Ich bin kein Mörder

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon.)

Although director David Greene is known almost exclusively for his work in television, this movie is several notches above most TV fare. Running a full three hours and twenty minutes in two parts, Fatal Vision is just about as riveting as the book of the same name from which it was adapted. The screenplay by long time Hollywood pro John Gay amounts to an indictment of army Captain Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald, but then again so did the book.

Gary Cole gives a convincing performance as the former Green Beret army officer who was accused, and then some nine years after the fact, convicted of the murder of his pregnant wife Collette and two young daughters. Karl Malden plays Freddy Kassab, Collette's father, with his usual skill, while Eva Marie Saint plays Kassab's wife.

Since it is still being debated to this day whether Jeffrey MacDonald really was guilty of this horrendous crime (as he continues to serve his prison sentence), perhaps we should appreciate this movie strictly as a study in sociopathology.

The story begins February 17, 1970 with MacDonald phoning the police to report that his wife and two daughters had been brutally murdered by a marauding gang of hippies who broke into his home shouting "Kill the pigs, acid is groovy." He claims he tried to fight them off and was injured and knocked unconscious.

In contrast, the story presented by the prosecution and detailed in McGinniss's book, portrays MacDonald as having, in a fit of temper injured or killed a member of his family, and then to cover up that crime killed all of them, and then fabricated a crime scene to support his story including the infliction of superficial wounds upon himself.

The question most people would like answered is WHY would a previously upstanding member of the community, a successful doctor as well as a decorated army Captain, go to such a horrendous extreme to cover up a crime no worse than manslaughter, if that?

The answer is in the character of Jeffrey MacDonald himself who is depicted as a psychopath possibly under the influence of amphetamines, a man so callous and unfeeling about the pain and suffering of anyone except himself, that he would murder his own family in an attempt to divert the blame from himself. This was the answer that McGinniss came up with after spending a lot of time with MacDonald and after initially believing him to be innocent.

This is the answer that the jury believed, and this is the answer given in the character that Gary Cole so vividly portrays.

There are many kinds of truth--legal truth decided by a jury, scientific truth decided by experiment and confirmation, spiritual truth, etc. And there is cinematic artistic truth, decided by the viewer. I think the business-like direction from Greene and his adherence to McGinniss's "vision," along with the fine performance by Gary Cole make us aware of the reality that there are sociopaths among us who can charm and kill with equal ease.

Regardless of the true facts of the case (which we will never know for certain) it is this singular truth that makes this movie worth seeing.

I have my own opinions on the guilt or innocence of Jeffrey McDonald, but I do not intend to get into a sparring match over it here. I wanted to comment on the movie itself.

I found this to be a very well made and well acted movie. I'm not a real big fan of Gary Cole but I thought he was great here--he had to display a whole gamut of emotions and did so quite admirably. The only thing I could really remember Karl Malden from other than this was "Pollyanna" and his acting has definitely improved over the years--I thought he did an excellent job. And Andy Griffith is a hoot, even in such a serious role! I also liked the flashback scenes that were used to help fill in the blanks in the couple's past.

The only complaint I have is that by the movie starting with the minutes following the murders, you don't really get to feel you "knew" Collette and Kimmy and Kristy. It was a VERY effective opening scene but at the same time it sort of robbed the viewer of having any kind of relationship with Collette and the girls. The flashbacks helped--maybe if they had found a way to squeeze in a couple more? You couldn't help but feel horrified by what had happened to them, but I think it could have been felt more deeply if you had time to get more "attached" to them.

Overall it was a good made for TV miniseries.

When I first saw this movie over 10 years ago, it convinced me of MacDonald's guilt. I saw it again last night and this time I'm not so sure.

This movie is looking more and more like a propaganda film, intended to cement the audience's hatred of MacDonald, and convince the audience that he is, indeed, guilty. That's quite frightening -- what if it's not the only one like this? What if many Hollywood movies are, in fact, propaganda? Isn't that what we accused certain dictators of making over the past 100 century.

After I watched last night's showing, I went to MacDonald's website. Yes, I know, if I'm worried about "propaganda", I have to view his site with skepticism too. And I did. Yet I couldn't help coming to an uneasy conclusion: if MacDonald really is guilty, why is he so willing to have his DNA tested?

After all, if you are guilty of murder -- and knowing that mitochondrial DNA testing is highly accurate today -- you know for a fact that if you agree to DNA testing, you will be caught. Yet MacDonald is willing to go ahead with it. Sorry, but I just can not shirk the nagging feeling that this means he is convinced of his own innocence (notice I said "convinced" -- it may well be that he did indeed commit the murders, but is so horrified about them that they are now part of his repressed memory and he, in fact, believes he did not commit them!).

The other thing that disturbs me is that the North Carolina prosecutors themselves seem very reluctant to allow full DNA testing. For instance, they are willing to allow nuclear DNA (requiring a larger sample size) or mitochondrial DNA testing, but not both.

