The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case

I found this to be a reasonable telling of a true story that gripped America in the thirties but it was definitely overlong.I do usually enjoy courtroom dramas but must admit that this isn't at the top of the tree for me.For some reason I found it to be less than gripping and I also found the editing at times to be abrupt and a bit confusing.

On the plus side,the acting is pretty good and Anthony Hopkins did well in a role that made it difficult for anyone to have any sympathy for his character.You did get the feeling that some things were never discovered such as was the child murdered by just one person and this gave the movie a flat almost empty ending.

Not too bad I suppose but at least thirty minutes too long.

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.

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.

Buz Kulik produced and directed this famous and still unsolved case over Lindbergh's kidnapping baby in early thirties, the American hero suffers too much with the press at your neck during the investigation and trial that ends up move on to England to have a peace for his family, this picture bring the audience since the night of kidnapping until the supposedly German kidnaper Bruno Richard Hauptmann (Anthony Hopkins) at last has been executed on electric chair.

Also bring step by step all investigation process, how was the modus operandi of "John" using a go-between Dr. Condon (Joseph Cotten) to send his message to Lindbergh (Cliff De Young) also by Bronx's newspaper and sneaking away to deliver the ramson and get his baby back at cemetery where Dr. Condon face-to-face the man self-called "John", sadly he didn't bring the baby as planned, thus Dr. Condon recedes letting at Lindbergh's hands the final decision if deliver the ramson or not, he just suggest hand over 50.000 dollar to got the baby in another place as "John" offers for security reasons.

Well the rest everybody knows the baby was found dead nearby the house, aftermaths the police's intelligence squad track down the marked money found some bills at Bronx area, reaching in the carpenter German immigrant Bruno Richard Hauptmann at your home, also finds out 14.000 dollars of ramson at your car garage, the reputable lawyer Edward J Reilly (Martin Balsan) is hired as defense attorney in the case, the Governor Hall Hoffman (Lawrence Luckinbill) assures by any means appointing a hard line Lawyer David Wilentz (David Spielberg) led the prosecution.

This case is far away to be solved, firstly is quite sure that Hauptmann didn't have a fair trial whatsoever, the press tries helping him hiring the Lawyer, therefore this man has a flamboyant life with many young women on those high society circle as the movie wants imply, worst the massive voice of streets on crowed people yelling in front of Courthouse had a pressure on the jury, the casting with veteran actors is noteworthy as Dean Jagger, Warter Pidgeon, Joseph Cotton, Keenan Wynn, Tony Roberts and the newbie Cliff De Young in very convincing portrait of Col. Lindbergh, a fabulous TV movie, hidden in the dust of past, hard to find really, just a good print at Youtube.

Thanks for reading

Resume:

First watch: 1986 / How many: 3 / Source: TV-Youtube / Rating: 8.

I'm so happy for Joseph Cotten, getting a resurgence in his career in his sunset years. After Soylent Green, he acted in Airport '77, A Delicate Balance, The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case, and Twilight's Last Gleaming. In this courtroom tv drama, he has a very prominent role, arguably the second lead following Charles Lindbergh himself (although Anthony Hopkins won an Emmy for Lead Actor). You'll also see other old timers in the supporting cast, like Dean Jagger and 79-year-old Walter Pidgeon as the judge. Martin Balsam plays a very good lawyer - as he should, since he'd had so much experience playing lawyers since 1957. He's the defense attorney with his work cut out for him, defending the German immigrant Anthony Hopkins as the alleged kidnapper and baby killer.

Anthony had a couple of great scenes on the witness stand, but my main complaint with the movie was the lack of emotion with the other leads. Cliff De Young and Sian Barbara Allen, the Lindberghs, never seemed upset by their situation. In one scene, Cliff was seen eating breakfast while talking on the phone about a ransom note. How could he possibly eat during such a conversation? They were both far too calm at every stage of the film, begging the question as to why. If they weren't simply bad actors, perhaps there was more to the story than the film told.

If you don't know every detail of the case, trial, and outcome, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat. It may be slow-going at first, but the second half of the film (segmented out at "the trial") is fascinating and fast-paced. There are definite messages the filmmakers put across, such as mob mentality and anti-death penalty, and the screenplay is very intriguing. One could argue it raises more questions than answers, and if you're inspired, you could become completely consumed with the real-life case and its alternative theories.