'Indictment: The McMartin Trial' retells an important chapter of modern history that should never be forgotten. An indictment of society and those who rush to judgement, it is both relevant and compelling, featuring punchy dialogue, sharp cinematography and a fine score. Boasting strong performances from the likes of James Woods, Henry Thomas and Lolita Davidovich, Mick Jackson's 'Indictment: The McMartin Trial' is a film innocent of irrelevance and guilty of greatness.
compelling story
SnoopyStyle23 February 2016
It's 1983. Police receives a complaint from Judy Johnson of her son's molestation at the McMartin family-run pre-school daycare center in Manhattan Beach, California. Eventually over 60 children make accusations of outrageous abuse at the school run by 76 year old Virginia McMartin (Sada Thompson) prodded by child-psychiatrist Kee McFarlane (Lolita Davidovich) and her questionable techniques. Virginia's grandson Ray Buckey (Henry Thomas) is at the center of the accusations. Callous defense lawyer Danny Davis (James Woods) is eager to take the case stoked into a media circus by Wayne Satz. Lael Rubin (Mercedes Ruehl) is self-righteous prosecutor. They arrest Ray, Virginia, his sister Peggy Ann (Alison Elliott), mother Peggy (Shirley Knight), and teachers Betty Raidor and Babette Spinler. Prosecutor Glenn Stevens pulls the case together discovering it to be built upon conflicting testimonies from the children.
This is a compelling true story. It's told from the defense's side although I'm not sure what the prosecution's side would be. It's a harrowing case. James Woods brings his energetic persona to full force. The case is riveting and utterly memorable. It is a great award-winning TV movie from HBO.
This is a compelling true story. It's told from the defense's side although I'm not sure what the prosecution's side would be. It's a harrowing case. James Woods brings his energetic persona to full force. The case is riveting and utterly memorable. It is a great award-winning TV movie from HBO.
Really good
Op_Prime1 May 2000
Indictment really catches the mind and makes you think. How one day, everything is normal and fine, but then it is instantly turned upside down. Of course for the McMartin family, there world is turned upside down in the most horrifying way: they, who ran a child-care facility, are accused of child molestation. With exception of Danny Davis (brilliantly played by James Woods) and the defense, the McMartin family is friendless and the issue of wheter they did it or not is lost on the public. They make the assumption they did it and treat them like dirt. It's like a modern Salem witch hunt. People like to be optimistic and think something like this will never happen in the US and people accused of a crime will never be treated this way, but this movie really proves the notion of 'Innocent until proven guilty' can be lost on people when the crime is big enough. See this movie.
You have faith in our legal system?
Skeptic45915 January 2004
Because I don't! I defy anyone who has ever been involved in a serious legal trial to state that western nations have a great and just legal system. The Mcmartin trial represents a real failure of our system and should be a warning of what can happen.
Similar trials happened in Australia, England and here in New Zealand. We had an innocent man here put in prison on the basis of hysteria. Although, many conspiracy nuts would state that abusive satanic cults exist and are covered up by the highest levels of government.
The actors that play the Mcmartin's are very good and you real feel sorry for them as they are caught in a nightmare not unlike Kafka's, the trial. James Woods is also good playing the motor mouth defence lawyer. Oliver Stone is also involved as the producer, which is no surprise. I bet both of these guys know whats up and want to expose the stupidity that was America's longest and most costly legal battle. Remember this trial went for 10 years!
The film explores all the things that made this trial a joke. The highly leading questions asked by social workers to children. The fact that Mcfarlane pressured the children to admit to sexual abuse. The politicians using this as a spring board to getting elected. The fact that the children even identify Chuck Norris as one of the villains. The correctly defined anatomical dolls. Judy Johnson and her bizarre alcoholic, schizophrenic ravings. The children giving bizarre confessions where they would be flown out to places to be abused. Then came satanism. The children stating that they were brought through tunnels and abused underground. No physical evidence of tunnels were ever found under the Mcmartin pre-school. The Mcmartins apparently dressed in black robes, chanted and ritually abused the children according to the victims.
Does anyone find any of this highly unlikely?
Normally if you are going to sexually abuse children, by the time you get to Peggy Buckey's age you have a major history. Child molesters do not just fall out of the sky. This case is about cultural anxiety. At this point in history the two genders had become more equalized. Both mom and dad were working. So more and more parents were dropping off their kids at daycare centers. The problem was that many people felt very nervous about their kids being at these centers. An actual book came out reporting abuse that went on in daycare centers. I have not read this book but I would imagine only a minority of centers would be abusive to kids. As things become more equal the divorce rates were also increasing as woman were walking out of bad marriages. This just increased the uncertainty felt at this time.
The problem is that there are still people who think that the Mcmartins are guilty. I am all for stopping molesters but this is just getting hysterical. It is exactly the same as the Salem witch trials. We think that we have changed since then. Well we haven't really! We can still just as easily deceive ourselves. If you look around the web you will still find websites that claim that the tunnels existed and there was a huge government cover up. Why would the government bother? Even if the Buckeys were working for a satanic pornography ring that is connected to the government, which I highly doubt. Why wouldn't the government then hang the Buckey's out to dry if they were caught? If they stated that they were satanic molesters working for the government then they would look crazy.
The other pet peeve I have about this case is that Kee Mcfarlane and her ilk were never held accountable for their actions. Social workers and mental health workers should be held more accountable. Mcfarlane's poor interview techniques caused children to believe that they were victims of a satanic cult. It seems the higher up in the food chain that you are. The more likely that you'll never be held accountable for your actions. It is a sad fact but in my experience and observations, it is a true fact.
Satanic ritual abuse has been proven to be false. The whole thing collapsed when the FBI, lead by Kenneth Lanning, COULD NOT FIND ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of the existence of any satanic cults. Lanning's official report is available online. However the conspiracy nuts state this is just more evidence of a cover up. That the FBI are part of this satanic cult or that the cult is so extraordinarily tricky that they avoid detection. I don't know about you dear reader but this sounds ridiculous to me! Lanning used the sound logic that the bigger the cult the more physical evidence that they would leave. None was ever found.
