It is 1983, and Ray Buckey- a teacher at his grandmother's preschool- is arrested after numerous children accuse him of sexual assault. Awaiting trial, Buckey is assigned fast-talking defence attorney Danny Davis, who isn't interested in whether he in innocent or not; only caring about the mechanics of the law. As the trial unfurls, however, Davis becomes increasingly disturbed by the way social worker Kee MacFarlane extracted the children's confessions of abuse, and starts to believe in Buckey's innocence. Will Davis be able to convince the jury, or will Buckey be found guilty on all counts?

Directed by Mick Jackson from a screenplay by Abby and Myra Mann, 'Indictment: The McMartin Trial' is a riveting retelling of a sadly true story that is prescient and relevant- perhaps even more so now than when it was first broadcast. A frightening and gripping court-room procedural, the Mann's narrative moves at a brisk pace and is brimming with strong dialogue, both humorous and dramatic. They raise interesting questions about the reliability of memory, the validity of testimony and the ethics of investigation, while their examination of the McMartin case exposes a multitude of flaws, in the world of social care work, the legal profession and- particularly- society in general.

The Mann's use the McMartin case to shine a light on one of the more troublesome aspects of modern society: the rush to judgement after an accusation is made. The media controlled the discourse around Buckey, painting him as a criminal before his trial even started, dictating the opinion of the masses in regards to same. The film criticises the idea that accusations should be- and are- considered as fact before proper investigation, and that accusers should always be believed. Though in the 90s, when the film was made, this was certainly topical; in the era of MeToo it feels even more so.

While the filmmakers lean on the side of Buckey, they don't take a simplistic or one-sided view of the case, rather exploring the complexities and ambiguities of the evidence and relating testimonies. In addition, the procedural elements are well-realized, with the scenes involving Davis preparing Buckey for court being especially grounded and believable. Furthermore, Jackson's inclusion of actual archival footage and real-life interviews adds a sense of stark realism to proceedings that bolsters the overall narrative impact.

Moreover, Rodrigo García's muted cinematography is subtle, contributing to the mood of the piece but never distracting or dominating scenes. His use of close-ups and artificial lighting in the court-room sequences is particularly effective, while he manifests suspense with his utilisation of low-angles and wide shots. He creates a realistic and immersive atmosphere, which is only compounded by Peter Rodgers Melnick's subdued score and Howard Cummings's unobtrusive production design.

'Indictment: The McMartin Trial' finds James Woods starring as Danny Davis, delivering a typically energetic performance both engaging and entertaining. Woods handles the comic and dramatic with equal aplomb, never appearing as anything other than authentic, whether in court or out of it. He carries the film, and works well alongside co-stars Mercedes Ruehl and Henry Thomas. Ruehl, for her part, does strong work as the prosecuting attorney, who has her own stake in the game; while Thomas's performance as Ray Buckey is nuanced and sympathetic. Also worth mentioning is Lolita Davidovich, who steals all her scenes as the sinister and saccharine Kee MacFarlane with ease.

A powerful and pointed made for TV Movie, 'Indictment: The McMartin Trial' retells an important chapter of modern history that should never be forgotten. An indictment of society and those who rush to judgement, it is both relevant and compelling, featuring punchy dialogue, sharp cinematography and a fine score. Boasting strong performances from the likes of James Woods, Henry Thomas and Lolita Davidovich, Mick Jackson's 'Indictment: The McMartin Trial' is a film innocent of irrelevance and guilty of greatness.

I don't know why this docudrama isn't more successful than it is. The issue it deals with is important enough. Maybe that's part of the problem. When you treat a tragedy with substandard techniques it cheapens the subject matter.

The difficult, I think, lies mainly in the script. It gives us all the clichés of victimization stories. Innocent people are herded up by the police without warning, shuffled off to the slams to be humiliated, accused by lunatics of nefarious actions, and suffer immensely. The survivors in the end forgive God but not people.

Well, basically, that's what happened. But the performances amount to no more than professionalism. And who could make believable such lines as, "This trial is about justice." And, "This is a system of laws and I happen to believe in it." The DA isn't given more than one dimension. James Woods is his usual manic and cocky self, and changes from cynical to committed halfway through the trial without any noticeable motivation, but at least that mania fits the role. Shirley Knight gives a first-rate impersonation of Shirley Schrift.

