A police officer and his wife are shocked to find that molestation has been going on at the neighborhood day care. They're devastated when they find that their own son might be a victim too. Should they have known, should they have seen?
An attorney, upon handling an incest case, learns that she was an incest victim by her father from the age of five months to five years. Through therapy, she arranges to confront her father... See full summary »
Although Mikey is just a little boy, he is capable of anything.... Every family Mikey lives with has a series of unexplained "accidents" and hence he's moved from home to home. After his ... See full summary »
A musician living in an apartment building likes to check out the residents of the building opposite him--until he finds out one day that an attractive woman in that building is checking ... See full summary »
On the 19th of May 1983 Diane Downs stops at the McKenzie-Williamette-Hospital and cries for help. She is wounded on her arm and her three children are also wounded seriously. She says that... See full summary »
A recently widowed doctor moves with her daughter to start at a new hospital. While there a loving mother brings her son in for treatment. The doctor suspects that there is something wrong,... See full summary »
Daniel Hugh Kelly
Roger Dollison, a police officer, and his wife Kendra are living the American dream. They have two children, Teddy and Sandy, a lovely home, and a dog named Rex. What they know and how they live as a family is irreparably changed one day when it is discovered that a classmate of Teddys' is the apparent victim of sexual abuse and molestation at the respected neighborhood daycare center. Like all other parents, the Dollisons are tormented - "we should have known, we should have seen" - but their devastation is complete when Teddy tells his own story, one he promised his abusers he would never tell. Written by
Anonymous / edited by TrivWhiz
I only finished the movie because meanwhile, I was writing this review....
Ugh. Yes, it's exactly like the McMartin mess, or the horrific arrests in Wenatchee, Washington. In the movie, the mother keeps aggressively questioning her little boy, over and over and over, until he finally tells her what she obviously wants to hear. The court investigators and "therapists" repeat the pattern. The questioning itself is sexually creepy, a relentlessy repeated assault in its own way.
The moviemakers throw in a doctor talking about physical evidence of abuse, maybe to justify the film's point of view: that two- to four-year-olds never make "things like this" up. Well, they will if every adult they know is asking them to. The way this piece endorses such discredited interrogation techniques makes watching it an exercise in frustration for anyone who knows what it takes to get a successful prosecution in real life.
(They also add a special arrest incident towards the end to "prove" their case -- no parallel to this fictional incident ever occurred in real life. Can't say more here without turning this into a spoiler, but you'll know it when you see it.)
Yes, children are abused, sometimes by paid care providers. But to watch a movie which affirms the ludicrous, hysterical accusations against so many totally innocent people, to watch re-creations of the trials that ruined the lives of countless children as well as the lives of the accused -- I didn't think I'd last until the end. It's just too sad, and made more so by the writing team's seeming endorsement of the abusive, paranoid, obsessional questioning techniques that started -- what can we call it? The bonfire of the sanities?
No one I know has ever been accused of child abuse, thank heaven, but my 12-times-over-great grandmother was accused of witchcraft and killed for it. Mobs filled with what they think is holy anger are just as dangerous now as three hundred years ago. Sensational drivel like this -- "These accusations of Satanic abuse are cropping up all over the country, there must be something there!" "So tell the jury that!" -- just eggs them on.
And whoever thought it was a good idea to have kids under ten, some of them under five, play these roles? It's traumatic to watch them delivering their lines; how much more traumatic was it to act these parts? The moviemakers' commitment to fight child abuse apparently doesn't apply to themselves. And what were the child-actors' parents THINKING? "Melinda" (uncredited, at least in the version on the A&E Network in 2005, but I think it was Cassy Friel) and "Teddy" (Brian Bonsall) were terrific. Professionals or not, though, they were too young to be exposed to this material, much less to be paid to act it out. Despite ruthlessly exploiting these real-life children, "Do You Know The Muffin Man" got an Emmy nomination for directing -- which just goes to show how crazed things were, back in 1989.
14 of 18 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?