Crime of the Century

If you're a justice freak like me, you'll find the film difficult to watch because the subject matter is inherently upsetting, but you'll also be glad that it's being told at all. There have been various theories about the real killer of the Lindbergh baby, the most compelling of which is the theory that Lindbergh himself did it accidentally and was able to engineer the high-level cover-up that ended in Hauptmann's execution. This movie doesn't go there, but I recognized many of the passages in this movie, especially the court scenes, as being taken directly from facts and court transcripts. As usual with HBO movies, the production level and performances are excellent. Stephen Rea (Hauptmann) is very moving as he somewhat naively maintains to the bitter end his faith that our legal system, which is so blatantly railroading him to a death sentence, will eventually come to its senses. Isabella Rossellini captured the devotion and dignity of Anna Hauptmann, whom I met in the 1970s when she was being interviewed for a magazine. Scenes of the powers-that-be finagling their conviction were effectively banal, and nauseating, and the final execution scene conveys the unreal horror Hauptmann himself must have experienced -- his speechlessness when they ask him for a statement as he's being strapped into the electric chair says it all, and it's devastating. To tell the truth, I would have given this film high marks simply for telling this story, but it was so well done that it deserves the high marks anyway. I was slightly disappointed that the ending didn't show more about Anna Hauptmann's incredible 60-year effort to clear her husband's name, an untold story. However, Rea and Rossellini were so good that I kept watching. A very ugly story that, as Hauptmann himself said in one of his final letters, will never go away

This is a pretty shameless piece of film-making. There is absolutely no hard evidence to support the film's flat claim that Bruno Hauptmann was entirely innocent, and most accounts of the Lindbergh kidnapping case, even those which cast doubt on his conviction, suggest that he was an arrogant, boorish man, not the kindhearted saint presented here. It's as unscrupulously manipulative as Ludovic Kennedy's original book, which has the temerity, in a work of non-fiction, to tell us what people were thinking about - and more than 60 years ago at that. There is, similarly, no back-up offered for the vilification of several of those responsible for Hauptmann's conviction. There are plenty of reasons to view the case with alarm, and to believe that Hauptmann was the victim of a miscarriage of justice (which doesn't necessarily mean he was innocent). To present so biased and distorted an account of the case does no good to the cause of getting at the facts. Stick with 1976's "The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case", which sustains a neutral viewpoint - and is far more disturbing.

Call me a bleeding-heart liberal, but I guess I'm a sucker for movies about people who are wrongly accused. This movie, however, failed to move me, even though I've read books on the subject and the case itself moves me. Rydell and Nicholson do a good job setting up the circumstances that led Hauptmann to become a suspect, and to even arouse suspicions in us, but the dialogue and individual scenes fall completely flat, because they're obvious and heavy-handed. To make matters worse, some of the actors, like David Paymer and Allen Garfield, seem to have been told they were in an over-acting contest. Walsh is good, as is the ever dependable Moriarty, but Rea seems lacking as Hauptmann.

Pas trop mauvais. Bonne re-création de l'histoire de l'enlèvement du bébé de Lindberg et de faire payer un innocent pour le crime. Le crime du siècle est en fait l'histoire du mec qu'on voulait coupable. Les vrais coupables ne sont pas inquiétés, évidemment. On est aux États-Unis!

Strangely Hollywood has been urged to expose some mediatic cases from the past, quite sure aiming for capitalize in highly viewing figures, it was the second TV movie over the so infamous Lindberg kidnaping case, a kind of revisionist offering likewise its forerunner made by Buzz Kulik in 1976, both openly in favor of the defendant the German carpenter Bruno Richard Hauptmann (Stephen Rea) the filmmakers emphasize the accused as clean persona, however everything suggest that he was really involved with the kidnapers gang.

Therefore the picture points out in an alleged not guilty setting, displaying countless contradictions concerning the weak proves against Hauptman, also focuse at his trustful wife played by a foreigner Isabella Rossellini due its hard European accent as major character in this hard case giving a impression that his husband was telling truth, the supporting casting improves the drama at high patten in time-period on thirties, fine locations and given a sort of semi-documentary realism.

Unfortunately the charitable screenwriter inserts some inaccurate facts as the Governor Harold Hoffman (Michael Moriarty) struggling hard over in another trial, worst visiting the inmate at prison, whereby it never really occurred, (go figure) looking back with an independent sharp eyes many questions remain unanswered such as "Why the filmmakers didn't touch over the accused had dropped his job after the kidnap living with a new car on flamboyant lifestyle?" Or "Why Lloyd Fisher didn't have a penny to pay his rent room?" "Why Hauptman didn't share with his wife the money hidden in garage?" Well it sounds controversial over a not guilty man!!

Thanks for reading.

Resume:

First watch: 1998 / How many: 2 / Source: Cable TV-Youtube / Rating: 8.