Crime of the Century

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.

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.

Crime of the Century fails much in the same way the system of justice failed in the prosecution of for the kidnapping and murder of Charles Lindbergh's baby in the 1930s, not enough evidence.

I know Mark Rydell (On Golden Pond) to be an extremely sensitive filmmaker and stage director, his motivation here, I'm sure was to present an alternative to Hauptmann's guilt, to entertain ideas that the prosecution may have erred. The evidence was only circumstantial, of the course the crime was horrible, but Hauptmann's execution may have been more a result of public outrage than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

And he may be right, based on everything I've read, he probably is right. Unfortunately all the probabilities in the world add up to nothing on screen. After only a couple of suppositions the viewer gets so lost in the ultimate goal of the story that he loses interest. I've watched this film 3 times, and lost interest every time.

What a waste of terrific actors, including Stephen Rea, J.T. Walsh, Michael Moriarty, Vyto Ruginis, Barry Primus, and Allen Garfield.

Without closure, as long we as know as little as we do about what actually happened, maybe this story is best left to the true-crime section of the local bookstore, or Investigative Reports, Dateline, or 20/20. Told this way, in this medium it's a sad waste of time.

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!