Sleepers
A minor controversy when released back in the 90s. Movie was pushed as true story, however, there is precious little corroboration from RL to support the plot. Writer claims events based on his experiences but names, places and dates were changed. Regardless, very difficult to reconcile events of movie and there the matter sits.
Movie is very well made, a Barry Levinson project, and he later went on to work on one of my favorite shows, Homicide: Life on the Street. And that show is part of a constellation of shows that include the various Law and Order franchises and even Oz.
Sleepers is also part of the revenge genre, a favorite genre of mine that includes King of Ants, I Spit on your Grave, Misery, Revenge and others. But like other 'revenge' movies, the morality gets VERY murky. Would a DA throw a murder case (deliberately) to call attention to sexual abuse ?? And in the process of throwing that case to making sure another pedophile gets murdered ?? Or for the killers in the trial he throws to be freed to commit more murders (one defendant was before the trial suspected of other murders).
Further complicating the scenario, the pedophile ring had murdered one of the victims . . . .
A close watch of Sleepers reveals several problems with the scenario of the story; that a 'godfather' type in the community would collaborate with the DAs plan, that another crime lord could be induced (for $8000) to murder one of the men in the pedophile ring, that another pedophile would fold almost instantly as a character witness for the original murder victim and cop to his and the rings sexual abuse while on the stand in front of the jury ??
Would 2 of the 4 eyewitnesses to the murder fold under (not portrayed) pressure to not testify and then could a priest portrayed as pure and devout perjure himself as an alibi witness just be simply being asked too ??
The moral discontinuities in the drama along with the story difficulties that become apparent with a careful watch of the movie add up to some serious problems. Also, perhaps to pave over the moral quagmire, one of the murderers drinks himself to death soon after the trial (at age 29) and the other defendant himself is murdered, and I think the audience is to assume both died before committing anymore murders after their acquittal.
Still, it's a compelling drama to watch. Just not one to think about too much . . . .
A minor controversy when released back in the 90s. Movie was pushed as true story, however, there is precious little corroboration from RL to support the plot. Writer claims events based on his experiences but names, places and dates were changed. Regardless, very difficult to reconcile events of movie and there the matter sits.
Movie is very well made, a Barry Levinson project, and he later went on to work on one of my favorite shows, Homicide: Life on the Street. And that show is part of a constellation of shows that include the various Law and Order franchises and even Oz.
Sleepers is also part of the revenge genre, a favorite genre of mine that includes King of Ants, I Spit on your Grave, Misery, Revenge and others. But like other 'revenge' movies, the morality gets VERY murky. Would a DA throw a murder case (deliberately) to call attention to sexual abuse ?? And in the process of throwing that case to making sure another pedophile gets murdered ?? Or for the killers in the trial he throws to be freed to commit more murders (one defendant was before the trial suspected of other murders).
Further complicating the scenario, the pedophile ring had murdered one of the victims . . . .
A close watch of Sleepers reveals several problems with the scenario of the story; that a 'godfather' type in the community would collaborate with the DAs plan, that another crime lord could be induced (for $8000) to murder one of the men in the pedophile ring, that another pedophile would fold almost instantly as a character witness for the original murder victim and cop to his and the rings sexual abuse while on the stand in front of the jury ??
Would 2 of the 4 eyewitnesses to the murder fold under (not portrayed) pressure to not testify and then could a priest portrayed as pure and devout perjure himself as an alibi witness just be simply being asked too ??
The moral discontinuities in the drama along with the story difficulties that become apparent with a careful watch of the movie add up to some serious problems. Also, perhaps to pave over the moral quagmire, one of the murderers drinks himself to death soon after the trial (at age 29) and the other defendant himself is murdered, and I think the audience is to assume both died before committing anymore murders after their acquittal.
Still, it's a compelling drama to watch. Just not one to think about too much . . . .
The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it.