< Home / Interview / Critic / Bio / My articles in Japanese >

Paradise Lost : Purgatory

Coverage by Nobuhiro Hosoki

Story : A further investigation into the arrest of three teenagers convicted of killing three young boys in Arkansas who spent nearly 20 years in prison before being released after new DNA evidence indicated they may be innocent.

Runtime:2 hr. 1 min.

 

Interview with Director Joe Berlinger

 

(Q) : So Joe, how was your holiday?

(Joe Berlinger): My holiday was a little rushed because I’m finishing another film for Sundance, and in addition to getting this film out, I have another film going to Sundance.  It’s called Under African Skies, and it’s about the twenty-fifth anniversary of Paul Simon’s Graceland Record.  And for that film we went back to South Africa with Paul this Summer.  He reunited with all those Graceland musicians and had a reunion concert.  So that’s kind of the present tense thread, but really we tell two different stories. 

A lot of people remember how wonderful that album was, but they forget that there was a huge political backlash because he recorded it during the huger cultural boycott of the apartheid government of South Africa.  And he received a lot of criticism as the album was gaining traction and getting very popular.  And the anti-apartheid activists descended upon him and wounded him very deeply.  Something he thinks about and cares about.  So we sort of re-explore those old ghosts and he meets with some of those anti-apartheid critics, they exchange views, there’s a nice resolution at the end of the movie, they exchange views about why they think it was right or wrong. 

So the film is about the role of the artist in society on one level, it’s also about how that record was made.  Also, it was extremely…. He was also accused of cultural imperialism and stealing black music and laying his own pop music on top of it.  But music now is made that way, welcome to hip-hop.   So it tells the musical story and the political story and there’s a lot of great music in the movie.

(Q) : And what’s it called?

(Joe Berlinger) : It’s called Under African Skies.

(Q) : And you had known him from before?

(Joe Berlinger) : Uh, I had shot an episode of Iconoclast with him, that TV show I do with the Sundance channel.  His brother actually thought it would be fun to do a twenty-fifth anniversary film and he remembered me.

(Q) : When did this get started?  When did the process begin?

(Joe Berlinger) :  I can’t believe how quickly the project came together.  We started talking about it in March of this year.  Shot it in ten days in South Africa, over the summer.  Somehow between Paradise Lost 3 getting out there, I quickly edited the film and it’s got into Sundance.  Having made a film that took 18 years and the fact that I did another one in 6 months is pretty remarkable.  And in the same year have both of those experiences.

(Q) :  How did you first learn about the plight of the Memphis Three?

(Joe Berlinger) : Sheila Nebbins at HBO, she was a fan of Brother’s Keeper, which was our first film.  And Sheila sent us an article, a little press clipping from back in the day, when you still had press clippings messengered over to you, not a PDF by email.  And it was a story that made it seem like it was an open and shut case of guilt.  That these were just terrible guys that did this horrible devil worshipping murder of these three eight year olds. 

What we didn’t know was that the local paper, the nearest big paper to West Memphis Arkansas, was the West Memphis commercial appeal and they wrote a very negative article saying it was an open and shut case.  That got picked up by the AP wire service, and the AP advanced it and it ended up on page twenty of the New York Times and it just says “hey look, rotten kids!”  And she sends us the article and said would you be interested in making a film about this. 

I said sounds great.  In fact I had a year and a half earlier had tried to make a film about the Jamie Bulger case in the UK, which was about how a ten year old kid had lured a four year old kid out onto the railroad tracks in Liverpool and bludgeoned him to death.  So when Sheila sent Bruce and I this article, we thought we were making a real life River’s Edge, y’know, that 1986 movie about disaffected youth.

That’s what’s been so amazing about this two decade, three film journey. That it started out with the opposite intention, that we were going to do a film about how kids can be so disaffected to do such a rotten thing as murder three eight year old kids.  But that’s what initially sent us down.

(Q) : Was it your intention from the beginning to take this material and expose it to the general public? Or was it your intention primarily to gain public sympathy so that they can join a bandwagon and protest either the process of the legal system in Arkansas or primarily to free the boys?

(Joe Berlinger) : Well advocacy had no part in it.  The original intention was purely cinematic story telling.  Three rotten kids did something horrible, let’s go make a movie about it. One of the interesting about the original movie is that we arrived within days after the arrest and embedded ourselves in the community for about eight months before the trial started. 