The infamous Laurence Pazder was even involved in this trial. The man who with Michelle Smith gave us Michelle remembers. The book that started the whole SRA hysteria. Why satanism? If you ACTUALLY read Anton Lavey he states that you should treat animals and humans with respect. His writings are also a rip off of Ayn Rand. Some ultra right wing people will be disturbed and not very happy about that fact!
I would also like to add that this hysteria still goes on. The case of the West Memphis three to me is the most infamous. You have three young men convicted of child murder. Why? Because they dared to dress in black, explore alternative belief systems, such as Wicca and listened to heavy metal. Most notably Metallica. Madness! All of this is dangerous madness!
The last peeve I have is that because of this mess. The teaching profession has taken the most major blows. Here in New Zealand there are few male teachers, 90 percent of teachers are now female. This issue is one of the major factors of why men no longer want to become teachers. They are afraid of being accused of child molestation. Men who want to work with children, especially young children, are considered to be strange. No real man wants to work with kids! This modern hysteria has only added to this cultural stereotype. As a result our school system suffers as boys struggle to find male role models. Boys are failing but girls are succeeding.
Some films have to be watched so we can learn from them and not repeat our own mistakes. This film is also a critique of the legal system. To me it illustrates that some fundamental changes have to happen for our legal system to function adequately. I give this 10 out of 10 and think everyone should have to watch it. All those who have never had dealings with the courts, well this is an education and a half.
Similar trials happened in Australia, England and here in New Zealand. We had an innocent man here put in prison on the basis of hysteria. Although, many conspiracy nuts would state that abusive satanic cults exist and are covered up by the highest levels of government.
The actors that play the Mcmartin's are very good and you real feel sorry for them as they are caught in a nightmare not unlike Kafka's, the trial. James Woods is also good playing the motor mouth defence lawyer. Oliver Stone is also involved as the producer, which is no surprise. I bet both of these guys know whats up and want to expose the stupidity that was America's longest and most costly legal battle. Remember this trial went for 10 years!
The film explores all the things that made this trial a joke. The highly leading questions asked by social workers to children. The fact that Mcfarlane pressured the children to admit to sexual abuse. The politicians using this as a spring board to getting elected. The fact that the children even identify Chuck Norris as one of the villains. The correctly defined anatomical dolls. Judy Johnson and her bizarre alcoholic, schizophrenic ravings. The children giving bizarre confessions where they would be flown out to places to be abused. Then came satanism. The children stating that they were brought through tunnels and abused underground. No physical evidence of tunnels were ever found under the Mcmartin pre-school. The Mcmartins apparently dressed in black robes, chanted and ritually abused the children according to the victims.
Does anyone find any of this highly unlikely?
Normally if you are going to sexually abuse children, by the time you get to Peggy Buckey's age you have a major history. Child molesters do not just fall out of the sky. This case is about cultural anxiety. At this point in history the two genders had become more equalized. Both mom and dad were working. So more and more parents were dropping off their kids at daycare centers. The problem was that many people felt very nervous about their kids being at these centers. An actual book came out reporting abuse that went on in daycare centers. I have not read this book but I would imagine only a minority of centers would be abusive to kids. As things become more equal the divorce rates were also increasing as woman were walking out of bad marriages. This just increased the uncertainty felt at this time.
The problem is that there are still people who think that the Mcmartins are guilty. I am all for stopping molesters but this is just getting hysterical. It is exactly the same as the Salem witch trials. We think that we have changed since then. Well we haven't really! We can still just as easily deceive ourselves. If you look around the web you will still find websites that claim that the tunnels existed and there was a huge government cover up. Why would the government bother? Even if the Buckeys were working for a satanic pornography ring that is connected to the government, which I highly doubt. Why wouldn't the government then hang the Buckey's out to dry if they were caught? If they stated that they were satanic molesters working for the government then they would look crazy.
The other pet peeve I have about this case is that Kee Mcfarlane and her ilk were never held accountable for their actions. Social workers and mental health workers should be held more accountable. Mcfarlane's poor interview techniques caused children to believe that they were victims of a satanic cult. It seems the higher up in the food chain that you are. The more likely that you'll never be held accountable for your actions. It is a sad fact but in my experience and observations, it is a true fact.
Satanic ritual abuse has been proven to be false. The whole thing collapsed when the FBI, lead by Kenneth Lanning, COULD NOT FIND ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of the existence of any satanic cults. Lanning's official report is available online. However the conspiracy nuts state this is just more evidence of a cover up. That the FBI are part of this satanic cult or that the cult is so extraordinarily tricky that they avoid detection. I don't know about you dear reader but this sounds ridiculous to me! Lanning used the sound logic that the bigger the cult the more physical evidence that they would leave. None was ever found.
The infamous Laurence Pazder was even involved in this trial. The man who with Michelle Smith gave us Michelle remembers. The book that started the whole SRA hysteria. Why satanism? If you ACTUALLY read Anton Lavey he states that you should treat animals and humans with respect. His writings are also a rip off of Ayn Rand. Some ultra right wing people will be disturbed and not very happy about that fact!
I would also like to add that this hysteria still goes on. The case of the West Memphis three to me is the most infamous. You have three young men convicted of child murder. Why? Because they dared to dress in black, explore alternative belief systems, such as Wicca and listened to heavy metal. Most notably Metallica. Madness! All of this is dangerous madness!
The last peeve I have is that because of this mess. The teaching profession has taken the most major blows. Here in New Zealand there are few male teachers, 90 percent of teachers are now female. This issue is one of the major factors of why men no longer want to become teachers. They are afraid of being accused of child molestation. Men who want to work with children, especially young children, are considered to be strange. No real man wants to work with kids! This modern hysteria has only added to this cultural stereotype. As a result our school system suffers as boys struggle to find male role models. Boys are failing but girls are succeeding.
Some films have to be watched so we can learn from them and not repeat our own mistakes. This film is also a critique of the legal system. To me it illustrates that some fundamental changes have to happen for our legal system to function adequately. I give this 10 out of 10 and think everyone should have to watch it. All those who have never had dealings with the courts, well this is an education and a half.
Relentless, terrifying tale of legal power and emotion gone amuck.
