Product: Sacco & Vanzetti
Rating: 3.0
A GOOD REMINDER
Anyone with a true interest in what makes America tick should have more than just a passing awareness of the Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti case. Edmund Wilson was quite accurate when he said in 1928 that the case "raised almost every fundamental question of our political and social system." And this movie is a good place to start picking up that knowledge. And the more informed may welcome the chance to see the famous events played out.Here is the skeleton of the story, all taking place a few miles south of Boston: As a result of some bad luck, the two Italian anarchists are picked up, May 5, 1920, for questioning about one of their comrades, Mike Boda. Boda is a suspect in a double murder and robbery at South Braintree on April 15, 1920 and an attempted robbery at Bridgewater on December 24, 1919. Upon their arrest, Sacco and Vanzetti lie to the police and generally act guilty, thereby presenting themselves as suspects. Both are tried and convicted of the capital crime in the summer of 1921. World-wide protests gradually build, engineered at first by defense attorney Fred H. Moore and later by the Communists, until the marches and embassy attacks reach a crescendo with the tragic execution of two on August 23, 1927.I believe this movie is too close to a documentary to be compelling drama and too one-sided and with a few too many errors to be a satisfying documentary. After all, we know at the outset the two will end up in the chair, so why the many minutes of courtroom action? It seems as if it is to discredit Moore, for he is shown antagonizing Judge Thayer over and over. Some of this did occur early in the actual trial and Thayer did hate Moore, but Moore soon turned over most of the examining to his co-counsel. Also, the movie shows several intemperate outbursts by Moore. They never happened but again serve to make him the patsy and to blame for the conviction. This isue with Moore has been a long standing party line. The truth is Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted ninety percent because the jury and especially the judge had their minds made up before the trial, and ten percent because the attorneys did not have the time or money early on to mount a really good defense.I believe a better treatment would be to present the tragic case through the eyes of one of the minor characters, such as Sacco's wife Rosina, and so dig more into the personal lives of the players. The story needs the John Sayles touch. By the way, Rosina is shown as sympathetic to Moore, which could not be further from the truth.Since actual transcripts are used for some dialogue, it is surprising how many errors of fact creep in for no good reason. The moviemakers seem just too intent upon propaganda. For example, there were two men on a motorcycle with S & V the night they were arrested, not three. They were Boda and Orciani. And they did not see Mrs Johnson on the telephone at her neighbor's; they only saw the telephone wires. These boo-boos do not serve any purpose. But one that does is the oft-repeated falsehood about Vanzetti's speech at his sentencing - "good shoemaker and poor fish peddler, etc." The truth is easily found in the literature.The movie is quite effective in showing the horrors of capital punishment, though not as good as THE MONSTERS BALL.Personally, I believe Sacco and Vanzetti were both innocent, and there is still a movie to be made to dramatize that fact and more closely to relate their tragedy to the current day's injustices, using only the truth.