Review: Devil’s Knot

Based on the true story of three murdered young boys in West Memphis circa 1993; Stevie Branch, Michael Moore, and Christopher Byers, and the heavy metal-loving, supposedly Satan-worshipping trio of teens rounded up as being the most likely suspects for the crime, on the flimsiest of evidence, and the particularly surly attitude of the no doubt Satanically inclined Damien Echols. I mean, the guy’s named Damien, right? He’s totally the son of the devil. Or a Metallica fan and practising Wiccan who just doesn’t much like authority. Could be that, too. The other two young men are Jason Baldwin, and intellectually ungifted Jesse Misskelley, whose ‘confession’ seems awfully dubious to say the least. The God-fearing, frankly ignorant locals pretty much condemned these young men right off the bat, and the cops (led by Gary Gitchell, played by Rex Linn) were eager to get this whole thing wrapped up ASAP, and use the flimsy evidence of Misskelley’s ‘confession’ to do so. However, what if these three really weren’t the killers? Rather than focus on the three sullen young misanthropes, the film centres on Ron Lax (Colin Firth), a freelance investigator (a P.I., not in any way a lawyer) and death penalty opponent called in to assist the defence team pro bono. Also prominently featured is Stevie’s loving mother Pam Hobbs (Reese Witherspoon), whose husband Terry Hobbs (Alessandro Nivola) is an abusive, intimidating creep. Kevin Durand plays suspicious-acting hillbilly John Mark Byers (one of the grieving parents, albeit adoptive in his case), Bruce Greenwood plays initial trial judge Judge Burnett, Mireille Enos plays a white trash mother, Dane DeHaan plays a possible suspect named Chris Morgan, Amy Ryan is Lax’s ex, whilst Collette Wolfe plays another defence investigator, Stephen Moyer plays prosecutor John Fogleman, Martin Henderson plays another prosecutor, and Elias Koteas plays Jerry Driver, probation officer to Damien Echols.

 

It seems that everyone somehow connected to the legal case involving the West Memphis Three has a story to tell, but this 2014 feature film version of the well-known criminal case of child murder and small-town insipid fear and ignorance has even less to tell than the rather redundant documentary “West of Memphis” did the previous year. I guess arthouse/indie darling director Atom Egoyan (“Calendar”, “Exotica”, “Chloe”) must’ve seen something of value here, or was he a gun-for-hire on this one? To be honest, I found myself questioning why such an esteemed filmmaker (albeit one I’m not personally partial to) would bother with not only a case that, let’s face it; 1) has told as much of its story already that’s ever likely to be told, and 2) Here is told from the point of view of the frankly uninteresting and sketchily connected ‘consultant’ Ron Lax (played by Colin Firth, who also shouldn’t have bothered), as detailed in a book by Mara Leveritt. The riveting “Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory” told as much of this story as I believe was necessary (I think we all know who the guilty party is, and sadly they’re unlikely to ever be arrested for it because the WM3 took an Alford Plea), minus of course the finale, but that’s hardly cause for “West of Memphis” to be made, let alone a feature film in this case.

 

If this is your first exposure to the real-life case, fair enough, you might actually really enjoy this film. However, the version of the story being told here by screenwriters Paul Harris Boardman and Scott Derrickson (who have ironically collaborated on a couple of exorcism flicks “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” and “Deliver Us From Evil”) is far less interesting than any of the previous docos on the case, and also somewhat dubious at times, too. I’ll grant you that the previous docos have probably shied away from the less savoury parts of Damien Echols’ personality (and he was probably on his best behaviour), but here as (over) played by James Hamrick, Echols is far too glowering and says things that are so overtly suspicious that I can’t imagine the real Echols would’ve been able to get away with saying such things to the police. I know the real Echols was probably closer to this guy than the virtual choir boy in the docos, but something still didn’t wash with me, not to mention that Hamrick and Seth Meriwether (as Jason Baldwin) seemed way too old for their roles. I will say that the filmmakers probably do play as fair as possible towards most of the players in this case, even investigating cop Gary Gitchell (played rock-solidly by Rex Linn), comes across a bit better than in the documentaries, simply by virtue of showing the pressures he is under to simply find a suspect/suspects. However, the only reason why prosecuting attorney John Fogleman (Stephen Moyer) and Judge Burnett (Bruce Greenwood) come off horribly here is because the former mostly just sits there silently, and neither is in the film enough to create actual characters, let alone the rather small-minded ones we’ve previously seen them to be (Burnett in the documentaries is so stubbornly held to his own beliefs that the right verdict was reached first time around, that you’ll want to strangle him. Here…meh. He’s a bit player in the film). And that’s it right there. The biggest issue for me was that the film was told from the POV of one of the least interesting and seemingly least important characters to the story, and the film also deals with characters and theoretical suspects that just aren’t credible or nearly as relevant. You see, “Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory” kinda makes the first two “Paradise Lost” films irrelevant, as they went off on tangents that didn’t ultimately pan out, though “Revelations” sure did find a fascinatingly suspicious character in John Mark Byers. This film, in trying to tell pretty much the whole story (at least from Lax’s POV), includes some stuff that is more interesting than other material discussed, therefore creating an uneven whole (and a useless one for people who already know most of this story anyway). I really like Dane DeHaan as an actor and he seems like the right fit for a story like this, but if you’re gonna offer up alternate suspects, the ‘Bojangles’ theory is a much more credible and interesting one than fleeting suspect Christopher Morgan. Sure, it helps drive home a point about recanted confessions and so forth, but I guess having seen four films about this subject beforehand, I was kinda bored seeing Egoyan and the writers wasting time with that kind of shit. Like I said, those unfamiliar with the case may be interested, but the Morgan character did nothing for me, nor did the trashy police informant character of Vicki Hutcherson, perfectly played by a possibly not acting Mireille Enos. Whether the Enos character (who offers herself up as an informant, agreeing to get all slutty and Gothic to try and get some info out of Echols) existed or not is irrelevant. I simply didn’t buy it, nor did it add a damn thing to anything outside of the quality of the acting in the film (I also didn’t buy the way the film depicts Pam Hobbs growing suspicious of her husband Terry quite early on. It just didn’t convince me, through no fault of the actors. It felt more like filmmakers who know who the most likely suspect is, and pretty much holding up a red flag).