Hup234!18 January 2000
This is a frightening revelation, a case history of the public immolation of an innocent Los Angeles family that is suddenly overwhelmed by mindless evil. Early on, we are schooled to believe in the innate ideals of American justice. Yet the McMartin family, which operated a small child-care facility not unlike those we've ourselves seen in our own neighborhoods, one day becomes caught up in the gears of a monstrous machine powered by unreasoning vengeance. One can only imagine the McMartins' horror as their world instantly turns into a helpless, waking nightmare of slander and violence. Almost totally friendless as they become engulfed by the evil that has found them, they face national hatred and vilification, prison, and personal ruin. "Indictment" has become a classic textbook study of the McMartins' ghastly descent into the dark side of American jurisprudence and media hysterics. As such, it transcends entertainment, and stands as a warning.
This was written on January 18, 2000. It was on this day ten years ago that Raymond Buckey and his mother Peggy McMartin Buckey were finally cleared of the 52 criminal charges of which they had been accused since 1984.
See this film.
This was written on January 18, 2000. It was on this day ten years ago that Raymond Buckey and his mother Peggy McMartin Buckey were finally cleared of the 52 criminal charges of which they had been accused since 1984.
See this film.
Rivetting!
fiozinho11 October 2000
A brilliant account of justice gone haywire as an innocent family is dragged through the courts and all but destroyed by rumours of child abuse. This (true) story is a universal one - it all happened in the early eighties but similar injustices have happened again in Britain recently following witch-hunts by irresponsible national newspapers. (Do we never learn?) The film itself is excellent, with fabulous performances all round but especially by an as-always-knockout James Woods and Mercedes Ruehl. Director Mick Jackson moves it along at a terrific pace - two and quarter hours flies by. Highly recommended!
Just as scary today as it was then- still topical
rondine11 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
One of the most gripping, interesting, "can't-put-it-down" movies I've ever seen. EVERY time this movie is on TV I cannot but help watch it. The screenplay and the acting are masterful and suspenseful- EVEN though I've seen it more than once! Now THAT'S a test of greatness- when you can watch something over & over & it still has a sense of suspense and awe.
The casting is masterful- James Woods as the historically sleezy lawyer who usually takes cases that are awful and usually guilty of whatever they've been accused of. Mercedes Ruhel as the prosecutor is great because of her stoically indignant style of prosecution. This combines in the movie to make it look like initially the media *did* get it right. But then little by little things go sour. In one of the best performances she's ever given, Lolita Davidovich is spellbinding as the child therapist who gets caught up in the whirl-wind of the whole thing. Starting out with a decent motive, she ends up being the truly bad seed that started it all. She is awesome in the court room scene, as is Woods.
If you've read any of the reviews here, you will know that this movie is about the infamous McMartin trial in which basically a whole family & their employees at a preschool were accused of hundreds of counts of child molestation. It turned out after over 5 years; none of the accusations were true. The media had basically taken over the justice system in an insipid and insidious way. This was actually the first time this had happened like this. (Yes, it has since happened again on a different level in a different way.) Also, the presumption of innocence for the accused was totally discarded.
The way the media whipped people into a frenzy over the appearance of things and making these people out to be evil echoes some of the things that are going on today. In fact, it's very similar to the way Lou Dobbs has presented immigrants as something evil to be feared. Media... it can really warp the truth. One of the biggest tragedies is that the news- which is specifically supposed to enlighten and inform, has become so much about entertainment that it's lost its soul. This movie shows so well how things can be twisted- how the media can plant the seed in the minds of its viewers-- MUCH like the way Kay McFarland planted seeds in the mind of the children she "interviewed" for CII.
The Salem witch-hunts can happen again. Be on your guard- it really can happen here in America.
The casting is masterful- James Woods as the historically sleezy lawyer who usually takes cases that are awful and usually guilty of whatever they've been accused of. Mercedes Ruhel as the prosecutor is great because of her stoically indignant style of prosecution. This combines in the movie to make it look like initially the media *did* get it right. But then little by little things go sour. In one of the best performances she's ever given, Lolita Davidovich is spellbinding as the child therapist who gets caught up in the whirl-wind of the whole thing. Starting out with a decent motive, she ends up being the truly bad seed that started it all. She is awesome in the court room scene, as is Woods.
If you've read any of the reviews here, you will know that this movie is about the infamous McMartin trial in which basically a whole family & their employees at a preschool were accused of hundreds of counts of child molestation. It turned out after over 5 years; none of the accusations were true. The media had basically taken over the justice system in an insipid and insidious way. This was actually the first time this had happened like this. (Yes, it has since happened again on a different level in a different way.) Also, the presumption of innocence for the accused was totally discarded.
The way the media whipped people into a frenzy over the appearance of things and making these people out to be evil echoes some of the things that are going on today. In fact, it's very similar to the way Lou Dobbs has presented immigrants as something evil to be feared. Media... it can really warp the truth. One of the biggest tragedies is that the news- which is specifically supposed to enlighten and inform, has become so much about entertainment that it's lost its soul. This movie shows so well how things can be twisted- how the media can plant the seed in the minds of its viewers-- MUCH like the way Kay McFarland planted seeds in the mind of the children she "interviewed" for CII.
The Salem witch-hunts can happen again. Be on your guard- it really can happen here in America.
The pedophiles will get you if you don't -- watch -- out!
rmax3048239 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I don't know why this docudrama isn't more successful than it is. The issue it deals with is important enough. Maybe that's part of the problem. When you treat a tragedy with substandard techniques it cheapens the subject matter.
The difficult, I think, lies mainly in the script. It gives us all the clichés of victimization stories. Innocent people are herded up by the police without warning, shuffled off to the slams to be humiliated, accused by lunatics of nefarious actions, and suffer immensely. The survivors in the end forgive God but not people.
Well, basically, that's what happened. But the performances amount to no more than professionalism. And who could make believable such lines as, "This trial is about justice." And, "This is a system of laws and I happen to believe in it." The DA isn't given more than one dimension. James Woods is his usual manic and cocky self, and changes from cynical to committed halfway through the trial without any noticeable motivation, but at least that mania fits the role. Shirley Knight gives a first-rate impersonation of Shirley Schrift.
