I saw this movie at Silverdocs, and thought that it was a decidedly mediocre look at efforts to reform the Rockefeller drug laws in New York State. The movie follows the reform efforts from three people's perspectives: Russel Simmons, the hip-hop mogul; comedian-turned-activist Randy Credico; and Wanda Best whose husband is serving fifteen years in prison for a questionable drug conviction.
The movie suffers badly from a lack of focus on any one issue. Simmons comes across as either comedic in his antics (he frequently blows up and storms out of rooms over seemingly trivial slights) or sad in his naiveté. In the end, it seems as though he is used as a pawn by larger interests at work in Albany. He seems to be someone who honestly wants to help people, but does not understand how the system works to reform laws.
Credico, on the other hand, has been working on the issue for nearly ten years and understands quite well how the system works. His problem is that he doesn't have the political clout, connections, and money to get anything done. Had things gone differently, the movie might have been able to show an interesting coalition formed between Credico with the political knowledge and Simmons with the clout and money, but they never manage to gel together. The result is that the profiles of these two men's efforts wind up looking like two ships passing in the night.
The Best family, on the other hand, seems to have an entirely different issue to deal with. The problem here seems to be a criminal conviction despite the apparent innocence of the accused, and not a problem with the drug laws per se. In other words, the profile of Mrs. Best, who works with Simmons to get her husband freed, is not related to the story that the rest of the documentary is trying to tell. Her story is touching and indicative of many problems with the criminal justice system, but is not the best illustration of the problems with the Rockefeller drug laws.
Throughout the movie, there are cuts to cartoon illustrations of statistics about the enforcement of drug laws in the United States. The statistics come across as childish both in their presentation and in fact. They seem too simplistic to illustrate the problems with the drug laws. The filmmakers might have been better served to include some narration to provide more detailed and informative background information. Even a more focused interview with Credico probably would have accomplished this, as he seemed to know his facts quite well.
Overall, the movie never really comes together. It has three separate stories that only tangentially overlap, and in the end, nothing gets done. While it may serve as a monument to the futility of reform, it is perhaps better seen as a cautionary tale about making documentaries where you don't know what the outcome of events will be.
The movie suffers badly from a lack of focus on any one issue. Simmons comes across as either comedic in his antics (he frequently blows up and storms out of rooms over seemingly trivial slights) or sad in his naiveté. In the end, it seems as though he is used as a pawn by larger interests at work in Albany. He seems to be someone who honestly wants to help people, but does not understand how the system works to reform laws.
Credico, on the other hand, has been working on the issue for nearly ten years and understands quite well how the system works. His problem is that he doesn't have the political clout, connections, and money to get anything done. Had things gone differently, the movie might have been able to show an interesting coalition formed between Credico with the political knowledge and Simmons with the clout and money, but they never manage to gel together. The result is that the profiles of these two men's efforts wind up looking like two ships passing in the night.
The Best family, on the other hand, seems to have an entirely different issue to deal with. The problem here seems to be a criminal conviction despite the apparent innocence of the accused, and not a problem with the drug laws per se. In other words, the profile of Mrs. Best, who works with Simmons to get her husband freed, is not related to the story that the rest of the documentary is trying to tell. Her story is touching and indicative of many problems with the criminal justice system, but is not the best illustration of the problems with the Rockefeller drug laws.
Throughout the movie, there are cuts to cartoon illustrations of statistics about the enforcement of drug laws in the United States. The statistics come across as childish both in their presentation and in fact. They seem too simplistic to illustrate the problems with the drug laws. The filmmakers might have been better served to include some narration to provide more detailed and informative background information. Even a more focused interview with Credico probably would have accomplished this, as he seemed to know his facts quite well.
Overall, the movie never really comes together. It has three separate stories that only tangentially overlap, and in the end, nothing gets done. While it may serve as a monument to the futility of reform, it is perhaps better seen as a cautionary tale about making documentaries where you don't know what the outcome of events will be.