Paradise Lost 2: Revelations

After the storm kicked up by the first film, film-makers Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky returned to West Memphis four years later. Whereas the first film seemed to simply document the case in as much detail as possible and allowed you to make your own mind up, with Revelations, they seem to have their own agenda. New 'evidence' has been discovered, and perhaps the real killer still walks the streets, and it's clear who Berlinger and Sinofsky believes it to be. That crazy bastard John Mark Byers, who took so much pleasure in giving Biblical rants to camera, hardly covers himself in glory, and he's back here to build fake graves for Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley at the crime scene, only to set them on fire amidst his demented monologues.

It's sad that Berlinger and Sinofsky decided to take such a manipulative approach to the sequel, as although Byers is clearly an unhinged and simple-minded hick, there is no evidence against him killing the three boys (Michael Moore, Stevie Branch, and his stepson Christopher Byers) aside from the fact that he comes across as scary and strange. The first film was an intense study of mob mentality and the dangers of pre- judgement by appearance, and how the West Memphis Three managed to get themselves convicted simply for being black-wearing outcasts. So Revelations comes across is hypocritical.

When new evidence is presented, suggesting teeth marks on the head of one of the victims, tests prove that none of the WM3's teeth match. When Byers is confronted, he reveals that he had his teeth removed but keeps changing his story as to when this took place. He is repeatedly confronted by a support group that help fund and promote the case against the WM3, but they come across as equally strange as Byers, following Echols like groupies as if he was some kind of prophet, and they berate Byers into handing in his dental records voluntarily to prove himself innocent. Byers refuses, stating that there is no case against him, and this is shown in the film as if an admittance of guilt. The film-makers never take any time to explain the reasoning behind Byers' behaviour, clearly convinced of his guilt.

In the end, it's a case of there being too little here to warrant a two hour-plus movie. The new evidence is flimsy to say the least, and as revealed in West of Memphis (2012), is probably completely wrong. Yet when the film gets back down to cold facts, it becomes as riveting as the first film, unveiling a justice system that seems unwilling to open the doors to the possibility that they simply got it wrong. It's just a shame that too much time is spent on a personal witch-hunt, and even when Byers passes a voluntary lie-detector test, the film suggests that Byers was on so much prescription medication that the results of this cannot really stand up, yet fails to ask to conductor of the test of his views regarding this. It's certainly a confused film, and one that works best when it stays on topic and documents the facts rather than revelling in propagandistic speculation.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

Paradise Lost 2: Revelations picks up just a few years after the original documentary, Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills. During that documentary, we were informed massively about the murders and mutilation of three second graders on May 5, 1993 in West Memphis, Arkansas. The three convicted seemed to be judged by a shady, flawed confession by one of the men and their personal appearances and interests.

This is not only a sequel to a fantastic documentary, but it's a documentary that sheds light on something very, very frightening; a biased judicial system that reacts on present emotions, unclear evidence (when there hardly is any), and the personalities of the accused. It seemed that the three men were judged more on their likes and interests more than the actual murder. The three men are Damien Echols, now 24, Jessie Misskelley Jr., now 23, and Jason Baldwin, now 21.

The focus seems less on them and more on the smaller characters incorporated in the large story and the backlash and uproar the original HBO film caused. In the beginning of the documentary, we are acquainted with a local support group made up of people from all over the United States who saw the original Paradise Lost documentary, were outraged, and started their own support club. Three brave adults even came up with the idea to start a website in support of the nicknamed "West Memphis Three" (a surprising thing since internet was still pretty new and vague at the time).

The three people behind the website are shown at numerous points in the film accepting collect calls from prison from Damien Echols and holding a live, somewhat informal chat through their website. Damien is on speakerphone, people in the chat room ask him questions, and another writes down Damien's spontaneous responses as quickly as possible.

John Mark Byers, the stepfather to Christopher Byers, one of the three boys mutilated in the woods, is brought to the foreground here. He has got to be one of the most unsettling, eerie, and vicious documentary characters I've ever seen. He speaks in the southern twang you can't ignore, and his six foot eight presence equipped with his strong, muscular build is astonishing. Although he appears to be an upset father about the death of his son, he copes with his anger in a mean-spirited, hateful way. In one scene he goes as far as setting up fake graves for Baldwin, Echols, and Misskelley Jr. and proceeds to douse the graves with lighter fluid before striking a match and incinerating it all.