So there’s this tremendous access in that first movie.  And we spent a significant amount of time there before the trial began.  In the first couple of months we spent primarily time with the families of the victims.  And we had no reason to believe we weren’t making a movie about rotten guys doing something terrible.

(Q) : When did it change?

(Joe Berlinger) :  When we finally negotiated access to the West Memphis Three, who weren’t called that at the time.  They were all in county lock up awaiting trial and it took us several months to negotiate access, and after we did our first interviews with the guys , it just didn’t feel right.  Jason Baldwin was shy, but extremely articulate, so he drips with credibility. 

Jason Baldwin was an extremely credible person, but they all were extremely believable.  And even you look at Jason’s wrists, they were this big, he was a scrawny sixteen years old.  And if you believe the prosecution’s theory that he in particular wielded those hunting knives that were used in the commission of the crime, and we don’t believe those were knife wounds, after all it was according to the forensics experts, it was post-mortem animal predation. 

But at the time the theory was that he was the knife man.  And in addition to just believing this guy when his words came out, I’d just look at his wrists and think about the theory… it just didn’t make sense. And Eckles was a little more complicated to read.  You’d see him in the early films, he was not necessarily his own best friend because he never believed he would actually be convicted. 

But there was a part of him, I believe, that was actually reveling in the attention, because he was kind of a disaffected bored goth teen guy.  And he was a little more difficult to read, but even him, I walked away from those initial interviews … it’s not like we said “oh my god, they’re innocent.” But the light bulb started going off that something was wrong here.

(Q) : That doesn’t answer my question though.  When did you feel that it was a nice journey or when you wanted to get people on board, or did you want to get people on board?

(Joe Berlinger) : Well while you’re making a film, you’re still having the intention of documenting and figuring out what your film is about.  And I am trying to answer your question, I’m just long winded.  So, the initial feeling after we starred interviewing these guys was that something was wrong.  And the more we gained the confidence of the defense and looking into the defense, the more we stared to feel that these guys were wrongfully charged, but we were all naïve enough to think it was all going to work out during the trial. 

I never imagined… I just felt that these guys were wrongfully charged and that the truth would come out during the trial.  So there was no mission other than to continue to document the story.  I mean there were so many things that began to stick out as we got into the defense.  For me, the thing that was most noticeable… part of the prosecution’s story that to me made no sense was that there was no blood found at the crime scene.  

And if you want to accept their story of three unprofessional teen killers who are killing three eight year olds that are going to be writhing and trying to escape, and part of the murder was mutilation with a knife, and there’s no blood at the crime scene, the whole thing is thrown into question. And the prosecution will tell you, oh these guys washed the blood off the banks, which is absurd. 

So that fact has stayed with me from the earliest days.  But it wasn’t until we actually got to the trials where we all of a sudden became aware that this is going to be a modern day witch hunt, that these guys are going to be convicted because of their musical tastes and pension for wearing black, love of Stephen King, all these things that should never had entered into a murder trial were part of it.  And at that point, during those two weeks for Ms. Kelly and three weeks for the Baldwin-Eckles trial, that is when the advocacy started. 

We were shifting from film makers to advocates.  Because we were witnessing something that was jaw dropping and we couldn’t believe.  And you see it in both the third and first film, when so guys were wrapped in chains and lead Eckles away to death row, we were emotionally devastated and that was the point when Bruce and I said we have got to help these guys.  We will continue to make films and do what we can because we have witnessed something horrific.

(Q) :  The second movie made me think that Byers was guilty, because he was a wingnut in that one.  And this one seemed to implicate Hobbs. What do you guys think really happened? And what happened to Byers mother, as well?

(Joe Berlinger): His wife, you mean. We don’t know what happened to Byer’s wife. The autopsy, the cause of death was considered undetermined.  I think it’s both interesting and scary, to me as a film maker and someone who deals with the truth, that perceptions and facts change over the course of the series.  It’s something people should notice, and I acknowledge it. 

In the second film we very much made, we focused on the human bite mark theory, which has been discarded.  So what does that say about the reliability of the truth over an 18 year period?  I still stand by all the films and I still believe, and have always believed that these guys are innocent, but perceptions change. The reliability of information changes. 

Things that we didn’t think were relevant in the first two films have made their way into the third film.  Stuff that we thought was important in the first two films aren’t in the third film.  What does that say about the nature of documentary and journalism?  I ask the question, I don’t have the answer.  