Lolita Davidovich's character is at least treated with some respect, although she's clearly one of the engines behind this terrible miscarriage of justice. As Woods points out, he doesn't believe she lied. He believes her motives are good but she is mistaken. She used dolls as surrogate people to draw the stories out of the kids she interviewed. In one instance she used a black doll to represent the guy they were trying to hang the molestation charges on. When asked if this was racism, Davidovich says she doesn't associate a doll's skin color with racism. SHE may not, but kids did, at least in the 1950s when the distinguished educator Kenneth Clark and his wife carried out their experiments linking the skin color of dolls to self valuation. (The studies influenced the decision in Brown vs. Board of Education.)
Yet the subject is so important that it should be seen if only for its educational content. The movie itself is an "indictment" of television, which is held responsible for the mass hysteria that swept the country at the time. (A very good TV documentary was done on a similar case in Eden, North Carolina.) Well, TV is an easy target. "World's Wildest Police Chases" and all that.
But -- to face one or two unpleasant facts -- the witch hunt of 1693 in Salem, Massachussetts, resulted in the deaths of more than 20 people, and this was considerably BEFORE radio talk shows and Geraldo Rivera. There is something in the reptilian part of the human brain that seems to enjoy the suffering of others, no matter how innocent they are. And in this instance the children only provided a conduit for that Schadenfreude. The kids were a "delivery system", as it were, for the willing hatred felt towards those in no position to hit back. It's a dark prospect that the film doesn't dream of addressing.
These waves of mass hysteria seem to come and go. Not just witches and preschool pedophiles but Paul McCartney is dead, there are worms in the McDonald's hamburgers, Satanists behind closed doors, conspiracies between internet predators, Satanic symbols in the Proctor & Gamble logo, figures in kid's TV cartoons who wear lavender clothes as a signal to the gay audience, speckled windshields in Seattle, phantom gassers in Matoon, Illinois. Some are damaging but silly. Others are far more dangerous: a horde of unaccounted for MIAs held captive in North Vietnam, and international conspiracy of Jews, a country taken over by a Kenyan-born communist president. And for too many of us, nothing seems able to shake our confidence in these mass delusions.
If we haven't GOT any enemies we'll invent them. Maybe because we need bad examples in order to perceive ourselves as virtuous.
Anyway, for all its weaknesses, the movie is definitely worth catching. The next epidemic of hysteria is right around the corner.
The difficult, I think, lies mainly in the script. It gives us all the clichés of victimization stories. Innocent people are herded up by the police without warning, shuffled off to the slams to be humiliated, accused by lunatics of nefarious actions, and suffer immensely. The survivors in the end forgive God but not people.
Well, basically, that's what happened. But the performances amount to no more than professionalism. And who could make believable such lines as, "This trial is about justice." And, "This is a system of laws and I happen to believe in it." The DA isn't given more than one dimension. James Woods is his usual manic and cocky self, and changes from cynical to committed halfway through the trial without any noticeable motivation, but at least that mania fits the role. Shirley Knight gives a first-rate impersonation of Shirley Schrift.
Lolita Davidovich's character is at least treated with some respect, although she's clearly one of the engines behind this terrible miscarriage of justice. As Woods points out, he doesn't believe she lied. He believes her motives are good but she is mistaken. She used dolls as surrogate people to draw the stories out of the kids she interviewed. In one instance she used a black doll to represent the guy they were trying to hang the molestation charges on. When asked if this was racism, Davidovich says she doesn't associate a doll's skin color with racism. SHE may not, but kids did, at least in the 1950s when the distinguished educator Kenneth Clark and his wife carried out their experiments linking the skin color of dolls to self valuation. (The studies influenced the decision in Brown vs. Board of Education.)
Yet the subject is so important that it should be seen if only for its educational content. The movie itself is an "indictment" of television, which is held responsible for the mass hysteria that swept the country at the time. (A very good TV documentary was done on a similar case in Eden, North Carolina.) Well, TV is an easy target. "World's Wildest Police Chases" and all that.
But -- to face one or two unpleasant facts -- the witch hunt of 1693 in Salem, Massachussetts, resulted in the deaths of more than 20 people, and this was considerably BEFORE radio talk shows and Geraldo Rivera. There is something in the reptilian part of the human brain that seems to enjoy the suffering of others, no matter how innocent they are. And in this instance the children only provided a conduit for that Schadenfreude. The kids were a "delivery system", as it were, for the willing hatred felt towards those in no position to hit back. It's a dark prospect that the film doesn't dream of addressing.
These waves of mass hysteria seem to come and go. Not just witches and preschool pedophiles but Paul McCartney is dead, there are worms in the McDonald's hamburgers, Satanists behind closed doors, conspiracies between internet predators, Satanic symbols in the Proctor & Gamble logo, figures in kid's TV cartoons who wear lavender clothes as a signal to the gay audience, speckled windshields in Seattle, phantom gassers in Matoon, Illinois. Some are damaging but silly. Others are far more dangerous: a horde of unaccounted for MIAs held captive in North Vietnam, and international conspiracy of Jews, a country taken over by a Kenyan-born communist president. And for too many of us, nothing seems able to shake our confidence in these mass delusions.
If we haven't GOT any enemies we'll invent them. Maybe because we need bad examples in order to perceive ourselves as virtuous.
Anyway, for all its weaknesses, the movie is definitely worth catching. The next epidemic of hysteria is right around the corner.
Appalling tale of "justice" run wild
AlabamaWorley197121 April 2000
The pursuit of legitimate child abusers is worthy indeed, but this movie shows how it can quickly get out of control. It also shows how people who start out to protect victims can fall in love with their own reputations along the way. I'm sure all the "bad folks" in this story started out with all the best intentions. James Woods and Henry Thomas stand out in a strong cast. This is a very important story.
