Le crime du siècle

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!

I have heard some references to the Lindbergh baby in some TV shows even though I don't remember exactly where. Here, the film mostly centres around how the police and the attorneys pin it on an innocent man. The debate on whether he was actually innocent or not is still going on but even if the movie is largely fictional, the fact that the police left so many loopholes and manufactured evidence and witnesses is pretty evident. The movie makes a great case of how a foolish immigrant man gets caught up in this because of his foolishness and the police exploit it and pin everything on him. This being a TV movie, Isabella Rossellini playing the wife is a surprise. But most of the cast were pretty brilliant. The sad thing is the various techniques used by the police to coerce so many people into different situations are still a very real thing that we can't escape. The belief of some people being the primary reason others suffer is always an evil that humanity can't seem to stop, whatever kind of belief it is. The confidence of people who are wrong is always what the world relies on to maintain the status quo.

The film could have been way better if it tried to be but as a TV movie, it felt it was limiting itself too much. Still, by the end, when the text appeared about what happened afterwards I really started to get emotional.

This is a great film. Stephen Rea and Isabella Rosellini are wonderful as Hauptmann and his wife. There was a tv film made about the Lindbergh case in 1976 that was very simplistic and accepted the case against Hauptmann at face value. This film, like Ludovic Kennedy's excellent book, dare to be different. As they say in the film, the case against Hauptmann smells like a cesspool. All of the evidence against him was either manufactured or misrepresented. There is no doubt this man was sent to his death because of a diabolical frame up. They do an excellent job of showing it point by point. Hauptmann was beaten by the police. There were only two witnesses at the trial who placed him anywhere near Lindbergh's house. One of them was an old man who was legally blind and the other was a man with a criminal record and a reputation as a pathological liar. Hauptmann's lawyer was an alcoholic who told several people he wanted him executed! Lindbergh claimed he could identify Hauptmann's voice and yet he had only heard the kidnapper say two words over two and a half years earlier. Doctor John Condon who gave the ransom to the kidnapper, testified at the trial it was Hauptmann and yet he failed to identify Hauptmann when he first saw him in a police lineup and then said he was NOT the man he saw. There was evidence the police doctored and forged handwriting samples from Hauptmann to make them appear like the writing on the ransom notes. There have been many experts who said Hauptmann DIDNT write the notes. One key piece of evidence at the trial was a board taken from Hauptmanns closet that had Condon's phone number written on it. I saw an interview once with a member of the jury who said this was the evidence that convinced her the most Hauptmann was guilty. Yet, there was a reporter for a tabloid newspaper who admitted HE had written it in the closet. He said he didn't think anyone would take it seriously because the closet had already been searched. Hauptmann was found with some of the ransom money hidden in his garage. He claimed a man named Fisch had given him the money and then gone back to Germany and died. The newspapers called this "The Fish Story". There is overwhelming evidence there really was a man by this name and he was a known mobster who might have been the real culprit behind the kidnapping. This is a film that should be seen because it tells of a time when justice erred and an innocent man paid with his life.

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.

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.