The Boston Strangler

This highly fictionalized account of the Boston Strangler cases of 1962-1964 has some flashy direction by Richard Fleischer and boasts some great usage of multi images and split screens which is used to show, among other things, roommates going about some mundane household task in one screen while another roommate is shown laying murdered in another.

The film is divided rather neatly into two parts. The first half is a police procedural with a couple of colorful detectives checking out tips and equally colorful possible suspects as the victim count rises. Albert DeSalvo (Tony Curtis) is captured - and for that matter first appears - at the halfway point. The second half consists of a character study and psychological profile of DeSalvo as he is extensively interviewed and questioned by assistant D. A. John Bottomly (Henry Fonda).

The part about DeSalvo having multiple personality disorder as well as how he was caught is completely false, but the anecdote about the psychic was true - A psychic really was employed who gave a completely accurate description of a suspect in the case who also turned out to be totally innocent. This episode greatly embarrassed the attorney general.

Made the same year that the production code officially ended, it dealt with sex crimes quite frankly and in a way that would have been considered unthinkable just five years before. The supporting cast has a deep bench and includes George Kennedy, Sally Kellerman, William Hickey, Hurd Hatfield, Mike Kellin and in small roles people like Alex Rocco and James Brolin. If you can deal with a true crime film that has quite a few falsehoods in it for the purpose of dramatic license, I'd recommend this one.

It takes a lot of courage to take on a role as challenging as one of the most brutal serial murderers in United States history. Tony Curtis made you believe that he was Albert DeSalvo and he did it after years of playing the handsome leading man. He took a big chance and it paid off in some of the greatest reviews of his career, but when it came to an Oscar nomination, nothing. Tony Curtis is one of the greats in Hollywood. Too bad when he played the role of a lifetime the Academy forgot him. Also, Henry Fonda deserved a nomination for his role. This was probably one of the most intense roles of his career.

The other thing that made the film great was its innovative use of split screen. You pretty much got the creeps as you saw people living their ordinary lives on one side of the screen, while on the other side you saw the strangler stalking his victim. Also, I think that the director really did a good job by not really showing any of the attacks in progress, at least until the last one. This film truly was a great psychological thriller.

There is a big problem with this movie -- aside from the unecessary and distracting use of the split screen, a passing fad ripped off from Warhol's Chelsea Girls. The first half is an almost flawless police procedural. It doesn't stick to historical facts all that much. Bottomly was a political nobody whose main job was to keep the public thinking that something was being done. The second half deals with Albert DeSalvo the man and is pretty much hyped up and fictional. It turns from a good docudrama into a standard piece of Hollywood baloney. Not a reflection on Tony Curtis's performance. He's better here than in most of his performances, some of which -- Some Like It Hot and The Outsider -- are pretty good. But, first, there is a lot of controversy surrounding the diagnosis of multiple personality disorder. MPD is when two or more whole and integrated personalities inhabit the same body. It may or may not be "real" and in any case is easily faked. And DeSalvo didn't "have it." I don't mean to harp on the issue of historical accuracy. Sometimes, as in Shakespeare in Love, it really doesn't matter much, but in this case it does because it's used as a deus ex machina that resolves all the questions the actual facts raise. Interviews with DeSalva make it clear that he knew exactly what he was doing when he was doing it. And he didn't need help in remembering the facts. He recalled all of the details, including the state of his penis, while he committed the murders. The film changes history and turns him into just another dramatic case of MPD. Nothing is said about his admission that he was also a criminal rapist known to the police as "the green man," who, in the guise of a talent scout, went around measuring girl's busts and hips, thousands of them by his admission. The film also leaves out any reference to his escape from jail and his subsequent recapture wearing a sailor's uniform. He never had the anxiety attack shown in the film. He never went over the edge into irredeemable psychosis. Any competent shrink in reviewing the case would diagnose the real Boston strangler as a socialized type of anti-social personality disorder, the kind of illness that used to be called "psychopath." He was a con man, pure and simple. The ending is dramatic but it's nothing but fictional trash designed to lull an unthinking audience into the belief that even the most loathsome and darkest aspect of human nature has a comprehensible explanation. The twisting of fact is understandable, however. The real, historical explanation, or the lack of it, would give not only the Boston strangler but all the rest of us an anxiety attack. Some people commit thoroughly rotten acts -- and none of the rest of us knows why.