 

Look, by now I felt I knew who the most likely suspect was, and most everything else has been either disproven or pushed aside as being far less likely or irrelevant. As far as I’m concerned, until such time as something new is uncovered or the prime suspect is somehow finally brought down (I doubt it), “Purgatory” is the film to see, the rest are all redundant. And here, given it’s a feature film made by people who seem to know who the likely culprit is and who the red herrings are, the film plays out very predictably (though I also know the case fairly well, so that probably factors in). However, it really is the character of Ron Lax that really shat me most here. This guy’s connection to the case is pretty tenuous (The real Damien Echols apparently considers him a ‘bit player’), and his character and involvement isn’t remotely interesting. Given he embarrassingly botched one in the ‘Colonel Angus’ “SNL” sketch a few years back (and not to the comedic effect it was perhaps intentionally done for, it was the worst “SNL” sketch I’ve ever seen- and I saw the Downey/Hall/Quaid season!), Colin Firth does a surprisingly decent Southern accent here. But that’s the only thing he really succeeds in. His unpersuasive performance, however, matches the character he is playing: Completely uninteresting and not terribly necessary. I was kinda miffed that the more interesting and more relevant defence lawyers were given short shrift, in favour of this joker. The guys playing the two main defence lawyers, it must be said, are pretty well-cast. Meanwhile, if the case number was indeed changed to 666, it’s fucking hilarious. Entirely shameful, but hilarious. Boy were these some dumb arse yokels with three boys’ lives in their Hicksville, USA hands. Scary.

 

So why does this clearly awful and useless film still manage to get an average-to-watchable rating? Because it’s not awful, really. There’s some pretty good performances in here. I can’t say I entirely bought the character of Pam Hobbs as written here (the real Pam took a lot longer to come around to seeing the light, than this truncated film version seems to suggest), but that is no fault of Reese Witherspoon’s whatsoever. Although she’s far too glamorous for the role (despite being de-glamourised, she’s still the hottest ‘soccer mom’ you’ll ever see), the New Orleans-born actress is absolutely terrific. She may not resemble Pam Hobbs in any damn way, shape, or form, but she convinces in this type of role, without question. She’s a damn good actress. Even more effective, however, are a frighteningly convincing Alessandro Nivola as Terry Hobbs, and a pitch-perfect bit of tightrope walking by a perfectly cast Kevin Durand as everyone’s favourite likely-yet-likely-not-guilty suspect, the frequently ranting hick John Mark Byers. Sure, it’s possible that Byers and Hobbs worked together, and the film subtly hints at the possibility, but if you’ve seen “Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory”, I think there’s an even more likely accomplice for Hobbs than Byers. There’s very little doubt that Hobbs is the most likely to be guilty party amongst any of the suspects brought up in the case, and that the West Memphis 3 are the least likely of those suspects (notice I’m not saying Hobbs is 100% guilty or that the WM3 are 100% not guilty, just most and least likely amongst the given suspects). This film certainly seems to strongly suggest it, and I’ve known a few people who have had some similar traits to Terry, just not the potentially homicidal aspect. Nivola gives a pretty damn good performance in the role. However, it’s Kevin Durand who absolutely nails it as the none-too-bright Byers. The guy was a walking caricature of hickdom, and if he had absolutely nothing to do with what happened, then I feel incredibly sorry for this guy, he just has no idea how to properly present himself to the media. He’s incredibly suspicious, though because Egoyan and his screenwriters have the advantage of as many of the facts as are currently available, they know Byers was most likely just a red herring and Hobbs the likely culprit, and thus don’t focus too much on Byers at the end of the day. I also have to commend whoever cast Kristopher Higgins as the slightly slow-witted Jesse Misskelley, he’s a dead-ringer for the young man and of the three actors playing the accused killers, he’s by far the most impressive. Gary Grubbs also has a shockingly funny appearance as the dumb arse, mail-order educated ‘occult expert’ used in the trial. He’s dead-on playing a character that’ll make you roll your eyes back into your skull. And remember, this shit really happened, and these people really were that dumb! I also have to commend Mychael Danna (“The Life of Pi”, “Moneyball”) for his damn good, Angelo Badalamenti-esque moody music score. The location shooting is excellent too, showing just how easy it would be to hide a body in all that bush. The scene where one of the bodies pulled out of the water nearly made me faint, if I’m being perfectly honest. The documentaries contained some confronting images, but seeing such a thing play out before your eyes, albeit staged, it gets you on a deep, deep level, but at the same time an immediate one.

 

Maybe if the film were made 10 years from now, I could see it being warranted. It just isn’t necessary right now, not with four documentaries already having been made (beginning in the mid-1990s), and only one of them is really necessary. You can read about the outcome online, rather than watch “West of Memphis”. Just stick to “Purgatory” if you ask me. For the most part this film is well-acted, but by focussing on a tangential character at best, and offering up nothing new, the film is competently made, but useless to anyone but the completely uninitiated. If you are indeed one of the uninitiated, please watch “Purgatory”. It’s an important story about incompetence, injustice, ignorance and stupid fear, and a film everyone should see in my opinion. This one isn’t necessary, as worthy as the real-life story certainly is. 

 

Rating: C+