Life After Exoneration
Many of the problems faced by the individuals in the film are also faced by ex-felons in general. Could this be the true root of recidivism for some?
Article Last Updated: 1/20/2006 05:48 AM
Oscar contender tells powerful stories
By Jeffrey M. Anderson, CONTRIBUTOR
Inside Bay Area
MANY OF the documentaries on the Academy's short list for award consideration this year — including "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room," "Mad Hot Ballroom," "March of the Penguins," "Murderball" and "Rize" — have opened to critical acclaim and enthusiastic audience reaction. (The year's most acclaimed doc, Werner Herzog's "Grizzly Man," is not on the list, but that's another story.)
Come Oscar night, Jessica Sanders' "After Innocence," which opens today in Bay Area theaters, will trump them all. It's not necessarily better than the others, but its call for social awareness rings out bolder and rises higher.
Like many past Oscar winners, it consists more of heart than of mind, as its treacly piano score attests. But after looking into the haunted eyes of the eight subjects interviewed, only the most dark-hearted person could remain cynical.
"After Innocence" charts the efforts of The Innocence Project and other individuals working to free wrongly convicted prisoners based on new DNA evidence. Dennis Maher, for example, served 19 years for various rape charges. Sanders shows him upon his release, overjoyed, moved to tears.
But we also meet him later, living with his parents, celebrating his 43rd birthday sitting cross-legged on the floor, defeated. Later, he lands a humble job and even finds a girlfriend through online dating. These baby steps seem like major victories.
Simply being exonerated sometimes isn't enough. Vincent Moto was mistakenly identified by a rape victim and served just more than 10 years for this crime. His sister, in an interview, says, "People didn't know he's out because he's innocent. People just know he's out. As far as they know, he could be a rapist. It's 10 years later..."
By far the most harrowing story belongs to Nick Yarris, a death row inmate who served 23 years in solitary confinement. He describes first walking out into the real world and being overwhelmed by the awesome noise, as well as his first gulp of non-filtered air.
Most of these men are articulate and thoughtful, and not at all thuggish. One man, Scott Hornoff, was a cop who had an affair with a woman who was murdered. He served six and a half years before his exoneration. Once out, the Rhode Island police department reinstated him, but he had — understandably — lost his passion for the job.
Sanders goes one more than simply interviewing the exonerees; she puts on a show: Ronald Cotton, who served 11 years after being wrongly accused of rape, actually faces his accuser, the attractive blond Jennifer Thompson-Canino, on camera. Amazingly, Cotton doesn't hold a grudge; the two become friends and both join the fight to free more innocent men.
The movie's biggest coup comes with the case of Wilton Dedge, who at the beginning of the film is shown languishing in a Florida prison for three years after DNA evidence proved him innocent. The local district attorney apparently pulled every bit of red tape available to keep him there. But Sanders' camera is there when Dedge gets his day in court, and there's not a dry eye in the house.
Although Dedge keeps his steely, guarded "prison eyes," the film magically captures the other men as their eyes eventually soften and they learn to trust again.
It's not surprising that many of these men become activists toward the same cause. Meanwhile, "After Innocence" contains shocking facts, like how eyewitness identification accounts for between 78 and 88 percent of all mistaken convictions.
Or that thousands of unopened letters with potentially useful information about inmates' innocence go unprocessed by volunteers. Many states do not have programs in place for people who have been falsely convicted, and many innocent people still have false crimes on their records.
Yet Sanders' reporting is far from objective. She paints the legal system as a horrible monster unwilling to admit mistakes, and the few insiders she interviews confirm her supposition.
Of the movie's eight subjects, four are African-American and four are white, and the film says nothing about race. Does Sanders wish us to believe that DNA exoneration works equally? It's already clear that the legal system is biased in that regard, but does the Innocence Project program correct this?
"After Innocence" might have been more powerful if it had followed a single, charismatic subject rather than casting its wide net over many faces. The handsome Moto would be the obvious subject, judging from his unflaggingly bright demeanor, the way he walks down the street with his young daughter, and the way she beams at him. Moto even inspired the film's Oscar-friendly title with a song that runs over the closing credits.
Moto tells his story for the camera, how, merely walking down the street, a woman pointed at him and called him a rapist. It's a terrifying reminder that this could happen to anyone at any time, and how the court system could fail as easily as it could succeed.
