THE INTERROGATION OF MICHAEL CROWE

US, 2002, 100 minutes, Colour.
Ally Sheedy, Mark Rendall, Michael Riley, Rosemary Dunsmore.
Directed by Don Mc Brearty.

The Interrogation of Michael Crowe is a court TV drama, based on actual transcripts. When the film was made, a civil action was still pending against the detectives who carried out the interrogation. A note at the end says that the actual Michael Crowe saw the film and was satisfied by it.

The screenplay by Alan Hines is very strong, concentrating very much on the interrogation sessions between the fourteen-year-old Michael Crowe and the two detectives. In many ways this is a harrowing experience to watch.

The film opens with the interrogation but goes back to the murder situation in the Crowe household. Michael is shown with some kind of sibling rivalry with his sister Stephanie, yet helping her with her homework. During the night she is found murdered, stabbed to death. The action of the police is very severe, parents being taken away, separated from the children. They are all dressed in white clothing and interrogated separately as well. The children are then put into custody. Michael spends many months in juvenile detention awaiting trial. There is the question of whether he should be tried as an adult. If so, he would be let out on his own recognisance. In the meantime, two other boys, friends of his, are also accused of conspiracy to murder and interrogated.

Mark Rendall is quite persuasive as Michael Crowe, a melancholy boy, feeling the hardships of the imprisonment, facing the interrogation and being tricked by the detectives (in legal fashion). He eventually confesses to the crime, stating that it is still a lie.

Ally Sheedy conveys the emotions of the bewildered mother. Michael Riley is the father. Rosemary Dunsmore is very effective as the counsel who advises them and is strong enough to take on authorities.

The film represents the side of the Crowe family, but it is based on transcripts and the interrogation reports and videos. The film makes the point at the end that in many states in America, the videoing of interrogations is not permitted. This was in 2002.

1. The film based on an actual case? Court television? The audiences interested in such cases? Trials? The characters, the role of law? The role of interrogations – and their being videoed?

2. The title, the clear focus? The opening with Michael, the range of questions, the video, the transcripts? The role of the detectives, the lawyers, the judge considering admission of the videos? The arrest of the other boys, their interrogations? What was admissible – and the interrogations not providing evidence? The plea for legislation for videoing interrogations?

3. The film as a true story, the final information about the Crowe family? About the case?

4. The introduction to Michael, the camera, the detectives, their methods? Michael at fourteen, having to cope in an adult way, audience and suspicions that he might have committed the crime?

5. The family, Michael and his room, the games, the morbid touch, the drawings, his privacy? The parents, ordinary, with the children, Stephanie as popular at school, clever, getting help from Michael with her homework, the showing of the dress? Shannon and her age? The photos?

6. The night, the parents awakening with the noise, perhaps the cat? The discovery of the body? The children’s reactions, Michael and his reactions, seeming somewhat impersonal?

7. The police, at the scene of the crime, their detailed work, the policeman noticing Michael’s reaction, suspicion?

8. The ordeal, the house itself, the blood on the clothes, the parents and children taken separately? The amount of time apart, at the station, the interrogations of each, the white clothes, the children taken into custody? Their room? The authorities?

9. Michael and the effect, Shannon and the effect, being together?

10. The detectives, their characters, their techniques, seemingly friendly, the assumption that Michael was guilty, attempting to persuade him, cajole him, trick him? Their language? Their asking questions about his father? Michael as tired and hungry, the succession of days? The truth and detection – and the false machine? Telling Michael that they have evidence which was not true? Michael and his intelligence, but his fear? Blaming himself, blaming himself that he didn't remember? Ultimately confessing – but saying what he was confessing was lies?

11. The effect of the months in custody? The effect of the visits of his parents? The effect on the parents?

12. The revelation about the other boys, their being arrested? The conspiracy? The interrogations?

13. The vagrant, his arrest, his mental state, the detectives questioning him, letting him go? Not believing that he had anything to do with the murder? The neighbours reporting him to the police? The Crowe parents learning of the vagrant some time later?

14. Dorothy, the lawyer, strong-minded woman, clear with her explanations? The evidence, the interrogations and her examination of them? The issue of the boys being tried as adults, in the court, the judge and the attitude towards the videos? Not accepting them except for one boy? The decision to try them as adults? Michael able to go home?

15. The court case, the three boys together, the district attorney and her severe scenario about the boys’ behaviour, mental states, violence? The defence?

16. The arrest of the vagrant, the further interviews, using the same techniques as with Michael? The detectives withdrawing the case – but allowing themselves to reopen it later?

17. The appeals? The civil action?

18. The ordeal for the parents, the death of the child, coping with Michael’s imprisonment? The ordeal for Michael, one year of his life, the traumatic experiences, the injustice? The other boys and their families?

19. The value of this kind of film? From the point of view of Michael and the Crowe family? But based on the actual transcripts?