Based on the real-life series of murders in Boston from 1962-64, this police procedural has close to a documentary-style approach. The filmmakers also utilized the split-screen technique briefly popular back then, in other films such as "The Thomas Crown Affair." More than just splitting the screen in two, there are sometimes as many as 5 different images dividing the screen, and a widescreen version is necessary to get the full effect. Here, the technique is used to display the actions of both the victim and the serial killer at the same time, viewing their movements preceding the actual murders. Some viewers may find their concentration divided to a greater degree than they would like.

The first half of the film shows how the police deal with (or, try to) the number of female bodies steadily piling up in the city. Some of the material is dated, with homosexuals being the primary suspects, and various types of perverts, like peeping toms, rounded up in unintentionally amusing scenes (see also "The Detective"1968 with Frank Sinatra for similar scenes of the homosexual community persecuted by the police dept.). Fonda plays the chief investigator, placed in charge against his wishes, but who soon accepts the gravity of the situation. George Kennedy is one of the main detectives.

Curtis doesn't appear until the first hour ends. As an actor, he immersed himself in this unpleasant role, and, from the first minute he's seen on screen, all his past film roles are summarily wiped away. He was a star for close to 15 years at that point and all those comedies & sappy adventures he'd been in immediately disappear from one's mind. It's a rather astounding feat - who knew he was this method actor? But, he wasn't even nominated for an Oscar. Also, unlike, for example, Travolta's comeback in "Pulp Fiction"(94), this did not revitalize his career. Sally Kellerman("M*A*S*H",1970) also appears in an early role as a victim who just may survive. Look also for, in a very early role, James Brolin in one scene as a police sgt. caught in some indiscretion by a supposed clairvoyant. Modern filmmakers should also check out some of director Fleischer's techniques towards the end, in that white room with Curtis.

Tony Curtis really showed his acting chops when he took on the most unlikely role of Albert DeSalvo the famous Boston Strangler of the early 1960s. Though he's only in the film literally for about half of it, what you see is a classic performance. Why he wasn't nominated for an Oscar, the Deity only knows.

13 women were found dead in the Boston area of manual strangulation and they were also sexually molested. Public concern was so great that the then Attorney General Edward Brooke, played by William Marshall, overrode local jurisdictions and prerogatives and assigned a lawyer from his office John Bottomly to coordinate the strangler investigation.

Henry Fonda plays Bottomly who takes the task on quite reluctantly because his expertise is civil litigation. My guess is that Brooke was thinking that Bottomly would be best for the job because he came in with no preconceived notions on how to do the job and would be open to anything. Turned out he was right.

Actually Fonda has more screen time than Curtis because the first half of the film concentrates on him and the investigation. He follows up every red herring thrown at him. He even hires a medium paid for with private funds by a millionaire friend of Brooke's played by George Voskevec who actually comes close in terms of geography to finding the real killer.

One of the red herrings is a gay man played by Hurd Hatfield who in those days before Stonewall was considered a likely suspect. He gets turned in by his landlady who is suspicious of his reading material. It's something he's used to, every time there's a lurid sex murder as an openly gay, or at least openly gay for that time he's brought in for questioning. This was one of the few times I ever heard the word gay used in a film made before the Stonewall Rebellion of 1969.

Curtis however dominates the film. The last 20 minutes or so is a final confrontation with him and Fonda and for those who are used to the insouciant leading man of swashbucklers and comedies, this is a real breakthrough. As much if not more of breakthrough than his part in Sweet Smell of Success.

In his memoirs however Curtis decries the fact that on this, the second of two films he worked with Henry Fonda on, he said that he found Fonda cold and forbidding as a person to work with.

The film is tautly directed by Richard Fleischer with some fine editing though I think Fleischer was a bit too fond of the split screen technique. Still it's a film worth watching.