Steven Spielberg will direct the definitive film in 2020
DennisLittrell20 May 1999
This account of the most celebrated trial arising out of the child molestation and satanic abuse hysteria of the eighties and nineties--a witch hunt far worse than that of the McCarthy era in terms of lives destroyed and innocent people thrown in jail, and even worse than the Salem witch trials of the 17th century in extent, except that nobody was actually stoned or hanged, was only the tip of the iceberg. Hundreds of innocent people went to jail and some are still there. Nobody can give them back their lives, ruined by immoral prosecutors bent on career-building at any cost and by guilt-ridden latch key parents out to excite their blood lust. Yes, children do lie and more important, as this film demonstrates, they can be brainwashed and coerced into telling the most outrageous and horrific tales--and believing them!--to escape the gestapo tactics of their interrogators.
Oliver Stone produced, and Abby Mann, who wrote the celebrated Stanley Kramer film, "Judgement at Nuremberg" (1961), and Myra Mann penned the compelling script. James Woods is excellent as Ray Buckey's attorney, but Lolita Davidovich who plays the evil and sick Kee MacFarlane (who led the indoctrination of the children) is both too pretty and too sane to be effective. Mercedes Ruehl plays incompetent L.A. County prosecutor Lael Rubin with enough vile to drip. Sada Thompson brings warmth and charm to the part of Virginia McMartin, and Henry Thomas plays Ray Buckey to a perfect fit.
But this movie was made too soon. In the five years since its production, the full extent of the hysteria has come to light. When a significant portion of a society is taken in by something like this, it takes the passage of time before the full truth can be accepted. Had director Mick Jackson known of the near pandemic extent of the sickness he might have made a larger film. Steven Spielberg, your opportunity to really do justice to the subject should arise in about the year 2020.
(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)
Oliver Stone produced, and Abby Mann, who wrote the celebrated Stanley Kramer film, "Judgement at Nuremberg" (1961), and Myra Mann penned the compelling script. James Woods is excellent as Ray Buckey's attorney, but Lolita Davidovich who plays the evil and sick Kee MacFarlane (who led the indoctrination of the children) is both too pretty and too sane to be effective. Mercedes Ruehl plays incompetent L.A. County prosecutor Lael Rubin with enough vile to drip. Sada Thompson brings warmth and charm to the part of Virginia McMartin, and Henry Thomas plays Ray Buckey to a perfect fit.
But this movie was made too soon. In the five years since its production, the full extent of the hysteria has come to light. When a significant portion of a society is taken in by something like this, it takes the passage of time before the full truth can be accepted. Had director Mick Jackson known of the near pandemic extent of the sickness he might have made a larger film. Steven Spielberg, your opportunity to really do justice to the subject should arise in about the year 2020.
(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)
Finally The Buckey-McMartin Family Gets To Tell Their Side Of The Story
HalRagland16 February 2009
"Indictment: The McMartin Trial" is a quite biased dramatization of the McMartin Preschool Case, as it should be. The case was a fraud from beginning to end and probably the most outrageous example of the allowance of mass produced coached witness testimony in the history of the justice system in the U.S. The shameful conduct of the prosecution and the judge in the case also included the introduction of perjured adult testimony as well. This case might very well be the most shameful prosecution in U.S. history.
I really liked James Woods as Danny Davis, Ray Buckey's attorney, and Henry Thomas as Buckey.
My favorite scene in the movie is the one with the child witness with the story of digging up all the graves in a grave yard. On cross examination Davis put before the boy several face pictures and asks him to identify who helped them dig up the graves. One of the people whose face picture he circled was of actor Chuck Norris. That scene of the defense demolition of the prosecution's coached child "testimony" more than any other left me wondering why the judge in the case was allowing this farce to continue his court room.
We all supposedly learned in grade school history class that children can be coached by adults into saying anything, including the most sensational accusations of debauchery against them on the part of adults, as happened at Salem in 1692. It's amazing how easily this lesson of history can be discarded by all of the adults who were hell bent on persecuting the Buckey-McMartin family. This is why it's a shame that this movie didn't get a major theatrical release. It deserved it.
After enduring a torrent of abuse at the hands of the prosecution, their "witnesses", and the media, the Buckey-McMartin family finally gets to tell their side of the story in "Indictment: The McMartin Trial".
I really liked James Woods as Danny Davis, Ray Buckey's attorney, and Henry Thomas as Buckey.
My favorite scene in the movie is the one with the child witness with the story of digging up all the graves in a grave yard. On cross examination Davis put before the boy several face pictures and asks him to identify who helped them dig up the graves. One of the people whose face picture he circled was of actor Chuck Norris. That scene of the defense demolition of the prosecution's coached child "testimony" more than any other left me wondering why the judge in the case was allowing this farce to continue his court room.
We all supposedly learned in grade school history class that children can be coached by adults into saying anything, including the most sensational accusations of debauchery against them on the part of adults, as happened at Salem in 1692. It's amazing how easily this lesson of history can be discarded by all of the adults who were hell bent on persecuting the Buckey-McMartin family. This is why it's a shame that this movie didn't get a major theatrical release. It deserved it.
After enduring a torrent of abuse at the hands of the prosecution, their "witnesses", and the media, the Buckey-McMartin family finally gets to tell their side of the story in "Indictment: The McMartin Trial".
Lessons to be learned about quick persecution
TournelHenry18 November 2017
horrible, biased movie
kafkas_pandora17 July 2006
PLEASE do some outside research on this case. Do not judge this case based on this biased film. And to correct many of these reviews, the tunnels in fact have been found. The media failed to report this, which happened after all the news stories about the 'witch hunt' and wrong accusations. Unfortunately, satanic ritual abuse and horrible sexual abuse of this nature actually do occur. To many people, it sounds so outrageous that they think it cannot be true. But it is. There is some very sound evidence that the abuse at Mcmartin preschool actually did occur. Do the research yourself. And on a related note, the False Memory Syndrome Foundation is a fishy, fishy organization filled with pedophiles and 'psychologists' who have been kicked out of the APA. This movie is a shame and I cannot believe Oliver Stone is affiliated with it.
One of the best made-for-TV-movies I have ever seen
ParaGraph30 June 1999
Believe me, folks, Schindler's List is nothing comparing it to this movie. Although that's a HBO television production, it's excellent. James Woods is marvelous as Danny Davis, Ray Buckey's defense attorney at The McMartin Trial. Other roles are wonderful too. There is no bad performance in this film. Music, cinematography, editing and script are at a very high level too. This film is unique, because that is the only film telling us about The McMartin Preschool Trial, the biggest and the most expensive child-abuse trial in the world's history and a tragedy, which tore apart a McMartin-Buckey family and a nation.
