When Kids Get Life - Movie Review Example

When Kids Get Life Introduction Ofra Bikel’s film When Kids Get Life explores the question youth offenders and the appropriate means of sentencing these individuals. Filmmaker Bikel attended the University of Paris and later the Institut dÉtudes Politiques de Paris. Her individual filmmaking style is much in-line with that implemented in When Kids Get Life, namely interviews structured in incisive ways to create an overarching statement. She has produced over fifteen films, including a 1995 documentary titled the O.J. Verdict that gained a substantial amount of critical attention. Many of her films have won awards, including a 2002 Emmy Award for Outstanding Investigative Journal. Her work in When Kids Get Life presents a powerful portrait of juveniles serving life sentences, tacitly arguing that the court system that sentenced them is dysfunctional. This essay considers a variety of aspects relating to the film, including an overview of its content, its relation to the class textbook, the film’s greatest strength and weakness, its utilization of primary sources, its critical response, and, finally, the writer’s personal opinion is advanced on the documentary. Content The film’s opening segment is titled a ‘Deeply Troubled Family’ and explores Jacob Ind who brutally murdered his mother and step-father when he was fifteen-years old. While Ind outwardly experienced a happy home life, except the reality of his situation was one of emotional torment and sexual abuse. In the second segment ‘Is Abuse a Reason to Commit Murder?’ the film’s initial exploration of the Jacob Ind murders is explored in further depth. This segment contains direct personal interviews with both Ind’s brother, who attests to the abuse experienced by the boys, as well as Ind himself. There is a graphic and detailed description of the sexual abuse the boys received at the hands of their step-father; an extremely compelling story that is one of the most difficult and challenging aspects of the film. In this segment, the filmmakers are extremely skillful in developing a portrait of Ind’s family life, and suggesting a number of possible reasons for its dysfunction. Segment three, ‘Colorado’s Story,’ explores the legal system in the home state of Colorado where Ind was sentenced. Here the film interviews defense attorney Maureen Cain as she discusses the juvenile justice system that was established in Colorado, and Columbia law professor Jeffrey Fagan, who discusses the purpose for the establishment of these courts, noting they were not intended to be related to the type of crime the juvenile committed. The next segment, ‘Erik Jensen’s Case,’ examines the particular circumstances surrounding the incarceration of Erik Jensen, who was present when Nathan Ybanez strangled and killed his mother. Section five ‘Nathan Ybanez’s family’ explores the complex relationship between Nathan and his mother and the dysfunctional family structure that may have led to the eventual murder. Section six ‘Details of the murder day and Nathan’s trial’ examines the court proceedings and the social environment in Colorado during this time, including a discussion on how the Columbine incidents may have clouded the jury’s judgment. In the next section ‘Changing Punishment for Juveniles?’ considers efforts to change sentencing for future juveniles offenders in Colorado; a significant question in this regard was the decision not to make the changes retroactive. The ‘Felony Murder’ section considers the legal aspects related to the Colorado felony murder conviction that sentences individuals to life in prison. The ‘Trevor Jones’ section revisits the case of Trevor Jones exploring the incidents of his incarceration from both his family’s side and the victim’s family’s side. ‘When a Juvenile is Put in the Prison Supermax’ considers the circumstances individuals face when placed in Supermax, a sort of maximum security prison. Finally, the ‘Epilogue’ considers a number of broad range issues relating to juvenile sentencing, including the United States’ record compared to the international record, of which the United States is far ahead of the rest of the world. Relation to Textbook There are a number of elements in the textbook that relate to the issues examined in the film. Texas Politics Today considers the juvenile court system within Texas. While the film’s main pre-occupation is with the questionable nature of trying juveniles as adults, the text examines the faulty nature of juvenile system itself. It’s noted that even when juvenile offenders are tried in the juvenile court, the court doesn’t function to rehabilitate (Earl Maxwell). Instead, a great number of individuals that are put through this system ultimately become repeat offenders (Earl Maxwell). In these regards, it seems the text disagrees with the film’s argument that the solution to juvenile crime is to simply try them in the juvenile court system. In addition to this discussion, the text also addresses the history of the Texas juvenile system. Strengths and Weaknesses The documentary has a broad range of uses and applicability. Any individual in society that watches this documentary would surely gain edification from the issues it addresses. Indeed, the documentary’s exploration of the moral issues involved in the question of how to prosecute juvenile defenders speaks to the core of the American judicial system. The question of whether abuse should be considered a reason to commit murder speaks to the core of human existence. While the film undoubtedly has universal appeal, it also speaks to a number of specific segments of society. It’s clear that in great part, rather than presenting a balanced meditation of the issues, it is slanted towards encouraging viewers to sympathize with the juveniles that have been sentenced to life sentences. In these regards, the film is directed towards politicians and judicial officials with the ability to enact substantial policy change that would alter the ways juveniles were sentenced; of course, this also includes the voters who put them in these positions. In many regards, despite the plethora of objective sources, one must question the true accuracy of the film. It seems in great part to function as a piece lambasting the current judicial structure, and in only small instances speaks to the converse side of the question. While the filmmakers are accurate in their depiction of things, it’s clear that in many instances they play to emotion rather than objectivity. Consider the Jacob Ind case where a lengthy digression is given to the emotional and sexual abuse the boy’s received at the hands of their stepfather; this is truly a horrific segment and one immediately sides with the children. The prosecution’s case is only given a small sliver of time, basically a small statement