Cropsey

"Cropsey" is a 2009 documentary by Joshua Zeman and Barbara Barbara Brancaccio dealing with the real-life disappearances of several children from Staten Island, New York. The film, for the most part, follows the investigation and jailing of suspect Andre Rand, and the film delves into whether or not Rand did it, while questioning his motives, the possibility of there being accomplices, etc.

The film, for it's subject matter, is entertaining in a perverse way to watch. Much in the same way you might shiver at a campfire tale or watch a train-wreck with morbid curiosity. And it does provide some thrills and chills for the audience, particularly with some bizarre scenes in which it is proposed that Rand was in cahoots with, or knew members of human- sacrificing, Satanic cults. (Although, like most things in the film, this goes nowhere real fast.)

But the film feels too much like exploitation. From using the "Cropsey" urban legends and stories in a way that doesn't quite fit in well with the film (at least to me, it felt like a bit of mudslinging), to the fact that nothing is accomplished in the runntime. Nothing gels together, nor is it particularly compelling to watch.

No answers are given to any of the burning questions that the film proposes (which becomes the documentary's taunting theme- "We don't know..."), and to be honest, it makes you question everything way too much. From moment to moment, you'll hate Rand, then feel sympathy, then question if he's the real culprit, then hate him again. It's too much of a roller-coaster ride for the complete lack of payoff, and it leaves you feeling thrilled, but empty.

I give "Cropsey" a 6 out of 10. It's an eerie watch, and does have some good moments, but it doesn't accomplish anything major. It just exists for the sake of existing.

Cropsey is a well-produced and well-written story of some missing children on Staten Island, centered around the story of the man who might have kidnapped and murdered them.

The filmmakers tracked down and interviewed dozens of people connected with the stories of the girls, of "Cropsey," and of the taciturn man at the center of the case. Although there are the usual talking head scenes, the film also includes much atmospheric and thematic footage of the area in Staten Island where the activities took place that they are probing.

There are plenty of oddities in the legal and moral cases presented and discussed. The timeline extends more than 30 years. I found the film disquieting both because the central characters seemed to be less than innocent but at the same time, the film makes clear that the circumstances being explored are themselves foggy. Good film, subtly highlighting the difficulties of justice and the pain of not knowing.

CROPSEY is a documentary about the disappearances / murders of five male and female youths, of varying ages. All five vanished on Staten Island, NY in the 1970's-80s. All were developmentally disabled. Several avenues of investigation are followed, including a disturbing connection to the infamous Willow Brook Institution -a horror story in itself!- and the labyrinthine tunnels beneath its vast acreage.

CROPSEY himself is part real, and part urban legend, in that the original killer has become a larger than life boogeyman. Through interviews and archival news footage, the filmmakers present the facts, as well as some of the theories the public latched onto in order to make sense of the case. Not-so-shockingly, Satanism was suspected!

As a side note, the origin of the name CROPSEY is never explained. Personally, I've only ever heard the name used in the movie THE BURNING, about a vengeful, teen-murdering camp caretaker. The usage here is interesting indeed...

One thing I like about this film... and that I don't like... is that it opens the way to the next step in the story. Unfortunately, the film does not provide an avenue for the step to be taken. It didn't move forward fast enough and left the juicy bits for us to imagine. Feels like perhaps there was not the will or the money needed to take the story to the final conclusion. The dissection of his psychological profile. As made clear in the movie, he is very affected by his experience at Willowbrook (and his mother's experience in care) why not look at what happened at Willowbrook because he probably started there and what was Willowbrook's official or unofficial means of disposing of the deceased patients? Were there many unexplained accidents while he was there? Who did he work with and then have contact with or visit on Staten Island after Willowbrook shutdown? But mainly, what did Willowbrook do with the deceased patients in their care? and where was his mother buried? How could he have recreated those circumstances on Staten Island? Plus, he likely knew of ways to get into parts of Willowbrook that seem totally unaccessible to folks unaware of what it is like to be homeless. Take the camera in there, not just superficially look over the grounds please. There were furnaces and other places on those grounds that would naturally be a place he would have known about which could very well be buried in ruins now and that's what I needed to see- more effort.

From Joshua Zeman who brought us the fantastic Killer Legends (2014) we have a documentary about the urban legend Cropsey. For those unaware it was a name given to a faceless (Not literally) individual who snatched children and resided in abandoned buildings within the forest. Alike many urban legends the story changes dependent on who you ask and where they're from.

But instead of focusing on the origins of Cropsey it instead focus's on the true story of Andre Rand a man suspected of abducting and killing a number of children with learning difficulties. A living, breathing Cropsey.

The team give a history on the man and the lost children, interviews experts and those involved in the case as well as the usual incorporation of archive news footage and stock interviews.

Its all well made, but considering how little they actually have to go on much of it feels like filler and it's all assumptions leaving the viewer with unanswered questions and I found that a tad frustrating. This isn't a water tight case and therefore they could never provide 100% certainty but for this reason it felt like rather flawed subject matter.

Regardless the archive footage is very moving and the man in question is rather fascinating. The viewer is left to make up their own mind as to what they believe happened based on evidence presented.

Passable stuff, but Zeman's later works are superior.

The Good:

Well made

Great archive footage

The Bad:

Feels like too much critical information is missing

Too short