Swoon

This is the third film on the case I've seen and it certainly has merits of its own. There was no grandstand acting here, no over-acting for the Academy Awards or anything like that. I actually found the acting quite adequate unlike some others. It was downplayed, true, but sufficient. Let's remember that these people were not the norm for their time - or for any time. They were bigger than life, or at least they thought they were. The cinematography and staging were wonderful with so many scenes "unbalanced" in their composition. The cutting too was uneasy but uneasy on purpose. The characters were not portrayed as likable and, no, an intolerant society was not set up for blame. There is much going on here - certainly more meets the eye on first viewing.

In this modern version of the infamous Leopold and Loeb murder case of the 1920s, "Swoon" stresses the gay angle, relative to "Compulsion" (1959), a film of the same story, but burdened by the watchful eye of the censors associated with the moralistic Hays Code. Actual court records do in fact indicate that the relationship or bond between these two guys was primarily sexual.

Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb apparently had a masochistic pact. And "Swoon" asks the question: which guy was in control? The answer seems to be that they alternated control. Also, compared to "Compulsion", more attention is given to the actual murder of the teenage boy.

This film is quite stylized. Archival images and lyrical cutaways unrelated to the story are used because they are thematically relevant. Further, some scenes are intended as dreams. And non-period piece elements add textural perspective.

The real Nathan Leopold is shown in historical footage, first as a young man at about the time of the actual killing. He is shown in a sequence with a group of fellow ornithologists. And near the end of the film, he is shown as an older man, having been released from prison.

"Swoon" was shot in B&W. Images are a tad grainy, maybe deliberately so, as part of the film's visual style. Casting and acting are fine. I did not care for the background music. It's too whimsical and kooky sounding, given the subject matter. But the music does contribute to the film's overall flighty, giddy tone, reflected in the lack of emotional involvement of the characters. Further, the killing of the young boy is perfunctory and nonchalant.

The film's peculiar tone and mood I found annoying. Yet, it's probably consistent with the mindset of these two peculiar criminals, two guys, both cerebral and intelligent, completely lacking both in conscience and in a sense of moral principles.

Overall, compared to "Compulsion", "Swoon" is more direct, and perhaps a tad more thematically compelling.

It feels like a period documentary and the story is the story of Leopold and Loeb - A terrifying portrait of two real life killers who killed without passion or reason just to prove they were above the law. The period details are beautifully drawn but where it lacks is in the actor's faces. They appear rather than participate fully. There is a detachment in their portrayal that kept me at a safe distance and I could admire it with my head but I couldn't connect with my heart. The opposite of what happened to me with 1958's Compulsion - I was riveted by Dean Stockwell. I believed and understood just by looking into his eyes.

The film "Swoon" gives an insightful view into the minds that went behind the Leoplod-Loeb murder case. The cinematography was very well done, looking as if actual 1920s film stock, yet using very progressive camera angles and point-of-view shots at times. The film was also very frank about how homosexuality (and prejudice against it)played a role in the murder and their conviction of the murder. It's interesting to think of it in light of Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope," (which is based on the same murder case) in which the homosexuality of the lead characters is only hinted at.

Another thing I found interesting was the use of anachronisms. You might notice whenever the Leopold-Loeb duo use a phone in the movie, they always use touch-tone phones, while every else has phones more fitting for the time period. Another anachronism is an homage to Hitchcock. When Leopold and Loeb meet in bed, they recite nearly verbatim the opening lines from a scene in Hitchcock's "Rear Window" in which Lisa Carol Fremont (Grace Kelly) kisses L.B. "Jeff" Jeffries (Jimmy Stewart).

My only major complaint about the film was the acting. It seemed as if the two leads were either melodramatic or stoic, most often at the wrong times. Even the bit part players seemed rather aloof in their acting. A better cast would have made this movie much better.

What a riveting, startling and altogether masterful achievement. The idea the we're actually seeing Leopold and Loeb in person crossed my mind more than once. The illusion is overwhelming and the idea that we're seeing and hearing something that we shouldn't is part of its fascination. I loved Richard Fleischer's 1959 film from Meyer Levin's novel. I was enthralled by Dean Stockwell's performance and that's the only missing element here. Dean Stockwell. However, Tom Kalin has masterminded a narration that makes the whole thing so close to what it really must have been that the experience, for all film lovers, should be a must.