Article Last Updated: 1/20/2006 05:48 AM
Oscar contender tells powerful stories
By Jeffrey M. Anderson, CONTRIBUTOR
Inside Bay Area
MANY OF the documentaries on the Academy's short list for award consideration this year — including "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room," "Mad Hot Ballroom," "March of the Penguins," "Murderball" and "Rize" — have opened to critical acclaim and enthusiastic audience reaction. (The year's most acclaimed doc, Werner Herzog's "Grizzly Man," is not on the list, but that's another story.)
Come Oscar night, Jessica Sanders' "After Innocence," which opens today in Bay Area theaters, will trump them all. It's not necessarily better than the others, but its call for social awareness rings out bolder and rises higher.
Like many past Oscar winners, it consists more of heart than of mind, as its treacly piano score attests. But after looking into the haunted eyes of the eight subjects interviewed, only the most dark-hearted person could remain cynical.
"After Innocence" charts the efforts of The Innocence Project and other individuals working to free wrongly convicted prisoners based on new DNA evidence. Dennis Maher, for example, served 19 years for various rape charges. Sanders shows him upon his release, overjoyed, moved to tears.
But we also meet him later, living with his parents, celebrating his 43rd birthday sitting cross-legged on the floor, defeated. Later, he lands a humble job and even finds a girlfriend through online dating. These baby steps seem like major victories.
Simply being exonerated sometimes isn't enough. Vincent Moto was mistakenly identified by a rape victim and served just more than 10 years for this crime. His sister, in an interview, says, "People didn't know he's out because he's innocent. People just know he's out. As far as they know, he could be a rapist. It's 10 years later..."
By far the most harrowing story belongs to Nick Yarris, a death row inmate who served 23 years in solitary confinement. He describes first walking out into the real world and being overwhelmed by the awesome noise, as well as his first gulp of non-filtered air.
Most of these men are articulate and thoughtful, and not at all thuggish. One man, Scott Hornoff, was a cop who had an affair with a woman who was murdered. He served six and a half years before his exoneration. Once out, the Rhode Island police department reinstated him, but he had — understandably — lost his passion for the job.
Sanders goes one more than simply interviewing the exonerees; she puts on a show: Ronald Cotton, who served 11 years after being wrongly accused of rape, actually faces his accuser, the attractive blond Jennifer Thompson-Canino, on camera. Amazingly, Cotton doesn't hold a grudge; the two become friends and both join the fight to free more innocent men.
The movie's biggest coup comes with the case of Wilton Dedge, who at the beginning of the film is shown languishing in a Florida prison for three years after DNA evidence proved him innocent. The local district attorney apparently pulled every bit of red tape available to keep him there. But Sanders' camera is there when Dedge gets his day in court, and there's not a dry eye in the house.
Although Dedge keeps his steely, guarded "prison eyes," the film magically captures the other men as their eyes eventually soften and they learn to trust again.
It's not surprising that many of these men become activists toward the same cause. Meanwhile, "After Innocence" contains shocking facts, like how eyewitness identification accounts for between 78 and 88 percent of all mistaken convictions.
Or that thousands of unopened letters with potentially useful information about inmates' innocence go unprocessed by volunteers. Many states do not have programs in place for people who have been falsely convicted, and many innocent people still have false crimes on their records.
Yet Sanders' reporting is far from objective. She paints the legal system as a horrible monster unwilling to admit mistakes, and the few insiders she interviews confirm her supposition.
Of the movie's eight subjects, four are African-American and four are white, and the film says nothing about race. Does Sanders wish us to believe that DNA exoneration works equally? It's already clear that the legal system is biased in that regard, but does the Innocence Project program correct this?
"After Innocence" might have been more powerful if it had followed a single, charismatic subject rather than casting its wide net over many faces. The handsome Moto would be the obvious subject, judging from his unflaggingly bright demeanor, the way he walks down the street with his young daughter, and the way she beams at him. Moto even inspired the film's Oscar-friendly title with a song that runs over the closing credits.
Moto tells his story for the camera, how, merely walking down the street, a woman pointed at him and called him a rapist. It's a terrifying reminder that this could happen to anyone at any time, and how the court system could fail as easily as it could succeed.
posted by Professor Segal | 11:27 AM
<< Home