Der Frauenmörder von Boston

This movie is pretty good. I'm glad I managed to catch it on AMC recently.I hope you can too. It has a great story, great acting and the great use of double screen. One scene that I like during the use of double screen is the scene were Albert De Salvo is being chased through the streets of Boston. Great use of double screen. Also a great use of sound.

Tony Curtis sure proved everybody wrong. Nobody thought he could do it and his performance was widely acclaimed. Great acting by Tony. Especially in the film's climax. Richard Fleischer had the right idea for picking Tony. One thing that I think is funny is that the real Albert De Salvo made a wallet for everyone but Curtis. Curtis said, "I guess he didn't like my performance." There is another film loosely based on the Boston Strangler called simply The Strangler. It's actor in the title role, victor Buono, was said by a reviewer to have made the real Boston Strangler proud. Too bad Tony didn't. But it doesn't matter. This movie is good and Tony is great. See this movie. Even though it might be a little hard because it's out of print.

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.

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.

After all the movies that he has done this one shown his acting chops and basically established himself as one of the most distinguish actors in Hollywood,but if you want to see Tony Curtis in a stunning performance as a serial killer,this is the movie to see and not to be missed.

Tony Curtis showed them off brilliantly with his chilling portrayal of confessed 1960's serial killer,Albert DeSalvo who killed and strangled 13 women in the streets of Boston. Curtis is frighteningly good at depicting the schizophrenic life of a seemingly normal family man who hides his sexual compulsions. Here also you have Henry Fonda as the detective out to stopped him and George Kennedy in a co-starring role. Director Richard Fleischer(of "Fantastic Voyage",and "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea" fame)uses a split screen technique show DeSalvo crimes along with the painstaking police investigation that finally nabbed him in 1964. Shocking as it was back in 1968,and still shocking today in one of Tony Curtis' most gripping roles and exhilarating performance.

When one or two strangulations of women in their own homes starts to turn into a whole series of murders, the press climb all over it, Boston is on edge and the police are struggling. Leading a new taskforce to find the strangler, John Bottomly continues the search and, after several false leads hits it lucky with a man who appears to be the one they are looking for. However, this is only half the story as Albert DeSalvo appears perfectly normal and doesn't seem to have anything to hide even though everything points to him being the serial murderer of the title.

Not being aware of the real events behind this film, it was an interesting story of me to watch even though I had to guard myself against the truism that many "true stories" will be simplified for cinema treatment. Regardless though, the film still made for an interesting detective case but also a rather engaging look at mental illness and violence. The investigation part is nicely delivered and is quite tense – yes, we know who the killer is but the other suspects are still interesting and I never felt like I was just hanging around waiting for Curtis to show up. Once he does, the film changes tact slightly but is still interesting because Albert is so engaging a person – I was not sure what he was playing at but it was interesting to go along with Bottomly and try to piece the man together; the closing captions show the slant of the film and this may annoy the more right wing viewer, but it didn't take anything away for me.

The cast are strong and help the tone of the film. Fonda plays his role well and provides a strong focus for the film until Curtis arrives to sweep it away from under his feet. Curtis' performance is well understated and lacking in the sort of showy acting that he could easily have done (Edward Norton did a similar role in this way but the vehicle was different and it worked); instead he is both a person and a monster, someone we are not allowed to judge but rarely invited to feel sympathy for. Support is good from Kennedy, Hamilton, Kellerman and others but really it is Curtis' film and it is he that sticks in the mind. The direction seems obvious now (especially with 24 in its fourth season) but it is clever and effective, the split screen keeping the film busy even in basic sequences while also helping the tension.

Overall this is not a pacey thriller but rather a more serious drama, although it still works well as an interesting look at the case but also at the failings of the system of dealing with violent mental illness sufferers. Its point is rather bluntly delivered but getting to it is well done and Curtis' performance is probably one of his best.