THE BOSTON STRANGLER
US, 1968, 112 minutes, Colour.
Tony Curtis, Henry Fonda, George Kennedy, Murray Hamilton, Sally Kellerman, William Marshall.
Directed by Richard Fleischer.
The Boston Strangler is a documentary-style thriller, directed by Richard Fleischer who made such films about crime and criminals like Crack in the Mirror, The Strangler of Rillington Place, Blind Terror. This film is based on fact and reveals a horrible feature of our modern cities, seemingly especially America, the multiple murderer (comparisons could be made with Peter Bogdanovich's Targets and the seriocomic classic No Way to Treat a Lady).
Henry Fonda is efficient as the investigator, but it is Tony Curtis who is of interest as Albert De Salvo, the murderer. He does not appear as such for the first hour of the film, but an atmosphere has been created by the time he appears to give human substance to the strangler whose crimes we have observed. A very sombre film, not for every audience since people could find it morbid or depressing. But it is an effectively made film of its kind.
1. Did you like this film? Why?
2. What is the value of making a film like this? Does it have a good effect on the public? Does it pander to sensationalism, to prurience, curiosity, morbid interests? or is it a healthy warning and deterrent? Should films like this report facts? Is the message and warning at the end part of the message the importance of films like this?
3. The film used several techniques to communicate feeling about the strangler. How successful were they? Split screen and our seeing two aspects of the murder; our not seeing the face of the strangler until an hour after the film had started? The building up of audience response in the cumulative effect of all the murders.
4. What attitude had you formed towards the strangler by the time you first saw him as a person? Was it a just and adequate impression? Why?
5. Did your seeing the strangler and learning about him as a person change your attitudes? Could you forget that he had done the murders? Could you like him at all?
6. Why did the women let him in ? were his tactics credible, persuading? his plumber routine? his not insisting on coming in, his offhanded persuasiveness?
7. Why did De Salvo murder these women? Was he cruel?
8. Is a mass murder situation like this reflective of the kind of society in a city? Or is such a murderer an isolated individualist in such a society? How did De Salvo fit into Boston? Did his murders make any comment on or reflect the moral status of the city?
9. Did the police handle the situation well, methods, the various personalities, thoroughness, press releases, the imagination and dedication in their job?
10. Why did John Bottomley accept the job of investigation? Why was he chosen? Why did he need persuading? How was he persuaded, the nature of the challenge? How much was he personally involved, (note the later sequence with his wife?) Was he relentless in his pursuit? feelingless? What kind of man was he? Admirable? (His T.V. interview, discussions with his men and the doctors).
11. The police methods in rounding up suspects, the importance of the sequences with interviews, e.g. the discussion at the gay bar and the vindictiveness of the women; the tracing of the obscene phone call; the man with the handbags; the nun in the cinema etc? Does this reassure the public? Is such investigation necessary in a case like this? (The calling in of Hircus and his perceptions?)
12. De Salvo as a person, at home. T.V., J.F. Kennedy's funeral, love for his children, relationship with his wife? Why a killer?
13. De Salvo committing a crime, his attempt to kill the manageress of the apartments? The effect of seeing this in detail at this stage of the film?
14. The chase and arrest and De Salvo's behaviour. The court case.
15. How ill was De Salvo? The nature of his schizophrenia?
16. Did Bottomley have the right to prise a confession from him? Did he have the right to investigate as he did? What happened to De Salvo? How separate was each personality ? (the nature of the flashbacks?) De Salvo's horror at connecting the two personalities? His powerless, Catatonic' state in the corner at the end? Should this have been allowed to happen to him?
17. Was De Salvo's insanity and institutionalisation necessary to protect potential victims? Why?
18. Did this film offer insight into behaviour, madness, social decay, social fear, justice? humanity?