Why not? Wouldn't you, as a prosecutor, want to exhaust every possible avenue to find a killer? How can there be such a thing as "too much" information when trying to solve a murder? I find this disturbing. In fact, combined with MacDonald's willingness to undergo DNA testing, I find the prosecutors' reluctance to be evidence that they are far less than certain that they convicted the right man for the crime. Perhaps the prosecutors have something to hide?

In conclusion, I must also agree with another writer that perhaps the most perplexing (and disturbing) aspect of this case that alludes to MacDonald's innocence is the apparent lack of motive. There seems to be no financial nor love-triangle motivation for MacDonald to kill his family.

There is a phenomenon known as "family annihilators", men who kill their entire family because they sense impending ruin (usually financial), and feel that their family can not survive without them. In their misguided way, these men believe they are doing their family a favour by killing them, saving them from the misery that follows financial ruin. However, these men invariably break down in court and completely confess to such crimes. MacDonald didn't do that. So that explanation is likely out of the picture for him, especially since the movie does not portray him as facing imminent financial ruin.

Sometime later in 2002 the full mitochondrial DNA test will be performed. Stay tuned; the results will have significant ramifications. If, in fact, the test results cast doubt on MacDonald's guilt, the producers of "Fatal Vision" will have a lot of explaining to do ...

This was a great story, but the book was even better! The fact that it is based on a true case makes it even better. If you like suspense movies and legal thrillers, this movie has it all. If you liked this movie, definitely definitely read the book.

... that time being 1984. It's been at least ten years -maybe 15 - since I've seen this film on TV. Channels are too busy broadcasting commercials for shamwows and anything else of questionable value that will fit in a paid programming slot to air good old made-for-TV fare like this anymore, so forgive any holes in my review that may be caused by my memory.

By 1984 the pendulum had swung in society and thus in the justice system from slapping embarrassingly guilty criminals on the wrist (circa 1960-1980) to locking them up for mandatory sentences - the era of zero tolerance had arrived. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it also swept up lots of people who weren't necessarily guilty at a time when DNA forensics were not in existence that could validate a verdict. This transitional phase in American justice is the setting of the film (1970-1979), and ironically the pendulum swung precisely because of the emergence of the kind of people - often violent drug addled hippies - that Jeffrey MacDonald claimed entered his home one night and changed his life forever.

The two great performances here are Karl Malden as Freddy Kassab and Gary Cole as Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald. One night in 1970, when MacDonald was still a captain and surgeon in the army, someone kills MacDonald's entire family in their home as they all sleep in their beds - his wife, their unborn child, and his two daughters. However, Jeffrey MacDonald has only superficial wounds and survives. He is instantly suspect number one as far as the military is concerned, and at first father-in-law Freddy Kassab is on his side. An investigation is launched, and eventually the military drops the case for lack of evidence. After MacDonald appears on Dick Cavett and seems to joke around about the murder and the ordeal, Freddy begins to have a change of heart and becomes convinced of MacDonald's guilt.

It doesn't help Freddy that he seems to be a black-or-white all-or-nothing kind of thinker and renderer of snap judgments. It doesn't help MacDonald that he is a bit of a narcissist who seems to really be enjoying his new-found bachelorhood and that he was less than a saint when he was married to Freddy's daughter - he did cheat, and he did use mood altering prescription drugs to deal with his grueling schedule while in the army.

Then both men have to deal with what is really the luck of the draw in any criminal or civil case for that matter - how good is the attorney on your case, and how good is he in particular on the day(s) that he is in front of a jury on your individual case. Of course, Freddy doesn't really have an attorney, but the hard-charging D.A. that decides to go after MacDonald (Andy Griffith as take-no-prisoners Victor Worheide) dies before much progress can be made. Who takes his place? A seemingly mild-mannered southern gentleman (Gary Grubbs as James Blackburn). Freddy, a New Yorker, thinks this guy is just too bland to go after his son-in-law with the necessary vigor and considers drastic action. Meanwhile, Jeffrey MacDonald, now a wealthy doctor, having hired the best counsel, is planning TV appearances, getting manicures, and putting people who were originally on his side ill at ease with his carefree disposition.

How does this all play out? Well, google will give you a better and more complete answer than I ever could, but watching this drama play out on screen is worth your while, even if the film is obviously biased against MacDonald.

There is one scene that is a real eye-roller - I don't know if it actually happened but it lets you know that even in 1984 Hollywood thought gun control would work. Kassab is confiding to his wife that if Jeffrey gets off this time - the 1979 trial - he is considering taking justice into his own hands...by getting a gun permit??? If this film has taught us anything is that murderers don't knock and they certainly aren't stopped by gun permit paperwork.

This is a long one at 200 minutes, but worth your time. It may never be on TV again because to air it they'd also have to air a bunch of disclaimers, particularly about some of the prosecutors in the case, several of whom turned out to be less than of the purest motives and ethics themselves. But don't be too hard on them, after all prosecutors ARE actually lawyers. What would you expect? Highly recommended.