However, I think people are mistaken when they say that the film makers are saying that Byers is guilty or the film makers are saying Hobbs is guilty or other people are guilty.  We are covering the story what the defense team and other people are saying.  And back in 1999, 2000, a lot of suspicion was directed towards Byers by thewm3.org and by the defense at the time. 

And we followed that story. In the third film, Hobbs has emerged as a potential suspect, so we’re following that story. What we think really happened, I have no idea. I think this is a crime wrapped in an enigma, wrapped in an enigma.

(Q) : Do you think we’ll ever know?

(Joe Berlinger): And I’m not we’ll ever find out what happened.  But the whole point of this series isn’t to point a finger at Byers or point a finger at Hobbs. The reason I think it’s justified to have followed those stories is that in this country, when a jury is instructed in a capital case, which means either the death penalty or life without parole, the jury is instructed to reach its conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. 

And when you have an abundance of reasonable doubt as to who is a likely suspect and who has not been investigated, that is a reason to focus on these people.  It’s not to say they’re necessarily the killers.  But it’s to say to the Police and to the jury, “why did you not focus on these things?”  There is so much doubt in these cases.

(Q) :  Judge Burnett went on to becoming the state senate after this.  Do you think he has something to do with the Alford Plea, so that technically no one can write bad things about this trial?

(Joe Berlinger): Well I think the Alford Plea is criminal and that the state of Arkansas should be deeply embarrassed at what they’ve done.  Do I think Judge Burnett had a hand in it?  Not necessarily, I don’t believe that. But I do believe that the Alford Plea is endemic of a system in Arkansas where political appointees are more concerned with protecting their jobs than finding the truth. 

Because does anyone really believe that if the state of Arkansas really thought that these teen, devil worshiping child murderers who sodomized and mutilated and murdered these kids, if you buy their story, does anybody really believe that the state of Arkansas would let them go? And if you do, if that is the case, then shame on the state of Arkansas for letting three people go because Hollywood celebrities are crying foul. 

Because Hollywood is saying let these guys go.  But of course, that’s not what’s going on here.  Because I don’t believe any responsible public official would allow people out of prison if they truly believe they are the guilty party. So that’s why I say shame on the state of Arkansas for making three guys who have sacrificed the best years of their lives… I mean to have those particular years taken from you, 19 to 36 for Damien, 17 to 35, making these guys plea guilty in order to get out the nightmare of an eighteen year incarceration… and Scott Ellington, the prosecutor, even says it at the press conference. 

“Hey, this is part of my thinking.  It’s going to save the state millions from a wrongful conviction lawsuit.”  And it’s pitiful.  And that’s telling the parents of the victims, hey, we’re not interested in finding the real killers.  That’s the greatest travesty of it all.  Because in their minds the case is closed and the killers have served time.

(Q) :  Besides DNA testing, this is what you’re saying, because there are thousands of people wrongfully imprisoned all over the country. But besides DNA testing, which only helps with a handful of cases, are there any procedural changes that you think would help reduce this sort of injustice?

(Joe Berlinger) : Every interrogation should be videotaped from start to finish, which is happening in more and more states, but is not required in many places. I think the presiding judge of an original trial should never be allowed to hear the appeals. That’s one of the greatest, to me… it’s legal in Arkansas and a hand full of other states for the original judge also be the applet judge. 

And some lawyers have tried to tell me that there are certain levels of appeal. Like ineffective council, or what’s called a Rule 37, that the original council was ineffective. That only the original trial judge is fit to pass judgment over. But I think that’s nonsense. I think the judge that proceeded over the original trial should have no applet authority.  That is why this case dragged on for eighteen years. And only when he became a state senator did I open the door for this Alford Plea to even be negotiated with a new judge.

(Q) :  In regards to this third series, was it your mindset to have an update any new viewers to familiarize them with what went on in the prior films?

(Joe Berlinger) :Yeah, well, I think what I like most about the film and what was our original intention was that we wanted to serve two audiences simultaneously that on the surface would seem mutually exclusive.  We wanted people that are not familiar with the case to find Paradise Lost 3 to be a completely, in fact, the three is a little troubling to me. 

Sometimes I wish we didn’t call it three, because it’s a sufficient viewing experience and you don’t have to have seen the other two films. But there are a lot of people who have seen the previous two films and loved them, or are deeply involved in the case and you don’t want to make a film that is just regurgitating the past and that is just boring for those people.

