The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case (1976)

How sad is this?

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Who kidnapped Charles Lindbergh Jr. in March 1932 from his home in Hopewell, New Jersey, and in kidnapping him apparently killed him, has never been totally settled. If it was, regular movies, or television movies like this one, or novels and plays and movies suggested by the story (like MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS), or serious new studies on the case every decade would not appear. In my own criminal history library I have at least three studies on it, and I do not own every one (another board commenter mentions Ludovic Kennedy's book, THE AIRMAN AND THE CARPENTER, which I don't have, nor do I have Anthony Scarduto's book from the 1970s - both are leading titles in the "Hauptman was framed/Hauptman was a fall guy" theories).My own opinion (for what it is worth) is that Hauptmann was involved. That does not make him the primary planner or agent in the crime. I would like to know more about others involved in the case, like Isidor Fisch (Hauptmann's mysterious roomer, who "left" the ransom money that was traced to Hauptmann - but it wasn't all of the ransom money, and most of that money has never been traced!). Or Oliver Whateley, the butler at the Lindbergh house, or Violet Sharpe, the servant who killed herself. Or Betty Gow. There are others I can think of, but whose names escape me.This movie basically stuck to the main outline of the events as are popularly known. Certain details that have since been revealed (the fact that Dr. Condon's telephone number was written on a wooden board in Hauptmann's ceiling by a reporter covering the story, for example), were not mentioned - I wonder if they would have been. But given it's flaws, it is a good film and makes some valid points for Hauptmann not getting a fair trial.One has to place his 1935 trial into proper context. In the 1930s the rules of criminal and civil procedure in most of the U.S. were still in the air. In 1932 the Supreme Court (in what was considered a surprising victory for liberalism at that time) overturned the death sentence convictions in the "Scottsboro" Rape trial in Alabama and ordered a new trial. The reason was lack of adequate representation for the African-Americna defendants. I say it was a surprising victory, in that the decision was not written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, or Benjamin Cardozo, or even Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, but by that highly revered spokesperson for "laissez faire" in government, George Sutherland, who was furious at the racially charged unfairness of the trial.Hauptmann could not claim racial bias (although one wonders if by 1935 his German ancestry may have made him less liked due to the Nazis and Hitler). But his counsel, Edward Reilly, was an elderly ladies man and alcoholic - once a good trial lawyer, but now a hack. Hauptmann got this attorney, apparently, by agreeing to publish a statement for the Hearst newspapers (Hearst hired Reilly). This was not unusual. The notorious conman, member of Parliament, and magazine editor Horatio Bottomley footed the bill for counsel for Dr. Hawley Crippen, in return for a final article from Crippen. The atmosphere of the trial was half-carnival/half-lynch mob. People bought "models" of the ladder that was used as souvenirs outside the courthouse.Hauptman is well played by Anthony Hopkins, who looks very much like the German carpenter. He really comes into his own in the second hour of the film. The first hour is dominated by Joseph Cotton as Dr. John Conlon, the school principal who willingly got involved in the kidnapping in the hope of getting the child of America's hero back. Cotton could see the humor in the self-important Conlon, such as in his declaration in court that he lives in the prettiest of the five boroughs of New York City: the Bronx (as though the New Jerseyans really care). Cliff De Young does well as Col. Lindbergh, trying to keep a level head in the dizzy investigation, but cruelly, silently, suffering from first not knowing where his son is, and then learning the truth. Martin Balsam does well as the hack Reilly. Dean Jagger, as wood expert Arthur Koehler, is treated unfairly, as a figure of confusion and boredom (most students of the case find Koehler's examination of the history of the ladder's wood one of the finest examples of expert testimony in court up to that time). Laurence Luckinbill portrays Hauptmann's last chance, New Jersey Governor Harold Hoffman, as a skeptical critic as the trial, who tries to give the convicted man more time for rational review of the evidence. In real life it ended Hoffman's political career (until a later appointment in the 1940s and 1950s handling pensions led to Hoffman committing massive embezzlement before he was caught and died).Certainly not the last word on the case, but certainly worth watching.

It was a good thing that this enactment began directly with the crime itself, rather than lengthy Lindbergh background information. Hero parade footage under the opening credits sufficed. The viewer was plunged into the night of the kidnapping, which was meticulously presented, as was every aspect of this torturous event. One became aware of the media circus that ensured, spurred on by an invasive press and "nosey" public. One was struck by the absurdity of so many people reaching their own conclusions without being privy to actual case evidence.What was particularly disturbing was the re-enactment of a capital punishment crowd brandishing its "eye for an eye" primitive philosophy. Likewise, was the extreme consequences offered by the price of fame.A worthy cast included several veteran actors, bringing great feeling to their roles. Despite its over-length, the drama maintained interest. The ending credits admitted to the story's being "based" on fact, with "some characters and incidents fictional." Just where the lines of demarcation occurred left one hanging regarding full script credibility (ironically, I caught this on the "True Stories" channel).For a general background of this highly publicized case, this enactment provided useful informative.

I was a teenager when I first saw this on TV and was blown away by this unknown actor who played the accused kidnapper. Hopkins performance is amazing. He also did fantastic work around the same time in the great mini-series QBVII. The film is a bit slow and meandering, but the subject matter is gripping, the acting is well done and again, a first rate piece of work by Sir Anthony Hopkins.

It can be disturbing sometimes, to see how some sides of our society have deteriorated in the 1990's. In the 1930's the kidnapping/killing of American hero aviator Charles Lindberg's baby represents a low point in our humanity.Telling this story is tough, particularly since the evidence was all circumstantial. Whereas the 1996 film `Crime of the Century' approaches the after-the-fact investigation, with a perspective that Bruno Hauptmann (executed for the crime) indeed may have been wrongfully convicted, this film (from 1976) pursues a more clinical, step-wise, investigative approach. The dictum here seems to be to substantiate the verdict within the bounds of historical accuracy.Nice turns by Cliff DeYoung as Charles Lindbergh, and Anthony Hopkins for his portrayal of Hauptmann (for which he won an EMMY). The presentation is a bit dry, confusing, and long (148mins). You might want to find a nice supplemental text to help you better understand the main players and the chronology of events.But if you're unfamiliar with much of the circumstances you will definitely want to take a look.