Charlie Rose

SharkswithfrikingLazers  02/03/2013 01:13 AM Report

Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory was among five documentary features to be nominated for an Oscar in the 2012 Academy Awards ceremony.[8]

In this film you will see a false confession from one of the West Memphis 3 and see how Arkansas makes a huge mistake that takes almost 20 years to correct and then when they correct the mistake makes another huge mistake in justice to save face and avoid paying millions of dollars in claims.

Why does this keep happening?

stuxnet  12/01/2012 12:51 AM Report

The more I think about this Charlie Rose the more infuriated I become. It's really nice that Sarah and her father are doing their next film. At least, Charlie, you didn't ask Raymond, what's your next film. Perhaps you should realize that such opportunities aren't available to a person like Raymond.

As an alternative you might want to ask Raymond, did you enjoy summering in the Hamptons? Are you going to St. Bart's for Christmas? Are you going to Warren's New Year's party?

JohnFogarty  11/24/2012 10:12 PM Report

I am deeply disappointed in Charlie Rose's extremely unbalanced interview. I felt he was callous and treated Ken Burns joy that his daughter will be an acclaimed documentarian like himself more important than the atrocious amount of life, respect, and dignity that was stolen from the 5 men that the documentary was about. The last 4 minutes of the interview disgusted me and that Charlie didn't notice how incongruous this was ahead of time is indicative of the same state of mind that lead to those men being railroaded.

DanaP  11/22/2012 04:27 PM Report

I'm in agreement with those who are disappointed in Charlie Rose for allowing the focus to be on the Burns rather than the injustice and lack of media coverage regarding the mistakes made by all of us. I include myself in the "us" because I believed them guilty at the time. I was just as racist as others and for that I'm very sorry. Charlie, you are one of those I've admired for your stands against injustices like this. You've educated me in the past but this time I'm afraid you bought into the media trap that the common journalists fall into--that of seeming to pander to Burns and his obvious pride in his daughter rather than societal ills. The Burns focus was your focus. Tsk!

deborah345  11/22/2012 04:55 AM Report

Yes, 5 million a year for each of them for the delay plus 5 million for each year of their incarceration - perhaps they'll then be able to purchase decent treatment for themselves for the rest of their lives, decent treatment for their loved ones and for their loved one's descendants for the rest of THEIR lives, and be able to find a way with what might be left over to ease the heinous sense of injustice carried by others who've been forced to endure similar catastrophic wrong. Shame on you, Charlie Rose, for having become in this interview the most recent person and the most recent journalist to participate in the ongoing insidious violation of these young men. You could have helped Raymond Sanchez carry the shards of his life with dignity but you betrayed him instead by not putting him squarely in the center frame of this piece and by not suggesting names for some of those individuals who owe him their apologies the most. You owe him yours.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  11/22/2012 02:59 AM Report

Ten years for the lawsuit . . . TEN YEARS!?

A justice system that is so broken it can't even make it right in a decade of time and continues to play games.

Delay of game is a five yard penalty. So how about $5 million a year?

SharkswithfrikingLazers  11/22/2012 02:54 AM Report

Charlie, the "Norfolk Four" came to mind and the Frontline episode:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/

SharkswithfrikingLazers  11/22/2012 02:50 AM Report

Charlie at 22:49 a VERY HARD EDIT!

Raymond is talking about the train not moving so quickly for him and SLAP your editing train cuts him off.

You have done much, much better in the past--such as five years ago: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/8767

SharkswithfrikingLazers  11/22/2012 02:38 AM Report

Charlie, at 19:07 you made a mistake.

You asked a great question about how many apologies were received and after Raymond said "none" you threw to Ken.

That changed the entire tone of the interview.

You should have stayed with Raymond for a follow-up and let him talk about not getting any apologies.

When Ken took over it made Raymond look second class and then the interview drifted to the Burns Family Filmmakers.

You were tired and this seemed elitist.

stuxnet  11/21/2012 08:54 PM Report

I have to wholeheartedly agree with Library about the subtle dissing of Raymond and not so subtle skewing and favoritism that Charlie exhibited towards the Burns.

Sarah Burns reminds me a lot of my old white, liberal Yale classmates who see social and career advancement in "caring" about the down-trodden. It sure made them ever more smug and arrogant when they could affect a holier-than-thou attitude at a swanky cocktail party -- after "doing the right thing."

While I'm certainly glad that this film was made, media seizes upon juicy opportunities. In the '80s, it was wilding and now it's all about "social consciousness." They are nothing more than two sides of the same ole media coin.

Library  11/21/2012 03:01 PM Report

I'm very disappointed with this interview. Perhaps the producers think Raymond is not articulate or interesting enough to carry more of the interview, and his story is told in the film. But the feeling I'm left with is that Charlie has made the same essential mistake that the media covering the original prosecution of these five men made, of disregarding their subjectivity and focusing on other people's experience of this story. Ken Burns also was grossly underprepared for this interview in that he was unable to convey with any depth the heart of the story, which is the experience of those convicted. It makes me think the film will be shallow and trite. I feel especially embarrassed watching the last five minutes of the interview, when Sarah talks about the Jackie Robinson project as if she and her father can now be smug advocates for nonwhite Americans. I admit I knew nothing of this story before seeing this interview so it served a good purpose in making me aware of the scandal. But it's distressing to watch Raymond say no one has apologized to him, and to have no one at the table able to have any meaningful response or analysis of that failure. Raymond gave a very measured response in his final word, responding to Sarah and Ken's final words with the contrast in his own life. And the editing makes it clear he was cut short which may have been necessary but is awful optics just the same. I think I learned more from the small failures in the conduct of this interview than I will from what I predict is a melodramatic and shallow film. The CR show is capable of better work~

Max83  11/21/2012 02:55 PM Report

I agree with cosmic_utensil below. I don't even know who Ken Burns is. I am grateful that he and his daughter made this documentary and are shining a light on these injustices, but the focus should have been much more on Raymond Santana.

cosmic_utensil  11/21/2012 01:55 PM Report

it would have been great to see more of a focus, at the end, on the victims and their path forward, instead of discussing "departures" of film documentary styles of Ken Burns. It kind of trivializes the very serious subject at hand.

REMant  11/21/2012 11:48 AM Report

Can't Burns find something positive to make films about? IMHO the guy has emotional problems.