The way we honored those people and brought them into this film feeling like they’re having a fresh experience is that we really painstakingly dove into our original footage and for the most part we tell the old story, we repeat the key events of Paradise Lost one and two using old outtake footage that has never been used before. 

You know, the shot of Terry Hobbs smoking the cigarette, that has never been seen before, the shot of Pam Hobbs collapsing at the beginning, that’s never been seen before. And what I love the most, structurally and in that category of footage that’s not been seen before that’s old, is our use of the news footage. The local newscasters, I think is a really strong element of the film. Because, for one, it’s really fucking hard to make a non-narrated cinema verite film where you’re not using a narrator and the events tell themselves. 

It’s particularly hard in an eighteen year span. So that use of the news, from a practical standpoint, was this great device. And the reason that stuff even exists and is unique to this film is that we were really struggling with the structure and I just happened to remember, and I am a pack-rat, that I have this storage locker a few miles away from my house that is just filled with the tritest bits of production that I have ever done. And I remembered, my god, I saved all those newscast.  Because a lot of these stations don’t exist anymore, or they’ve been bought by larger chains, and general speaking news stations don’t keep an archive eighteen years deep, it’s just not practical to keep every story they’ve ever done.  

And in my storage locker I have boxes, even little VHS tapes, it’s my own personal archive of old news footage. And we were really struggling with how to tell this story. I remember at one point thinking of using a narrator and throwing in the towel. And Paradise Lost one I think you should really see, because it’s a beautifully crafted, classic cinema verite film where you film things in the present tense and it unfolds in real time. 

And so when I remembered when I had this footage, it was a breakthrough structurally, but also thematically. Because I think the media played a significant role in crucifying these guys in the beginning because they were extremely irresponsible. This was the local media telling this devil worshipping story without digging deeply into the facts.

And over time you see these very same journalists, in some cases, continue to cover the story, and the growing movement of support gets bigger and bigger you start to see the media change their tune locally and they start to report on the miscarriage of justice. And you see that theme in the film unfold. So I think the media played a crucial hand in convicting these guys on the front end. 

And on the back end playing a significant roll in forcing the environment that would allow the prosecutors to be so scared of the December evidentiary hearing that would have occurred had their not been an Alford Plea. Anyways, that’s one of the more interesting aspects of the film and that’s all footage that’s never been seen before.

(Q) : Will you continue to advocate for the innocent incarcerated?

(Joe Berlinger):  I think we’ve kind of reached the end of an era for making films, three is a good number, and it’s time to stop. But on a personal level, I will of course be very outspoken about my feelings that these guys should be pardoned by the governor and fully exonerated and whatever I can do to help move that along, I will.  

(Q) :  When you look back at the film, what elements of the documentary making process were revealed to you?  And understanding the process of making these films, how does it affect your own film making?  How do you see as a document of the whole documentary film making process.

(Joe Berlinger) : It’s a good question. Um, I see…oh hey, there’s Bruce. I see a journey of understanding the duel roll of journalism and advocacy and where is the line that one crosses. I think the first film is very much a pure cinematic verite presentation of the case without any kind of overt agenda. And twenty percent of the people who watched the first movie walked away from it thinking they were guilty just because they were buying into the same prejudice, and people are entitled to their opinion. 

I think that’s the price you pay when you don’t lecture to people and tell them specifically what to think.   I see the second film as an overt act of advocacy in search of storytelling because the second film was the weakest of the two. The impulse was advocacy, but the film making wasn’t our strongest. And I think the third film is a nice blending of the two impulses where it’s clearly an advocacy issue, but I think there is an incredibly complicated story that’s well told and satisfying cinematically as well. 

And I don’t know if that’s what you were asking, but that’s my take on the three films and I think the series takes taken together has a very important message. That why does it take three incredibly well made HBO documentaries and millions of dollars from people like Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam and Johnny Depp to give indigent defendants the kind of defense they deserved back in 1993.

Every time air, and we expect it to happen next week in fact, we are besieged with letters from people in prison saying “we’re innocent, help us.”  And not everybody that writes you from prison is innocent but you gotta believe that there’s a certain percentage of people that are.  And why does  it take film makers making films to bring justice to one case?  It’s scary.  I think the series is a cautionary tale about how the justice system is not always a sacrosanct search for the truth, but rather, who has the resources to tell their story. – 

End.