The subtext which usually emerges when simplicity is avoided in the telling of a morality tale is that good and evil are actually arbitrary. The fresh and shocking impact of this film is that the contrast between good and evil is sharp and clear. So rarely do we see that contrast today that we feel revived from moral slumber, even if momentarily. That's the essence of great storytelling.
Had this documentary told a tale which took place in 1965, I would have thought the film's straightfaced, understated delivery to be somewhat unengaging. However, the fact that the story takes place in 2000 and within our modern police system, it makes for a devastating revelation. The characters are archetypal, as emblemanic as the point being made. Racism, indolence and ineptitude rarely find a stage where they can be observed so pure. We also rarely get the opportunity to watch good people shake the system into behaving the way it should. This film should not be criticized for it's simplicity of point and of it's characters - if anything, we should be thankful that such characters exist and have endured this ordeal. It is a necessary and important distillation of where we still are as a nation - powerfully principled yet terribly flawed. The film is one-sided, as it should be (innocent until proven guilty), and it is deeply moving.
To classify this film as a "northern liberal's wet dream" (as one online reviewer has unfairly done) is to engage the cynicism which habitually complicates and frustrates communication of basic ideas; it smacks of neo-Hollywood. The undergraduate writer's urge to dilute good with poison and draw virtue from evil is not always evidence of genuine profundity. More often than not, it's simply cloudy and ill-defined values.
