| poeTV | Submit | Login   |

Reddit Digg Stumble Facebook

Help keep poeTV running


And please consider not blocking ads here. They help pay for the server. Pennies at a time. Literally.

Comment count is 15
yogarfield - 2014-11-04

Might want to add brief NSFW around 8:30 for naked children covered in shit.


EvilHomer - 2014-11-04

What's the deal with all the urban legend hooey that the filmmakers keep dwelling on? Cropsey was a neat urban legend, yeah, and I get that, from a strictly artistic perspective, framing the Andre Rand case around the legend of Cropsey makes the story a bit more exciting, a bit creepier. It makes for good watching. But it's also sort of dumb.

Are the filmmakers trying to suggest that the legend of Cropsey is *literally* real, and that Andre Rand was, in fact, the source of all those summer-camp stories they heard as children? Because that is impossible; Cropsey stories were being told centuries before Andre Rand (allegedly!!!) killed anyone. Or are the filmmakers fully cognizant of the fact that Andre Rand has no real connection to Cropsey whatsoever, and are purposefully muddying the waters with this convoluted urban legend nonsense, merely for the sake of cinematography? Because that would be irresponsible; Andre Rand is not a storybook character, he is a real person with real legal issues, and must be treated as such.


EvilHomer - 2014-11-04

Oh, fuck these guys. "The truth is a range of possibilities!" No, it isn't, you fucking hacks.

This documentary is a hopeless mess, much like the Rand case itself. There's a few really telling bits, for example:

26:20 where the fatbeard DA basically admits that the prosecution's case was bullshit, with an ironically delivered warning about the dangers of public paranoia.
39:20 this is what corrections officers really believe.

... but most of it is just plain terrible. There's an inexplicable sideways foray into Satanic cults later in the documentary, and of course the ending is garbage.


chairsforcheap - 2014-11-04

5 stars for evilhomer being a really annoying dude who writes too much and dilutes his tiny dick points


yogarfield - 2014-11-12

Hey chair guy. That doesn't really make sense. Stop it.


John Holmes Motherfucker - 2014-11-04

The filmmakers grew up on Staten Island during a certain time, and for them, the local version of the Cropsey legend and the Andre Rand case blurred. Both seemed to center on the area around the Willowbrook institution. Some of the film is therefore a meditation on the relationship between urban legends and real life horror, but if you pay attention to the details, it's made quite explicit that the legend came first.

One of the filmmakers made a followup called Killer Legends, that takes the same approach to some other famous killers, including one killer who essentially based his crime on an urban legend. That's on hulu.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/699891


EvilHomer - 2014-11-04

It's not made THAT explicit, and Zeman and Brancaccio are obviously trying to blur fact and myth for the sake of selling a more lurid story. Elsewhere in the documentary, the filmmakers claim that, as they were investigating the Andre Rand case, they were finding it increasingly difficult to separate truth from fiction (not surprising, seeing as they're mostly doing man-on-street interviews with *random people who had no connection to the case at all*). That's a funny thing to say, since the filmmakers THEMSELVES are intentionally blurring the lines between facts and fiction, and, what with this documentary now being perhaps the best known source of information regarding the Andre Rand affair, have probably ensured that the case will forever be contaminated with Mr Zeman's lurid pablum.


John Holmes Motherfucker - 2014-11-04

>>It's not made THAT explicit, and Zeman and Brancaccio are obviously trying to blur fact and myth for the sake of selling a more lurid story.

No they're not. They're discussing the relationship of myth to reality. They're trying to evoke their childhood fears. I don't blame you if you find it pretentious or unnecessary. It all becomes a bit ponderous and silly from time to time, but the lines are always clear. The facts of the case are presented as facts, the legends are always presented as legends.

The satanic stuff is not inexplicable, the police were actually investigating that angle.

>>Oh, fuck these guys. "The truth is a range of possibilities!" No, it isn't, you fucking hacks.

Well, it sort of is. I mean, we all know that there is such a thing as reality, so if you want to get really literal, sure, but you seem to agree that we don't know what really happened. Your view of the Rand case is pretty much what I got from watching the documentary.

Yeah, the Rand case is a mess. Did you want the documentary to somehow straighten it out for you?


EvilHomer - 2014-11-04

>>The satanic stuff is not inexplicable, the police were actually investigating that angle.

Not "the police". A few isolated crackpots within the police, at most. The only guy they interview who is truly gung-ho about the Satanic cult angle is a member of NYC's Civilian Observation Patrol - a neighbourhood watch group. Not a cop. In fact, they talk to a grand total of *one* individual who was confirmed to be directly involved in an official police investigation touching on Andre's possible ties to a Satanic cult, and he chuckles and tells them it was quickly written off as bullshit. A line of inquiry that was unanimously dropped after less than half an hour of questioning is hardly significant, and does not justify the amount of time these two goofballs spend on it.

>> Well, it sort of is.

No, it isn't. There is no "sort of" involved. There is only one truth: either he killed those kids, or he didn't. Telling the audience "YOU be the judge!" is one of the most cliche cop-outs in modern pseudo-journalism. We may not any of us *know* what the truth is, but that is not the same as saying that the truth could be anything, and that all you the viewer need to do is make an arbitrary decision on the truthiness of the matter, based on whatever factually inaccurate crap you just watched, and BOOM, suddenly you've done something important. You've PARTICIPATED, aren't you special.


>> Yeah, the Rand case is a mess. Did you want the documentary to somehow straighten it out for you?

Yes, I did. I don't ask them to *think* for me - hell I don't even ask them to be *correct* - but as journalists, I do expect them to make a good faith effort to present the most logical, reasoned, and well-informed product they can. They failed to do this, and worse, their success combined with their irresponsible behavior will undoubtedly make it harder to find any real answers.


Old_Zircon - 2016-02-08

I know it's a bit late but I finally got around to watching this and I'm with JHM, the first ten minutes or so are pretty much making it explicit, and then

I've seen a bit of the director's followup and what I've seen is a lot more sensationalistic, and pretty much IS what EH is saying, and come of like glorified Discovery Channel schlock, but this one is, I think, quite well done.


John Holmes Motherfucker - 2014-11-04

>>No, it isn't. There is no "sort of" involved. There is only one truth: either he killed those kids, or he didn't. Telling the audience "YOU be the judge!" is one of the most cliche cop-outs in modern pseudo-journalism.

Well, there sort of is. Like I said, we all know that reality exists, but do you know if Rand is guilty? I don't.

I get it if this isn't the approach you'd take, but they didn't misrepresent the facts, and your contention that this will make it harder to find any real answers seems bizarre to me.

What the film records very clearly is that they had a second trial, and they convicted Rand a second time, regardless of evidence, because they didn't want him to get out again. After all this time, I don't know what other answers there are to find.


spikestoyiu - 2014-11-04

This conversation is infinitely better than the movie.


John Holmes Motherfucker - 2014-11-04

You know, my opinion of this movie has actually improved. The emphasis on the urban legends and rumors provides the psychological context for the community's determination to put this man away no matter what. You get the sense that all that folklore was a big part of what kept that man in prison.

But, of course, he may be guilty. And the fact that we don't know... that's a big part of the story.


ShiftlessRastus - 2014-11-04

See also: Capturing the Friedmans.


spikestoyiu - 2014-11-05

I wasn't being facetious, for the record. I saw this movie a little while ago. My girlfriend insisted I hunt it down and download it. I thought it was pretty dull at the time and I share a lot of the criticisms expressed in the above conversation.


Register or login To Post a Comment







Video content copyright the respective clip/station owners please see hosting site for more information.
Privacy Statement