Byers is suspected in being involved in the murders of the three kids, and is victim to much gossip. On one of the boys, I believe Stevie Branch, but I could be wrong, there appears to be a bite mark. The prosecution insists it's a belt buckle imprint, but it impeccably resembles a purposeful bite mark. Oddly enough a few years after the original film's completion, Byers' wife, Melissa, died of "undetermined" circumstances.

Again, despite noted limitations present in the film, directors Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky seem to have an unprecedented amount of access to everything case related. Sadly, because of the notoriety of the original Paradise Lost, the film has a few more limitations than the first one did. There are some instances where the film goes to a black title card saying Berlinger and Sinofsky were not allowed to film in the designated area at the designated time. Still, the video we do see is provocative, astounding, and shows us more than one may believe.

Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills was a strong, turning point in documentary filmmaking because of its unbiased nature and its attitude to "show it all." Paradise Lost 2: Revelations is an impressive and well made documentary as well and it has the power to sway our opinions of the case itself and/or drastically change them. All I can say at this point is that hopefully we find a paradise, and it's not as hokey and as gray at the one that has been endured for far too long by these boys.

Starring: Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley Jr., and Jason Baldwin. Directed by: Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky.

But not for the right reasons.

The snickering, smug arrogance of the filmmakers, who seem to have more screen time than anyone actually involved in the case, made me see this documentary as just a vanity project. I couldnt even buy the patronizing solicitude they showed towards one defendant (undoubtedly because he is the most photogenic of the three convicted of the crime).

There is a definite travesty of justice here, but getting to the truth seems to have become secondary to the childish delight with which the filmmakers show how much smarter they are than anyone else.

Their hearts may indeed be in the right place, and they truly want to see justice served, but this kind of flagrant self-aggrandizment does not do justice to anyone.

The film offers no real evidence as to the identity of the "real" killer, beyond the filmmakers' own speculation and innuendo - which is precisely what convicted the three boys they are trying to "save" in the first place.

Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley, Jr., and Jason Baldwin were convicted in 1994 for the murder of three boys in West Memphis, Arkansas. It's 1999 and Damien has his final appeal in front of Judge David Burnett. The popularity of the original documentary has inspired support group, Free the West Memphis Three. Cameras are no longer allowed in the court. Of the victims' family, only John Mark Byers is cooperating with the filmmakers and he has a lot to say. He also has had a lot of legal problems. His wife died in 1996. He takes a lie detector test in front of the camera. The defense team seems to be concentrating on bite marks on the boys.

Byers is a big part of this follow-up. He's a very odd character and the movie is trying to make him suspicious. It's a lot of innuendos. Without being able to film the court proceedings, this is left without its main narrative. It becomes obviously one-sided. The support group adds very little to overwhelming need of this sequel. It needs to solve the murders or get the West Memphis Three out. This achieves neither. This could have been a shorter film to update the situation.

I saw this movie just over a week ago and after watching it I didn't sleep. I HAD to find out more so I visited the website for more, obviously biased, information. I can't believe that three young men can be locked up for murder (2 for life and one on death row) for this crime. Anyway, about the film. I found the crime photos pretty disgusting but I thought they were presented well, no full screen close up shots but you could see all you wanted to none the less while also being able to avert your eyes a little. I haven't viewed the first film by HBO so I can't compare the two but this one seems to present more, new evidence. I think the bite marks are the most promising pieces of evidence. If it wasn't one of the men in jail who bit the boy(s), who did? Was there a fourth person or was there a different killer(s) altogether? I have no doubt in my mind that the powers that be have to get x-rays of Mark Byers teeth before he had them surgically removed in 1997 and compare them with the bite marks.

Sorry, I keep wandering into the case and off the topic of the film. Watch this film! Prepare to be upset. Prepare to be outraged. Watch it with an open mind and I think you'll fail to find words to describe how a legal abomination such as this can happen in this day and age. I don't expect a 3rd film but I am following the case very closely for sure.