"Based on a true story"
I don't know if the phrase "based on a true story" is the biggest
bullshit line in the English language because it would have to
compete with some powerhouse contenders like "I'll call you," "I
won't come in your mouth," and "The check's in the mail." I do
suspect that it is the most frequently used bullshit line in movie
advertisements. Why? Because it works. Follow the money. If the
original version of "The Amityville Horror" had been released as a
straight horror film with no publicity campaign to link the film to
real events, it would have achieved no success at the box office. It
basically had nothing going for it except the widely accepted belief
that all the supernatural events portrayed on film really happened.
That belief spurred enough curiosity that people had to see those
things and talk about them. That's just one example, but the concept
is universal. If you can convince people that they are watching
impossible or unusual events that really happened, your film is
going to do far better.
The Alphabet Killer is based on a series of murders that occurred
in Rochester, New York in the 1970s. The three victims were all
pre-pubescent girls from poor Catholic families. All three had
problems in school. All of them had matching first and last
initials, and all of their bodies were found in a town with that
same initial: Carmen Colon in Churchville, Wanda Walkowicz in
Webster, Michelle Maenza in Macedon. There was a fourth victim
normally associated with the case because her name was Michelle
McMurray, but the fourth murder did not really fit the pattern. She
was only seven years old, much younger than the others, and her body
was found in Rochester, not in an "M" town like nearby Macedon or
Mendon. After 30-odd years, the Rochester police have recently come
to believe that they have solved the fourth murder, the one that did
not fit the pattern. The other three remain unsolved, and there is
nothing at this time to link the McMurray suspect to the other three
slayings.
This film is based on the case in this respect: the major details
of the murders are identical. They all involved girls with double
initials, and they all took place in the Rochester area. Those are
the only similarities between the real events and the film, and they
are not integral to the drama because the murders basically occur
before the film begins or off-camera. The film is about the police
investigation, not the murders, and it bears absolutely no
resemblance to the real investigation. It is a completely fictional
story "based on a true story." Not only is it fictional, but it is a
complete stretch, even for those people with the most flexible sense
of credulity.
The murders are being investigated by a policewomen with mental
problems: delusions, visions, hallucinations, obsessions - you name
it. She is exceptionally gifted at police work for some of the same
reasons that make her mentally unstable. First, she sees things that
other people cannot. Second, she becomes so obsessed with unanswered
questions that she can't rest until she can find a plausible
solution. This brilliant combination of insight and determination
makes her brilliant, but unstable, and the instability makes her
useless because her fellow officers can never tell whether her ideas
about a case are different from theirs because she's being brainy,
or because she's being loony. Her very existence defines the cliché
about a fine line between genius and insanity.
Complete spoilers ahead:
The movie holds together for about 80 minutes thanks to a
reasonably
convincing lead performance by Eliza Dushku and just enough intrigue
generated by the confusion between her delusions and her
conclusions. (Like her fellow officers, we don't know if she's being
insightful or paranoid.) Then it all falls apart with a truly
off-the-wall solution. (Remember the real-life crimes are still
unsolved today, 35 years after the fact.) Wouldn't you know it, but
it turns out the way these things always do in films. When the
female detective is being pursued by both police and medical
authorities because of her emotional and dangerously violent
outbursts, she has only one confidante she can rely on, a lonely
paraplegic she met in the loony bin. She goes to his house because
nobody can really trace her to him, so she can theoretically hide
out there forever.
Only one tiny problem. He's the killer!
Yup, that's right. Of all the hundreds of thousands of people in
the Rochester area, it just so happens that her one and only friend,
who has not previously been connected to the crimes in any way, is
the killer. The script points get even worse. What could be worse
than that? Well, I'll tell you. The crimes were committed by a
powerful man with the full use of his legs, and the officer's friend
is in a wheelchair. How could that be? Easy. He's faking the
condition. He's been using a fake wheelchair for years. At the
critical moment when she figures it out, he leaps from the
wheelchair to overpower her!
Well, you have to admit it was a surprise ending. The illogical
is always surprising.
There was one line in there that was absolutely hilarious,
although I'm not sure it was meant to be. After all, this is a grim
story about a serial rapist/murderer of young girls, so there's not
a lot of room for levity. But there is a scene just before the guy
leaps from his wheelchair when the detective finds evidence that the
paraplegic knew all three victims. She asks, "Why didn't you tell me
you knew all of the victims?" He replies with something like, "Well,
I guess because you would then have known ... (dramatic pause) ...
that I'M THE KILLER." (Leaps from wheelchair.)
I swear it was really an interesting movie before the script
tried to solve the unsolved murders, but that crazy stuff just blew
away any chance it had to maintain some credibility. And it was
especially irritating to see all that nonsense because this film is
"based on a true story," and many details are identical to the real
story, so we're assuming that everything must be real ... right?
Not so much.
The denouement did have one good idea, in fact very good, but it
got stepped on by the dramatic wheelchair leap. The crazy cop first
met the crazy killer in the loony bin after the first murder. He
really liked her and saw her as a kindred soul. They bonded. He
listened to her theory about the alphabet connection. Turns out she
was wrong. It was one of her delusions rather than one of her
insights. He had never given any thought to the fact that the first
victim had the same first and last initials, and he had absolutely
no idea that he had dumped her body in an area considered part of
Churchville. But he liked the female detective and felt bad that
everyone else thought her alphabet theory was crazy, so he resolved
to make it sane - by killing all of his future victims according to
her theory, thus making it obviously correct! In essence, if not for
the detective's crackpot theory, those other two girls would still
be alive.
Oops.
Interesting idea. It's far-fetched and completely unrelated to
the real case upon which the film is putatively based, but genuinely
interesting and thought-provoking.
There are enough good little nuggets like that to make this film watchable,
and a topless scene from Dushku, her first, is easy on the eyes, but
overall I got the impression that it was a so-so film with a
terrific one lurking within, unable to escape.
One last nitpick. I'm from Rochester. Rochesterians speak with a
distinctive accent, and not one person in the cast sounded like a
real Rochesterian. Cary Elwes, bless his English heart, tried to
sound like a New Yorker, but nobody thought to tell the lad that
people in Rochester, New York sound nothing like people from New
York City. (Rochesterians actually sound most similar to people from
Minneapolis. The most famous person with a genuine Rochester accent
is Robert Forster.)
