The movie tells the story of the murder of two Federal Bureau of Investigation agents in Oglala in 1975. It focuses on the trial of the three main suspects. Two of them were acquitted on trial while one was convicted of murder. The main focus of the movie is the trial of Leonard Peltier extradited from Canada to face the murder trial and subsequently convicted of the charge. The movie highlights several controversial issues. The primary issue is the race question and the secondary issue is the trial of what the producers believe is an innocent man. These two issues are intricately interconnected and the movie tries to break them down.
Before the murder of the agents who were all white, there had been tensions in the reservation between native Indians who had adopted the American culture and the conservatives. The pro-government natives were the ones running the reservation but the conservatives were a majority of the ordinary folk. This cultural clash had resulted to several unsolved murders which the authorities did not concern themselves with. In order to resolve the culture issue, the American Indian Movement (AIM) stepped in (Matthiessen, 1992). Their main operating base was the Jumping Bull Compound in Oglala.
The murder incident occurred when the two agents entered the compound looking for one of the members of the movement who had been suspected of stealing a pair of cowboy boots. A shoot out ensued and the two agents and a member of the movement were killed. The government took no action with regard to the murder of the native but focused on the murder of the agents. Four members of the movement who were present in the compound were arrested.
One was let off due to insufficient evidence while two were acquitted on the basis of self defense. These two were tried in South Dakota. Keen to assign blame for the incident, the FBI coerced a certain lady to change her affidavit so as to place Peltier at the crime scene. In the original affidavit, the woman had sworn that she did not know Peltier. On the strength of this falsified testimony, Peltier was extradited from Canada to face the murder charge. The trial was held in North Dakota and the film documents how the FBI coerced witnesses, rigged evidence and utilized a judge who favored their actions. The out come of the trial was that Peltier was convicted and sentenced to consecutive life sentences.
The film though based on a true story contains several political leanings. It questions the principle of presumption of innocence and its applicability to minorities. It also examines the burden of proof in criminal trials especially where an accused is a minority. The film points out that since reasonable doubt existed as to the guilt of Peltier, he should have or should be freed from prison. The film concisely demonstrates that there exists sufficient doubt for Peltier to be freed. Essentially, it portrays him as a scapegoat for the incident. It is no doubt that there are movements lobbying for his release or retrial.
Much as the film has good things there are several adverse things that it did not effectively address. For instance and importantly, the film does not reveal the identity of the person that confessed to the killings. If the film really wanted to highlight the innocence of Peltier it ought to have revealed such identity or at least gave convincing evidence on the person to the authorities. Such failure illustrates that either the film was not really concerned with the freeing of Peltier, it was a periphery issue or the claim is fabricated to illicit public ire.
Similarly, the film does not tell what happened to the devious tribal leaders and their hoodlums. These people carried on illegal activities despite the fact that the FBI was aware of the same. Such collusion should have been unearthed and addressed in its entirety. This could have perhaps assisted in addressing the poverty situation in the reservation. This could also have reduced the holistic negative image the film portrays of the FBI in light of the predicament of Peltier and the minority Native Americans.
It is safe to conclude that apart from focusing on Peltier, the film also addresses the plight of the Native Americans. To some extent, it makes the white people feel responsible for the plight of the Indians. The cultural tension had resulted from adoption of the white culture. Violence was meted against the AIM supporters who were keen to maintain their culture. Such incidences though numerous were not resolved or even looked into. The film attempts to show that had it not been for the white influence either in terms of culture or executive influence, the incident would not have occurred. To some extent, the film tries to make the white people responsible for the mistreatment of minorities.
The overall purpose of the film can be said to be an attempt to portray the plight of minorities in the justice system. It seems to suggest that had Peltier been a white then the outcome or even the incident itself would have turned out differently. The producers also wanted people to be vigilant to ensure the state does not abuse its power, more so its police and judicial power. They also want the audience to feel sympathetic to the plight of an innocent tribe leader and also his people in general.
References
Matthiessen, P. (1992). In the Spirit of the Crazy Horse. New York: Penguin Group.
