The Radical Story of Patty Hearst

By placing Bill Harris, a member of the SLA, as the primary narrator, the filmmakers imply that his assertions carry elements of truth. But we found his accounts highly suspect to say the least. Harris has an agenda: to recast this murderous group as earnest, well-meaning idealists, who never "meant" to harm or kill anyone, steal or kidnap. Harris tries to convince us that Patty Hearst became a willing participant and eager SLA member because they merely convinced her of the righteousness of their cause. In fact she was vulnerable and sheltered 20-year-old, who was kidnapped from her own apartment while her fiancé was brutally beaten, held in a closet blindfolded for almost two months, and raped. Then her captors selectively fed her information to convince her that her parents weren't interested in securing her release, even though it would mean she would be executed. (Harris denies they ever threatened to kill her, although Hearst's contemporary voice recordings clearly demonstrate that they had.) They convinced her that they were the only ones who cared about her. The conditions under which she was converted to their cause were clearly psychologically coercive. Harris comes off to us as a self-serving lowlife who clearly enjoys his moment in the spotlight.

Bill Harris is a terrorist with no credibility. How can a twisted mentality of a murderer be taken seriously? He is only included in an attempt to be balanced. He should be in prison, not giving his self serving account of events.

I agree with one reviewer here that Bill is probably not a very reliable narrator, but I would argue that Patty Hearst's version of the story is not any more believable than his. The documentary lets you draw your own conclusion, and mine is that A) her fiancé's assertion that she was a-political before the kidnapping is something that is directly disproven by her father pronouncing that she was always a rebel (i.e. not a meek, subservient housewife); B) Bill seems very direct and honest except when he thinks he might incriminate himself - so he is underplaying the stress they put on her when she was a captive; and C) Patty clearly is "water" - a social chameleon, and that to such a degree that the recordings of her after the trial are downright creepy. Tania was a real thing.

First of all, the main narrator is one of Patty's kidnappers whose version of events we're apparently supposed to believe as if he's not a sociopathic criminal. He paints the SLA as a well-meaning, noble, and altruistic group of revolutionaries who were essentially fighting for world peace and "the little guy." Never mind the fact that they murdered, robbed, bombed kidnapped... they didn't mean it. They had to do it because the FBI and LAPD made them. If Harris is to be believed, the members of the SLA are the real victims in this story.

Toobin, the author whose book this documentary is based on, arrogantly speculates about the entire ordeal with an obvious bias against Patty. There is very little consideration for Patty's mental state or legitimacy given to Stockholm Syndrome. I would have loved to hear actual psychologists weigh in instead of two biased men who both have something to gain by convincing the public their version of patty's story is true.

The documentary series, The Radical Story of Patty Hearst, was absorbing, great storytelling. Superb, first-rate. A person can watch it and come to either conclusion, that Patricia Hearst volunteered for urban terrorism or that all of her behaviour is the consequence of kidnapping and therefore excused. In the 1970s as a teenager, I thought all was excused and, even with this documentary, I still feel that way, with regards to the wise counsel of the great Jeffrey Toobin, who believes otherwise, and the splendid frankness of Bill Harris, one of the kidnappers. The documentary is, as well, a redemption for CNN signing onto that sloppy documentary, Holy Hell, which gave a fright for CNN's news integrity. All's well.