A respectable businessman becomes the prime suspect in the abduction and murder of several young girls; he is hounded by the media and disowned by his friends and neighbors.A respectable businessman becomes the prime suspect in the abduction and murder of several young girls; he is hounded by the media and disowned by his friends and neighbors.A respectable businessman becomes the prime suspect in the abduction and murder of several young girls; he is hounded by the media and disowned by his friends and neighbors.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
Ronald G. Joseph
- Sergeant Mendoza
- (as Ron Joseph)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
9rbrb
This film was recently re-shown on TV; its'interesting that by just looking at the clothes and hairstyles a viewer can get a reasonable guesstimate of the date the film was made....I was proud to discover my guess of 1980 was not far off the mark!! However I digress....this is an excellent film with a brilliant performance by the lead actor....this movie attempts to portray the effect on a person and his family when accused of a hideous crime and how the media,the public and his work colleagues and neighbours react to it. It is also an inspirational film and a lesson for many on the "victims" response to such a serious 'accusation'.... From start to finish this film seems to be wholly realistic and credible...the writer/director/producers ought to be congratulated....those who make films nowadays ought to learn that it is possible to make a compelling drama based on actuality without resorting to ludicrous unrealistic plots....
A most common phylum within the Theatre of Paranoia cinema genre revolves about innocent men who are in the wrong place at the wrong time, causing diligent law enforcement agencies to pay close notice of them, thus radically changing the smooth tenor of their lives, with perhaps the most renowned example being THE WRONG MAN by Hitchcock; this film, produced for television, is one of the best of the lot, thanks to the contributions of a fine cast and above standard production characteristics. In an imaginary small southern California city of Santa Luisa, four young girls have been abducted and murdered over a period of several years, with no suspect having been identified until a chain of circumstantial events, in combination with a vague witness description, casts suspicion upon respectable family man and local business executive Frank Staplin (Mike Farrell) who had purchased Girl Scout cookies from the recent victim, he being the last person observed with the child while she was alive. Frank has come to the attention of the Santa Luisa Police Department due to his act as a good citizen of reporting to detectives that he had purchased the cookies, believing by his statement that the physical location of the victim when last seen could be utilized as valuable data, but the investigators soon find cause and opportunity to concentrate their efforts upon the unfortunate Samaritan. His personal life now dramatically altered by being a homicide suspect, Frank, along with his bewildered wife and child are most deeply distressed by rabid media attention to them, primarily from a local television station's news division that fosters the customary streamlined journalistic mode concerning the notorious serial murder case, although telecaster Amy McCleary (Teri Garr) feels contrition as she becomes more knowledgeable of the Staplin family's fresh misery, and she attempts to actively aid the falsely accused man as he sets about proving that he is free from guilt. The work is scripted well with naturalistic dialogue, but there are some obvious problems with continuity, such as when the latest victim, lured by the anonymous killer, is seen entering a vehicle that is a close match of that driven by Staplin, this scene and the automobile connection therewith dropped during ragged post-production editing, and the role of Amy is erratically handled, apparently because the character's significance is being shifted during filming. Nonetheless, even with these shortcomings, and an obtrusively cookie cutter score, the film generates interest in a viewer from the start, with the direction, cinematography and design all being top-flight notwithstanding a small budget, and there is an abundance of solid playing throughout, notably by the versatile Farrell and Garr, with Lane Smith and Barry Corbin impressive as zealous supervisory police personnel, the acting laurels earned here by Veronica Cartright as Staplin's wife, as she is affecting in each of her scenes despite a lack of retakes.
A small girl is missing, and an honest working man had bought a box of candy from her before she vanished. Someone had seen him with her, and from her description a phantom picture is made up and spread, and he is recognised as the man who was last seen with the girl. So he becomes the prime suspect. The interesting thing is how all the vultures of the news game immediately get their claws into him, which results in a public execution of him on television. It does not matter that he is later found innocent, as the body of the lost girl was found 90 miles away from where he was at the time, he is still branded and everyone disdains him and avoids him, especially his neighbours, a damage like this takes time to repair, if it can be repaired ever. Mike Farrell as the wrong man makes a great performance, he fights back, and he has his wife by his side, unlike Hitchcock's "Wrong Man" 1956, who lost his wife in the ordeal. It's an important and well made film, stressing its documentary value and character, because this could happen to anyone. Above all, it directs attention to the ruthlessness of the press.
8 for good to great
It does have some very annoying characters like the bureaucratic cynical cop and ratings hungry news anchor but Farrell, Garr, Cartwright et al make up for them and keep this interesting.
Considering the serious subject matter of the film, it's all the more incongruous that at one point the word "ARSE" appears prominently in several scenes.
For example, one shot has Mike Farrell in an office facing the camera and over his shoulder the street number is visible (in reverse) on a window. The number is "3216", which appears as the word "ARSE" when seen in reverse.
Another example scene is in chapter 3, at 20:14 minutes, as Teri Garr approaches the office door (viewed from inside the office).
I was so surprised by this that I went to the trouble of photographing that particular scene and placing copies online at www.story-lines.com/IMDb. These are large files, but if you feel inclined, take a look and see if you agree. (And that's "imdb" all in lowercase - for some reason, the submission process changes that to IMDb every time. PB)
One shows the scene with "ARSE" visible, the other shows the location on the DVD from which the screenshot was taken.
It's entirely possible that this was an accident, but I would have thought that it would have been picked up early in production.
If it was a deliberate act, one wonders why it was done - was there some issue about behavior during production that resulted in a little passive-aggressive payback? Curious minds would like to know...
For example, one shot has Mike Farrell in an office facing the camera and over his shoulder the street number is visible (in reverse) on a window. The number is "3216", which appears as the word "ARSE" when seen in reverse.
Another example scene is in chapter 3, at 20:14 minutes, as Teri Garr approaches the office door (viewed from inside the office).
I was so surprised by this that I went to the trouble of photographing that particular scene and placing copies online at www.story-lines.com/IMDb. These are large files, but if you feel inclined, take a look and see if you agree. (And that's "imdb" all in lowercase - for some reason, the submission process changes that to IMDb every time. PB)
One shows the scene with "ARSE" visible, the other shows the location on the DVD from which the screenshot was taken.
It's entirely possible that this was an accident, but I would have thought that it would have been picked up early in production.
If it was a deliberate act, one wonders why it was done - was there some issue about behavior during production that resulted in a little passive-aggressive payback? Curious minds would like to know...
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Die falsche Spur
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content