Lolita Davidovich's character is at least treated with some respect, although she's clearly one of the engines behind this terrible miscarriage of justice. As Woods points out, he doesn't believe she lied. He believes her motives are good but she is mistaken. She used dolls as surrogate people to draw the stories out of the kids she interviewed. In one instance she used a black doll to represent the guy they were trying to hang the molestation charges on. When asked if this was racism, Davidovich says she doesn't associate a doll's skin color with racism. SHE may not, but kids did, at least in the 1950s when the distinguished educator Kenneth Clark and his wife carried out their experiments linking the skin color of dolls to self valuation. (The studies influenced the decision in Brown vs. Board of Education.)

Yet the subject is so important that it should be seen if only for its educational content. The movie itself is an "indictment" of television, which is held responsible for the mass hysteria that swept the country at the time. (A very good TV documentary was done on a similar case in Eden, North Carolina.) Well, TV is an easy target. "World's Wildest Police Chases" and all that.

But -- to face one or two unpleasant facts -- the witch hunt of 1693 in Salem, Massachussetts, resulted in the deaths of more than 20 people, and this was considerably BEFORE radio talk shows and Geraldo Rivera. There is something in the reptilian part of the human brain that seems to enjoy the suffering of others, no matter how innocent they are. And in this instance the children only provided a conduit for that Schadenfreude. The kids were a "delivery system", as it were, for the willing hatred felt towards those in no position to hit back. It's a dark prospect that the film doesn't dream of addressing.

These waves of mass hysteria seem to come and go. Not just witches and preschool pedophiles but Paul McCartney is dead, there are worms in the McDonald's hamburgers, Satanists behind closed doors, conspiracies between internet predators, Satanic symbols in the Proctor & Gamble logo, figures in kid's TV cartoons who wear lavender clothes as a signal to the gay audience, speckled windshields in Seattle, phantom gassers in Matoon, Illinois. Some are damaging but silly. Others are far more dangerous: a horde of unaccounted for MIAs held captive in North Vietnam, and international conspiracy of Jews, a country taken over by a Kenyan-born communist president. And for too many of us, nothing seems able to shake our confidence in these mass delusions.

If we haven't GOT any enemies we'll invent them. Maybe because we need bad examples in order to perceive ourselves as virtuous.

Anyway, for all its weaknesses, the movie is definitely worth catching. The next epidemic of hysteria is right around the corner.

There is no shortage of travesties of justice in the American judicial system. Some make it to film, but most do not. The more popular courtroom dramas are the ones in which the defense or the prosecution finds that key piece of evidence in the eleventh hour to secure a not-guilty or guilty verdict at the end of a curt trial. Real life seldom happens like that.

"Indictment: The McMartin Trial" is about a seven-year long court battle that occurred in southern California. Raymond Buckey (Henry Thomas) and a host of other adults associated with the McMartin Preschool were arrested and charged with 56 counts of child molestation. The D. A. was on them with a full court press and no defense attorney wanted to come near that case with the exception of Daniel Davis (James Woods). He would be going up against a less than forthright ADA in Lael Rubin (Mercedes Ruehl).

A police report was filed on August 12, 1983 of child molestation by a woman named Judy Ann Johnson (Roberta Bassin) on behalf of her son Malcolm (Courtland Mead). By the time Children's Institute International's "child therapist" Kee McFarlane (Lolita Davidovich) got through with Malcolm and the other kids at the Manhattan Beach school there would be a nationwide frenzy about kids being molested in preschool by Satanists. Davis represented them all and did his best to make sure that his clients were tried in court and not in the media. As he so adroitly said to his frustrated client, "When you're accused of child molesting everything is a crime."

I was too young to be aware of this case when it happened and this movie is my first introduction to the whole affair. Though the movie started off choppy, disjointed, and a little clumsy, it settled into a real find. The performances by everyone were excellent. James Woods is a known quantity. He brought the smug quick wit to his character that I expected. I was most impressed with Ruehl playing the win-at-all-cost ADA and Davidovich playing the experimental "therapist." I hated them both, which was a testament to their fine acting skills. This is not your typical courtroom drama that wraps up perfectly, but it's based upon real life and sometimes you can't script it better than how it actually went down.