The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case

This is the sort of thing that TV does rather well sometimes, a more or less true story with competent (but either over-the-hill or just-beginning) performers, no expensive special effects, and time enough for attention to detail if not one thousand takes per shot.

It's quite well done, a good example of the form. The cast is particularly good: Walter Pigeon as the somewhat biased judge, Martin Balsam as the raffish but sloppy defense counsel, David Spielberg as the waspy headline-grabbing prosecutor, Dean Jagger as an expert witness on carpentry, Cliff De Young as a cool, composed, remote Lindbergh (true to life, that is), and equally talented performers in multiple smaller roles. Anthony Hopkins is superb. He captures Hauptmann's brittleness and anxiety perfectly in a fine performance.

Did he do it? The movie doesn't tell us, although the final impression we're left with is that he is in fact guilty. His story of how he came by the marked bills in the ransom payoff is about as implausible as anyone could imagine, the worst Fisch story you ever heard.

Yet the prosecution's case was full of gaping holes and minor to major weaknesses, although the film doesn't make this clear. For instance, Colonel Lindbergh is called to a Bronx police station to listen to the members of a lineup shout out the kidnapper's words and try to identify the criminal. Lindbergh does so promptly and positively. Yet of the five men in the lineup, Hauptman is the only one with a German accent, which the police already knew the kidnapper had. And Lindbergh must identify the voice from the other side of a closed door. And the voice is one that he heard only from a distance, and two years earlier. Martin Balsam as Riley, defending Hauptmann, mentions none of this in his cross examination. The same is true for Joseph Cotton, who has never seen the kidnappers and who has earlier refused to identify Hauptmann's voice as that of the criminal. Two years is a long time to identify a muffled voice heard speaking only a few sentences on a dark night two years ago. And Spielberg's treatment of Hopkins on the witness stand is inexcusable. There were newsreel cameras in the courtroom at the time and Spielberg uses every dramatic trick in the book to influence the jury. What a performance! And afterward he does everything except face the cameras, flourish his cape, and take a bow. It's impossible to believe that such shenanigans could take place in a courtroom today, even the most lenient.

This was the original "crime of the century." Lindbergh was an icon. There were songs written about him ("Lucky Lindy") and dances named after him (the "Lindy Hop"). Hopewell, New Jersey, the scene of the kidnapping must have been a small quiet town in 1932 because it was still a small quiet town in 1972 when I lived nearby. The Hunterdon County Courthouse in Flemington however is almost unrecognizable. The building is the same but any view of it from the street is blocked by the shade trees that have matured since the movie cameras of 1934 captured it on film. Those same movie cameras show us a mass of onlooking, souvenier hackers, and journalists, screaming and swaying back and forth, a herd of African wild dogs savaging its prety.

The movie leaves one wondering about things like this: Dean Jagger's carpentry expert testifies that a board found at the scene of the crime was once part of the same larger plank that yielded a board built into the attic of Hauptmann's garage. Our technology is now so advanced that almost certainly more information could be gleaned from those two boards. I wonder where that evidence is now?

Full of Familiar Faces that Don't Do Much to Raise this Above Another Look-Back at the Infamous "Celebrity" Murder/Kidnapping Trial of the "Lindbergh Baby" with the Accused "Bruno Richard Hauptman" (Anthony Hopkins), a German Immigrant.

Although Hopkins is Excellent, His Screen-Time is Very Limited and He is More of a Supporting Actor even though He Won the Emmy for a Prime-Time Lead.

It's a Rather Dull Affair, because first of all, Most Folks Know the Complete Story, and this Version of the Events Shows Nothing New, is a Bit Flat All Around.

It Goes to Great Pains to Translate the Ridiculous, Riotous Rigamarole that Became Known as the "Cult of Celebrity".

With Mobs on the Street Chanting and Selling Souvenirs (like little ladders with the Baby's face glued on...just $1.00), and Along with the "Scopes 'Monkey' Trial" Showcased just How-Low People, when Mobbed-Up, Could Behave.

Joseph Cotton Makes an Impression as the Flamboyant "Condon", a Citizen who just Wants to "Help" and Gets Caught-Up in the Eye of the Hurricane.

None of the Other Name Actors Contribute Much, and Perhaps Worst of All Cliff De Young and Sian Barbara Allen as Charles and Mrs. Lindbergh are Non-Entities and Seem Almost Vacant to the Proceedings.