Best TV movie ever!
Joxerlives20 June 2016
Utterly horrifying in every way, the mistakes of the past seem so obvious now with the benefit of hindsight and experience. Perhaps the saddest fact is that the cops, social workers and prosecutors in this case weren't actually bad people but genuinely believed that what they were doing was right, that the had uncovered monstrous child abuse, that children couldn't lie about such subjects and that they had to be subjected to coercive interviews in order to bring the truth to the surface. When they eventually began to study the evidence in detail they begin to develop that nagging doubt that they may have been mistaken but by then its almost impossible for them to admit their error in the face of public and media hysteria. I think the most revealing scene is when Mercedes Rheul's character talks about them trying to find one photograph, one drunken confession, one piece of corroborative evidence to back up the kid's increasingly fantastical and unreliable testimony. When they find nothing of the sort she desperately resorts to citing the lead suspect's reading of Playboy, interest in Pyramid power and unsatisfactory sexual encounter with an adult woman as proof of his guilt? When it emerges that the original accuser was mentally ill she still cannot give up the case, its gone so far there's no turning back now. That is perhaps the real tragedy, that of human nature.
James Woods really rules this film, he's playing the same sleazy lawyer we've seen him play so many times before, accustomed to defending guilty as sin drug dealers but this time finds himself unexpectedly on the side of the angels with genuinely innocent clients. It really is a tremendous tour do force from him.
James Woods really rules this film, he's playing the same sleazy lawyer we've seen him play so many times before, accustomed to defending guilty as sin drug dealers but this time finds himself unexpectedly on the side of the angels with genuinely innocent clients. It really is a tremendous tour do force from him.
Brilliant!
namashi_14 May 2012
Based on the shocking true story of the McMartin preschool trial, 'Indictment: The McMartin Trial' is a Brilliant Film that takes us through the history of this controversial, unforgettable trial. Taut-Writing, Flawless Direction & Remarkable Performances, make this film, unmissable.
'Indictment: The McMartin Trial' Synopsis: A defense lawyer defends an average American family from shocking allegations of child abuse and satanic rituals. After seven years and $16 million, the trial ends with the dismissal of all charges.
Abby Mann & Myra Mann's Screenplay takes us through this journey of torment & truth, astonishingly. I loved the film, it was so interesting & blunt. From start to end, the film offers a solid punch! Mick Jackson's Direction is Flawless. He has truly surpassed himself in this masterful film! Cinematography is proper. Editing is excellent.
Performance-Wise: James Woods as the defense lawyer, is Dependable, as always. Mercedes Ruehl is fantastic. This performance is amongst her finest works to date. Henry Thomas is terrific. Shirley Knight delivers a heartbreaking performance. Sada Thompson is highly efficient. Lolita Davidovich is perfect. Alison Elliott is good. Roberta Bassin & Mark Blum leave a mark.
On the whole, 'Indictment: The McMartin Trial' is an unmissable gem!
'Indictment: The McMartin Trial' Synopsis: A defense lawyer defends an average American family from shocking allegations of child abuse and satanic rituals. After seven years and $16 million, the trial ends with the dismissal of all charges.
Abby Mann & Myra Mann's Screenplay takes us through this journey of torment & truth, astonishingly. I loved the film, it was so interesting & blunt. From start to end, the film offers a solid punch! Mick Jackson's Direction is Flawless. He has truly surpassed himself in this masterful film! Cinematography is proper. Editing is excellent.
Performance-Wise: James Woods as the defense lawyer, is Dependable, as always. Mercedes Ruehl is fantastic. This performance is amongst her finest works to date. Henry Thomas is terrific. Shirley Knight delivers a heartbreaking performance. Sada Thompson is highly efficient. Lolita Davidovich is perfect. Alison Elliott is good. Roberta Bassin & Mark Blum leave a mark.
On the whole, 'Indictment: The McMartin Trial' is an unmissable gem!
Perhaps I May Need More Convincing
Theo Robertson19 December 2002
The Mcmartin/Buckey allegations even made news reports in Britain such was the scandal of over 300 children being molested . So does this TVM give the definitive account ? In my humble opinion - No
The problem I have with INDICTMENT is despite often using transcripts from the actual trial there is no real attempt by the script to show a wider picture as to why the children and their parents made the allegations and to who was guilty of what . There are some suggestions of course like the children being asked very leading questions by child psychologists , the DA`s office being under heavy pressure to prosecute in an election year and even that some of the childrens own guardians being responsible for sexual abuse . But much of this is never followed up . What happened to the parents where it`s suggested they were responsible for sexually abusing their own kids ? Were any of them prosecuted for example ? And thinking about these loose ends meant I wasn`t too convinced about Ray Buckey`s innocence who`s side I felt the film tried to be on but which failed to show me inarguable evidence that he was a victim of a miscarriage of justice . Maybe that`s how the case ended in real life , a decision that satisfied no one.
Being a HBO production this is unlike most TVMs you`ll see . James Wood - As always - gives an intense performance of a man obsessed . The supporting cast are good too and it`s very well directed by Mick Jackson . It`d be very easy for Jackson to sensationalise the subject of child sex abuse but he keeps his discipline and confines the victims to telling their accounts from the witness stand . These accounts will haunt you for days afterwards
The problem I have with INDICTMENT is despite often using transcripts from the actual trial there is no real attempt by the script to show a wider picture as to why the children and their parents made the allegations and to who was guilty of what . There are some suggestions of course like the children being asked very leading questions by child psychologists , the DA`s office being under heavy pressure to prosecute in an election year and even that some of the childrens own guardians being responsible for sexual abuse . But much of this is never followed up . What happened to the parents where it`s suggested they were responsible for sexually abusing their own kids ? Were any of them prosecuted for example ? And thinking about these loose ends meant I wasn`t too convinced about Ray Buckey`s innocence who`s side I felt the film tried to be on but which failed to show me inarguable evidence that he was a victim of a miscarriage of justice . Maybe that`s how the case ended in real life , a decision that satisfied no one.
