The Central Park Five

As someone who remembers this case well, it's pretty sobering to be faced with these five men 23 years after the fact recounting their version of events that occurred when they were teens and hard not to feel sorry for them. Worse, one can't help but wonder how such a miscarriage of justice could have happened with everybody watching. All I can think is that these boys were handy scapegoats for a decade of out-of-control crime and violence in New York and they became sacrificial lambs. Somebody had to pay the price. These five just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, admittedly doing the wrong thing (running with a mob of teens committing random attacks on white joggers and bicyclists), and the cops needed convenient suspects who were young and vulnerable enough to be manipulated into confessing to the most serious crime that occurred that night. Their convictions and a handful of other high-profile incidents during the Dinkins administration paved the way for the election of Rudolph Giuliani as mayor and a new era of proactive law enforcement and a relentless stop-and-frisk campaign aimed at black and Latino men in the city's poorer communities.

Does the film make its case without flaws? No. The deck is too stacked. They should have allowed some representative of the police or D.A.'s office to explain themselves. Michael F. Armstrong, counsel for the NYPD, says he spent half-a-day being interviewed on camera for the film and was then not included in the final cut. Some attention should have been given to what these five boys were doing in the park that night and what other crimes they themselves might have been implicated in. Yes, they describe some acts they saw being committed by other boys and either outright deny their involvement or couch it in vague terms. I think it would have been good to know if the police had direct evidence of these boys' participation in other crimes that night. For one thing, it would mean these kids might not have been the saints they're made out to be, which of course doesn't justify false accusations and wrongful convictions, as the most vocal critics of this film seem to think, but it means recognizing a significant gray area here. If they actually did participate in the mob violence that night, some attention might have been usefully paid to the whole issue of how seemingly otherwise good kids from poor but stable homes with fathers present in their lives can get caught up in that kind of lawlessness.

Also, more importantly, they should have had some expert on hand to address the whole phenomenon of false or coerced confessions and give their objective assessment of this particular case and perhaps give other known examples of established false confessions, just to provide some context and answer those critics who stand by the notion of absolute guilt based on confession. It's touched on in a couple of the interviews, but not by a recognized expert on the issue and not in any depth.

Still, it's a powerful piece and has far fewer Ken Burns-style gimmicks than we see in his other films. He manages to stay out of his own way for much of the time and let the interview subjects have their say. Maybe that's a result of having directorial collaborators.

Any story of justice denied, of people wrongfully imprisoned is inherently dramatic. But Ken Burns uses this case of five frightened teen aged boys prodded and manipulated into confessing to a crime they didn't commit to dig into some larger societal issues as well. Yes, the police and prosecutors look bad for the way they mislead the kids into confessions, and then steadfastly refuse to look at other evidence. But the press also comes off badly for exploiting the case to sell papers and satisfy a frightened city's desire for law and order, instead of asking questions when it became clear things simply weren't adding up. And politicians for expressing condemnation and outrage at these young men before they were even (wrongly) convicted. A strong and pointed warning about those times when society's desire for revenge overcomes it's sense of logic, humanity and fairness.

I think this documentary was done well overall. It captures an era in US history when New York City and many US cities were in rapid decline due to the economy, drugs, crime, white flight, etc… What happened with the Central Park Five was the culmination of many factors that ultimately led to their conviction then exoneration. To put things in context, in 1989 NYC was in the midst of an unprecedented crime wave. In 1989 there were 2,244 murders and 5,479 rapes in NYC. In 1989 and even to this day, crime statistics show 90% of all crime in New York is perpetrated by blacks and other minorities, including the criminal that was ultimately convicted of brutally raping and almost beating to death the female white jogger. At the time, Central Park seemed like a piece of calm and safety amid the crime and chaos of NY. The night of the incident, when police got reports of a gang of colored teenagers beating and terrorizing people in the park, they quickly picked up these five kids who were in the area. Under great public pressure to get the sociopath(s) responsible for this heinous crime, the police threw out their code of ethics and justice and unbelievably contrived and then cajoled false confessions out of five naive and susceptible teens and their unwitting parents. Although lacking any physical evidence and with conflicting stories from the teens, with their own contrived video taped confessions, the five teens (scapegoats) were convicted and sentenced to prison. Ultimately, another minority in prison for murder confessed to the crime and the 5 teens were vindicated as being innocent. What this documentary shows is many parts of a society in decay…from the break down of the justice system, the manipulation and railroading of innocent teens by police, the media hype that overlooked the facts, the outrageous level of crime perpetrated by minorities, overzealous prosecutors who want the feather in their cap despite the teens innocence, etc… etc… A good, insightful documentary.

Korey,Ray Santana (and Ray's father) and the other Five are the stars of this documentary really. Their humanity and suffering is etched in their faces. The story of five innocent boys (14-16) railroaded into confessing to a crime they didn't commit by police and prosecutors that just wanted feathers in their cap must touch the heart of any parent of a teenage boy. That they are ever exonerated comes as a miracle--and has nothing to do with the justice system. Ray's father says it is literally the hand of God, and honestly, this is one of those things that makes you wonder! The best thing about the movie is the men themselves. The trouble is that for Mr. Burns it is all about the racial fault line between black and white. Does he think we don't have any dividing lines up here in NH? Has he noticed the trailer parks hidden behind pine trees? All white people, definitely divided. I lived in NYC in 1990, and there was another headline blaring then about a white mob killing an innocent black man. The prosecutors in that case were also falling all over themselves making political hay. A person reading the headlines in both cases (Bensonhurst and Central Park 5) would have their blood boiling within 3 seconds. Meanwhile, more and more people in NYC spoke Spanish, Hindi, Chinese. We actually all took the subways together and were often courteous to one another, trapped like sardines, while holding our tabloids which screamed headlines that suggested, "stick to your own kind." It was less and less about black and white, but the tabloids never got that, and Mr. Burns doesn't either. He's sort of a reverse tabloid. But Korey and Ray and Antron and Kevin and Yussef are extraordinary people, and I thank Mr. Burns and his daughter Sara for permitting us to know their story. And this is more complicated than anything Mr. Burns has made before, so everyone should see it.

The documentary is well polished. And it proves the professionalism of the production team. But it is dull. And all the accents are missing. The whole film is something done to get cookie points from someone.

It starts with the populist statement about the rich of New York. The whole first part has no connection with the case. Just a "see, we're all for social justice" or something. In the end, the whole production is about not upsetting anyone. Yes, the case was badly handled. And there is racial polarization present in all footage. But the production team does not have the guts to say it it was about race. Also, not a word the whole movie about the leeches in the Police and DA. Only the last five minutes a mild talk, even more diluted with talk about "the press". How about when they had a positive identification of the DNA evidence and the bureaucrats become very scrupulous and started an investigation. Which meant more prison time for the victims and more money spent from the tax payer. There is only one slide about the civil suit brought by the Five against the governmental workers that handled the case. Nothing about the generous pension plans and impeccable record of the judge, district attorneys, policemen.

Nothing that could upset anyone while getting the most about being heroes talking about a 20 year old case. A perfect case of exploitation of somebody's pain for personal gain.