If You Don't Know the Story, it's...

Worth a Watch

If You are Familiar with it All, the 2 and a Half Hours is a Waste of Time.

It can be disturbing sometimes, to see how some sides of our society have deteriorated in the 1990's. In the 1930's the kidnapping/killing of American hero aviator Charles Lindberg's baby represents a low point in our humanity.

Telling this story is tough, particularly since the evidence was all circumstantial. Whereas the 1996 film `Crime of the Century' approaches the after-the-fact investigation, with a perspective that Bruno Hauptmann (executed for the crime) indeed may have been wrongfully convicted, this film (from 1976) pursues a more clinical, step-wise, investigative approach. The dictum here seems to be to substantiate the verdict within the bounds of historical accuracy.

Nice turns by Cliff DeYoung as Charles Lindbergh, and Anthony Hopkins for his portrayal of Hauptmann (for which he won an EMMY). The presentation is a bit dry, confusing, and long (148mins). You might want to find a nice supplemental text to help you better understand the main players and the chronology of events.

But if you're unfamiliar with much of the circumstances you will definitely want to take a look.

It was a good thing that this enactment began directly with the crime itself, rather than lengthy Lindbergh background information. Hero parade footage under the opening credits sufficed.

The viewer was plunged into the night of the kidnapping, which was meticulously presented, as was every aspect of this torturous event.

One became aware of the media circus that ensured, spurred on by an invasive press and "nosey" public. One was struck by the absurdity of so many people reaching their own conclusions without being privy to actual case evidence.

What was particularly disturbing was the re-enactment of a capital punishment crowd brandishing its "eye for an eye" primitive philosophy. Likewise, was the extreme consequences offered by the price of fame.

A worthy cast included several veteran actors, bringing great feeling to their roles. Despite its over-length, the drama maintained interest.

The ending credits admitted to the story's being "based" on fact, with "some characters and incidents fictional." Just where the lines of demarcation occurred left one hanging regarding full script credibility (ironically, I caught this on the "True Stories" channel).

For a general background of this highly publicized case, this enactment provided useful informative.

Seeing this film recently prompted me to do some reading about the case and the incident it was based on. I've also seen "Crime of the Century" and one or two documentaries on the case. And I ran into a big problem with all of the films after reading Ludovic Kennedy's 1996 Penguin Paperback, "Crime of the Century," originally 1983. Now, I recognize editorial opinion when I see it because I've been involved in scientific research for about thirty years and scientists are a heck of a lot more skilled at covering up their tracks than Brit journalists like Kennedy. So, yes, unquestionably Kennedy believes Hauptmann to be innocent and this conviction influences his prose style and his interpretation of some of the facts. But the facts themselves are so compelling -- some of the tampered documents are reproduced here -- as to leave us with MORE than just a reasonable doubt about Hauptmann's guilt.

I won't go into this in detail except to say that the ACLU would blow a gasket over a media event like this case, one in which the chief defense counsel was a drunk and one of the two eyewitnesses placing Hauptmann in New Jersey at the time was an 87-year-old man who was dug up by the prosecution more than a year after the fact and would probably be considered legally blind today.

But I do want to make one comment about this film. Viz., although he does not appear in this film or any of the documentaries, there was a living human being named Isidore Fisch who was part of a group of friends that included Hauptmann. He was involved in several shady schemes and when he left for Germany, where he died of pneumonia, he owed a lot of money to a lot of people. There is no evidence that Fisch was involved in the kidnapping. The bills were outlawed gold certificates, practically unusable, and anyone could have come into possession of them in some street transaction, buying them for a few cents on the dollar.

This movie, like the documentaries I've managed to catch, pretty much present Fisch as a fictional figure, a character made up on the spot by Hauptmann in a state of panic, which he definitely was not. Seeing Idisore Fisch on the screen as his acquaintances saw him, smooth and guarded, might have left a different impression on the viewer. As far as that goes, there are snapshots of him available which I've never seen used in any of the films about the case.

It doesn't help that some people still consider Hauptmann guilty because, some sixteen years earlier in Germany, he once used a ladder to commit a burglary, or that the special symbols used in the kidnapping notes somehow resemble the insignia of Hauptmann's army unit in World War I, twenty-two years earlier. So what? The guy was fried. It wouldn't happen today unless it were carried out entirely by people who just like to fry somebody once in a while when they're upset.