Being a HBO production this is unlike most TVMs you`ll see . James Wood - As always - gives an intense performance of a man obsessed . The supporting cast are good too and it`s very well directed by Mick Jackson . It`d be very easy for Jackson to sensationalise the subject of child sex abuse but he keeps his discipline and confines the victims to telling their accounts from the witness stand . These accounts will haunt you for days afterwards
Stunning
hprill26 August 2001
This (true) story of a family falsely accused of child abuse was just stunningly transformed into film - more than seven years of suffering transformed into two and a half hours of film. The plot is real, the atmosphere intense, the acting perfect - particularly so from James Woods and Shirley Knight.
A must-see. 9/10.
A must-see. 9/10.
Thought-provoking and ahead-of-its-time TV drama
fredrikgunerius16 August 2023
During the 1980s to early 1990s, there was an epidemic of false or exaggerated sexual abuse cases from preschools and day care centers around the world. What all these cases had in common was that a comment, story or allegation by a child was spun into increasingly more serious and outlandish stories of rape, satanic rituals and fantastical events through interview sessions with various child therapists and/or social workers who used what has later been exposed as highly questionable and suggestive interviewing techniques. The McMartin case was one of the most publicized of these cases in the United States, and this made-for-television movie from 1995 set out to shed light on this hysteria that destroyed the lives of so many, both children and falsely accused adults. It's a well-made and serious drama that manages to stay fairly neutral, even if there's little doubt as to the filmmakers' position. James Woods gives a solid performance as the defence lawyer who takes the McMartin family's case, and just like the filmmakers, his character is out to prove that it was mass-hysteria and systemic problems that led to these tragic results, not necessarily the wrongful doings of individuals. Simmering performances from Lolita Davidovitch and Henry Thomas on each side of the pendulum energize this thought-provoking and ahead-of-its-time TV drama.
A study of human nature.
Knox_King13 December 2000
This movie reveals the nature of man so well. It is a portrait of us human beings under pressure, psychologically, socially, economically and egoistically. It is mindboggling in this movie to see how we demand scapegoats, even in the name of justice. There's one line in the movie that sums the problem up, 'People doesn't listen to God. People listen to TV.' The power of media is being displayed like never before and we get an insight in how the justicesystem is influenced by this. The movie deals with one of the most difficult subjects there is to the modern day american, childrape, and in the light of this we get to follow how blinded we become in the search of someone to release our fears, angers and frustrations on. The McMartin Trial should be mandatory in psychology and socialpsychology classes. It is brilliant, tremendously touching and after the film is over you might have some serious pondering ahead of you. This is not entertainment, this is real life!
One of the best TV movies!
pennysachi29 August 2015
Caught this on TV about 15 years ago and managed to watch it again recently and it still hits me as hard as it did the first time.
The trials and tribulations we see the accused family go through are so painful and the stigma and paranoia surrounding them after the accusations arise.
The movie itself did an incredible job piecing together a tragic story that somehow provided light at the end of the tunnel.
James Woods is fantastic in his role as the defender for the accused. His character's initial motivation and the evolution it takes as the story progresses was very warm to see considering how the family seemed to only have each other in what was a witch hunt fed by paranoia.
It's a film that is relevant today in an age where adults have to think twice before smiling at a child in public. This film does justice to depicting some deep issues rounded out by solid performances from Henry Thomas, Shirley Knight and Sada Thompson (and of course James Woods).
The trials and tribulations we see the accused family go through are so painful and the stigma and paranoia surrounding them after the accusations arise.
The movie itself did an incredible job piecing together a tragic story that somehow provided light at the end of the tunnel.
James Woods is fantastic in his role as the defender for the accused. His character's initial motivation and the evolution it takes as the story progresses was very warm to see considering how the family seemed to only have each other in what was a witch hunt fed by paranoia.
It's a film that is relevant today in an age where adults have to think twice before smiling at a child in public. This film does justice to depicting some deep issues rounded out by solid performances from Henry Thomas, Shirley Knight and Sada Thompson (and of course James Woods).
Important Movie
Alex-3727 January 2001
Indictment is a movie showing how untested pop psychology and bad (circular) reasoning can still produce witch hunts in this day and age, and an appeal to both the viewer and the public in general to always keep a critical eye towards the facts like a laser beam.
Nor was this case a one-off. In fact, when I saw the announcement for this movie, I thought it was about the "Little Rascals Day Care Center" in Edison, NC. Only a year before the McMartins were released from jail, an almost cloned incident happened in Edison, when the owner, Robert Kelly jr. and his wife were charged with massive child abuse - as well as satanism, cannibalism, abductions... they were also accused of taking the children along in space ships, killing animals, sacrificing babies in the middle of the day care center during open hours, etc (although no children were ever reported missing). There too, the case started out with a single vindictive mother with an agenda of her own, and was built upon "recovered memories", etc.
However, unlike the McMartins, who spent up to half a decade in jail awaiting trial, the Kelly's were actually convicted and sentenced to twelve consecutive life sentences. Their convictions were later quashed on appeal.
What is also shown out in this movie is the way "true believers" think. Kee, played by the gorgeous Lolita Davidovitch, doesn't look for corrobable evidence, but simply affirmation of her already drawn up conclusions. Here is where the circular thinking comes in. When a child is asked if it has been abused, and the answer is yes, then it must be telling the truth. However, if the answer is no, then something must be keeping them from telling the truth, in this case, "they're in denial". And so they will be cojoled, even threatened, until the answer is yes. They how's, when's and even who's are less important, and as a result many of testimony becomes fantastical, even impossible. Or, to quote from an article on False Memory Syndrome:
"When the victim responds, " but I get along fine with my parents, they aren't perverts". - the trusted advisor responds, "Wow, they must have been really horrible for you to have repressed it that deep. If you won't recall, you won't get better." "
Also, Gerardo and OJ trial regular Ira Reiner (who gravely described OJ's gloves as "loosely fitting, working man's gloves") don't come off very well at all, not surprisingly.