about how the claims of abuse were exaggerated to gain a lighter sentence. While it is not the domain of this essay to question the boy’s claims of abuse, it’s clear that as Ind did receive a life sentence that there were perhaps more questions to be explored on the prosecutorial side. I believe the film’s lack of balance in these regards is it weakest aspect. Conversely, there are segments of the film that do function to allow the viewer personal insight to the plight of individuals whose love ones have been murdered by these offenders. In once such instance, there is an interview with Gail Palone mother of Mathew Foley presents her pain at her son’s death. I believe this segment is the strongest aspect of the film as it presents a powerful counterpoint to the main narrative thrust that is against trying juvenile offenders. Primary Sources There are a number of structural components the filmmakers implement in piecing the film together to challenge the viewer the emotionally and intellectually. The main method Bike implemented in construction of this documentary was the direct personal interview. The film gains a broad and insightful perspective through its incorporation of this method. Consider the opening segments, wherein family members on both sides of the equation are interviewed, one side describing the tragic life the individual growing up experienced that may have contributed to their horrific acts, and the other side indicating that they still feel tremendously wronged and believe that the individual should suffer for their crimes. This allows the viewer to gain a first-hand account of the issues involved to gain a more thorough understanding of the ultimately moral concerns. In addition to the direct interviews with individuals directly related to the crimes the film contains interviews with individuals who are experts in the field, some of whom have written books on the subject. This gives the viewer a more thorough perspective of the issues involved and is necessary for the, at least in part objective, commentary it grants. Another notable element is real life film from the court proceedings that is incorporated into these previously described elements. One such includes Jacob Ind’s brother describing the emotional abuse they experienced at home. This segment goes into considerably graphic detail about the abuse, and it’s clear that such a compelling, albeit disgusting, portrait of the possible elements that cause Ind to resort to murder would be difficult to achieve in a different interview setting. While in some regards the information these segments provide is similar to the direct personal interviews, having the added dimension of the court room proceedings gives the viewer an added perspective to the incidents, furthering their interaction with the actual events. In a sense, viewing the actual court proceedings allows the viewer to gain a more objective perspective on the incidents involved, as the personal interviews are not constructed in the official frame of the court. In other instances, actual video footage from news segments is implemented in the film to contextualize some of the events that are being examined in the main narrative. For instance, both local and national news segments are used to describe what was termed the ‘Denver Summer of Violence’. These segments act as a sort of evidence, substantiating the claims made the film’s narrator and the interview subjects. Reviews There exists a large amount of critical responses to the film, most of which are positive and note the critical needs for the judicial system to address the questions it raises. John Leonard from the New York Magazine explored a number of such issues. He overwhelmingly supports the issues presented in the film claiming it functions as a call for society to alter its procedures in prosecuting these individuals. In regards to the filmmaker, Leonard writes, “As usual with Bikel, there is a minimum of editorializing, a maximum of alert sympathy for everybody talked to, and a startled eye, a kind of exacerbated witness, on unruly emotions and lunatic systems.” His characterization of Bikel seems accurate, yet one would appreciate more of a balanced perspective on the film. However, it’s clear that not all viewers so wholeheartedly embrace Leonard’s contention that the film was a resounding success in its argumentative structure. Writing in the Philadelphia Daily News, Ellen Gray stated that, “... In cherry-picking a handful of Colorado cases in which there appear to be extenuating circumstances involving convicts who are likely to appear more sympathetic to a wide audience, Bikels not only stacking the deck, shes hurting the larger argument” (“Press Reaction”). In questioning the film’s objectivity Gray’s review is one of the more unique among critical receptions of the film that choose instead to concentrate on platitudes and stylistic flourishes. Opinion It’s difficult for any individual viewing this film to not have an immediate and strong reaction to the issues and cased it examines. Consider the opening Jacob Ind case one immediately becomes angered at a judicial system that is too blind to understand that the abuse these boys received ultimately forced Ind to commit his horrific acts. Similarly, in viewing the incidents involving the Erik Jensen case one feels like he got wrongly brought into the incidents and was unfairly prosecuted. What’s notable in both these instances is that at the backend of the discussions the film reveals some of the most pertinent issues of these cases: for instance, it’s possible that Ind’s abuse was exaggerated to gain jury sympathy for a lighter sentence; in Erik Jensen’s case, Jensen actually contributed to the clean-up and concealment of the murder. Even as the film raises a number of notable issues regarding the problem with juvenile prosecutions, it’s clear that it hurts its case by so biasedly supporting its case. Rather than functioning as an objective commentary in many regards it seems deceptive, more like a propaganda piece. Ultimately, my opinion on the film is divided. I recognize that it is a highly effective documentary in its ability to create an emotional reaction in the viewer, encouraging individuals to take action against what is presented as a broken system; however, I also feel that I am being manipulated to these ends and cannot fully embrace its message knowing that I am not being given a fair assessment of the issues involved. References Bikel, Ofra. When Kids Get Life. PBS. WGBH/Boston, Massachusetts. May 7, 2007 Earl Maxwell, William. Texas Politics Today 2009-2010. New York: Wadsworth Publishing, 2009. Print. Leonard, John. "An Extreme Danger to Society." New York Magazine 7 May 2007: n. pag. Web. 26 Oct 2010. . "Press Reaction." When Kids Get Life. PBS, n.d. Web. 26 Oct 2010. . Read More