There's "based on a true story," and then there's "based on a true story that isn't over yet." I've got many, many problems with Alpha Dog (watch for my review at FlickFilosopher.com later today), but suddenly all my cinematic criticisms are starting to turn into something like active discomfort of a more civic-minded nature:

The Nick Cassavetes-directed film, which is based on an ongoing murder case, will open on Friday as scheduled, despite a defense attorney's contention that it could hurt his client's chance for a fair trial by potentially tainting the jury pool.

So says E! Online News. Though names and some minor details have been changed, the basic story of the film follows reality very closely: Over a debt of $1,200, a drug dealer, Jessie James Hollywood (played by Emile Hirsch in the flick, though he's called Johnny Truelove), kidnapped the brother (Anton Yelchin, in the movie) of the guy who owed him money, and when all was said and done -- I won't reveal what happens; one of the few things the film does do genuinely well is keep you in suspense as to how it all falls out -- Hollywood went on the lam, becoming the youngest person on the FBI's Most Wanted list, and was not taken into custody until 2005. Though some of his coconspirators have already been convicted, Hollywood's case has not yet reached trial.

And here's the super-disturbing stuff:

Santa Barbara County Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen, who convicted four other people in connection with the [crime], was removed from Hollywood's case in October due to the defense's contention that he served as a consultant on Alpha Dog and allegedly provided the production with confidential court documents.

That's the kind of corruption that could make a great movie! I see Ewan McGregor as the director and Jude Law as the DA!

No wonder the defense attorney has gone ballistic. The DA who's supposed to be trying the main perpetrator of this crime goes out of his way, it seems, to actively participate in a mass tainting of the jury pool? (The movie leaves no doubt whatsoever as to Hollywood's -- I mean Truelove's -- guilt. Though Justin Timberlake, as one of the drug dealer's homeboys, could get off on sympathy.) Which could well, in the long run, get any conviction gotten by cheating tossed on appeal, for an all-around lose-lose situation for society. Now, granted, it's not that this district attorney did all of this merely out of a weirdly twisted sense of civic duty -- it's probably safe to assume that the "consulting fee" this guy earned on the film was more than he makes in a year. Maybe he can make a living as a consultant when the DA's office bounces him entirely.

The real question for us, as movie fans, is this: Has Cassavetes gone too far? Freedom of speech is the ideal at stake here, and it's a noble one. But responsibilities come with that right. Has Cassavetes used his freedom of speech as a filmmaker, an artist, and a citizen in the proper way here? In a moral way? Just because we can say something, does that automatically mean that we should? Couldn't Cassavetes have waited till after Hollywood's trial to tell the same exact story? What difference would it have made to Cassavetes, and is any difference worth the compromising of our criminal justice system? Is any difference worth the risk that someone who might deserve to be in prison for the rest of his life could go free?

Big questions. I don't have the answers. But we should be thinking about them.

Recommend (0)

|  Comments (0)

|  Email

|  Share

Share  Facebook Digg del.icio.us