Nor have these modern witch hunts limited themselves to North America - there have been similar mass arrests after allegations of satanic abuse in the north of Scotland, recently in the UK the daily mail undertook a campaign of publicly naming child molesters, many of whom were confused with other people, one man had a neckbrace like one of the men in the newspaper and needed police protection after both his and his neighbors house had been stoned, and a PEDiatrician needed protection after children had painted "PEDo" on her house. Nor is mass hysteria and mass psychology limited to child abuse - recently in Holland a scuzzy politician tried to whip up public support by claiming as "outrageous" the number of middle aged citizens of Maroccan and Turkish descent claiming disability - totally and conveniently ignoring the fact that among the physically demanding and dangerous industries, like steel, chemicals, and the cleaning industry, these groups were hugely over represented in the decades after WWII and still are today.
This movie is an indictment of mass hysteria, and is an appeal for every citizen to think for him or herself, and be very critical, even cynical of whatever news is presented to them on a platter every night at six.
See it.
Nor was this case a one-off. In fact, when I saw the announcement for this movie, I thought it was about the "Little Rascals Day Care Center" in Edison, NC. Only a year before the McMartins were released from jail, an almost cloned incident happened in Edison, when the owner, Robert Kelly jr. and his wife were charged with massive child abuse - as well as satanism, cannibalism, abductions... they were also accused of taking the children along in space ships, killing animals, sacrificing babies in the middle of the day care center during open hours, etc (although no children were ever reported missing). There too, the case started out with a single vindictive mother with an agenda of her own, and was built upon "recovered memories", etc.
However, unlike the McMartins, who spent up to half a decade in jail awaiting trial, the Kelly's were actually convicted and sentenced to twelve consecutive life sentences. Their convictions were later quashed on appeal.
What is also shown out in this movie is the way "true believers" think. Kee, played by the gorgeous Lolita Davidovitch, doesn't look for corrobable evidence, but simply affirmation of her already drawn up conclusions. Here is where the circular thinking comes in. When a child is asked if it has been abused, and the answer is yes, then it must be telling the truth. However, if the answer is no, then something must be keeping them from telling the truth, in this case, "they're in denial". And so they will be cojoled, even threatened, until the answer is yes. They how's, when's and even who's are less important, and as a result many of testimony becomes fantastical, even impossible. Or, to quote from an article on False Memory Syndrome:
"When the victim responds, " but I get along fine with my parents, they aren't perverts". - the trusted advisor responds, "Wow, they must have been really horrible for you to have repressed it that deep. If you won't recall, you won't get better." "
Also, Gerardo and OJ trial regular Ira Reiner (who gravely described OJ's gloves as "loosely fitting, working man's gloves") don't come off very well at all, not surprisingly.
Nor have these modern witch hunts limited themselves to North America - there have been similar mass arrests after allegations of satanic abuse in the north of Scotland, recently in the UK the daily mail undertook a campaign of publicly naming child molesters, many of whom were confused with other people, one man had a neckbrace like one of the men in the newspaper and needed police protection after both his and his neighbors house had been stoned, and a PEDiatrician needed protection after children had painted "PEDo" on her house. Nor is mass hysteria and mass psychology limited to child abuse - recently in Holland a scuzzy politician tried to whip up public support by claiming as "outrageous" the number of middle aged citizens of Maroccan and Turkish descent claiming disability - totally and conveniently ignoring the fact that among the physically demanding and dangerous industries, like steel, chemicals, and the cleaning industry, these groups were hugely over represented in the decades after WWII and still are today.
This movie is an indictment of mass hysteria, and is an appeal for every citizen to think for him or herself, and be very critical, even cynical of whatever news is presented to them on a platter every night at six.
See it.
HBO Masterpiece
rbrb27 September 2009
This is a magnificent drama, and one of the best I have seen for many years. It is based on a true story. A family running a pre-school are accused of child molestation. The vicious public and press hysteria show how accusations can lead to the ruination of so many lives, whether or not the accusations are true. In the movie we see how the prosecution gets caught up in the mass hysteria and through politics and emotions they try everything to secure convictions against the accused. From the point of view of defense lawyers the picture shows how difficult it is to get juries to acquit people when facing such charges and despite the evidence for not guilty verdicts. The trial of the accused takes center stage in the movie and the actual transcripts of the trial are used in the picture. If that is the case then there is no doubt there was insufficient evidence to find any of the accused people guilty, but watch the film to see if that actually happened. The script, direction, acting, editing and everything else in the film is superb. It had me on the edge of my seat throughout its' more than 2 hours. I thought the outstanding acting performance came from Mercedes Ruehl playing the lead prosecutor. Well done to HBO for making this superb masterpiece. 10/10.
Forces you to think about some touchy issues.
sam_316 February 2002
Oh deary me, Woods has done it again! Enthusiastic, passionate, convincing, hot-headed, bad-mouthed, pick your word.
The film emphatically draws attention to the precious justice system going bananas alongside with the media. This film also warns us of how blind we can be when it comes to "protecting" children. We painfully turn stupid and allow ourselves to forget that they are...well "children".
The film is very much sided to the accused family: the McMartins. We are led to sympathize for what they are going through. And obviously, the assumption is that they were totally innocent in the first place.
I am not sure if any parents whose children have experienced abuse would welcome the way this film handles the case.
Also, how about the tax payers who paid millions for this case? And seven bl**dy years!! The word "waste" comes to my mind. This should make us wonder about our justice system, and how they are executed.
As you can see, this film not only makes us talk of the quality of the film, but also of the event itself. To that end, this film is successful, and deserves your viewing.
The film emphatically draws attention to the precious justice system going bananas alongside with the media. This film also warns us of how blind we can be when it comes to "protecting" children. We painfully turn stupid and allow ourselves to forget that they are...well "children".
The film is very much sided to the accused family: the McMartins. We are led to sympathize for what they are going through. And obviously, the assumption is that they were totally innocent in the first place.
I am not sure if any parents whose children have experienced abuse would welcome the way this film handles the case.
Also, how about the tax payers who paid millions for this case? And seven bl**dy years!! The word "waste" comes to my mind. This should make us wonder about our justice system, and how they are executed.
As you can see, this film not only makes us talk of the quality of the film, but also of the event itself. To that end, this film is successful, and deserves your viewing.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
