FILMBRATS - REVIEWS

On April 15, 1920, a paymaster on his way to pay the workers of a local factory was robbed at gunpoint by two men. They shot him with their handguns and stole ten thousand dollars that day. Two anarchist Italian immigrants named Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were taken into police custody shortly thereafter and accused of the crime. The trial was swift, but it took seven years before their death sentence was carried out due to countless appeals and a massive worldwide groundswell of support for their release. Are the two men guilty of cold-blooded murder, or are they the victims of a corrupt, bigoted political system?

Director Peter Miller would have you believe the latter, and he puts together a rather strong argument in favor of that conclusion. He provides us with countless interviews from several historians as they chronologically recount all the key events throughout the entire short lives of the two men. Just a couple of the various incidents mentioned are enough to bring about feelings of outrage and betrayal. How could Judge Thayer deny all those appeals? How could he dismiss the Italian witnesses as unreliable simply because they spoke another language and he hated foreigners? Was he plotting with the police to tie this robbery to the growing purported threat of Communism and Anarchism? What about the possibly falsified gun evidence? What about the less reliable witnesses for the prosecution that were allowed, even though they changed their testimony later?

What about the other side? The film gives an incredibly one-sided view of the situation. Granted, that side seems to be the majority opinion, but the presentation of the situation doesn’t lend itself to the arguments and discussions that can make documentaries so enjoyable and resonant. It becomes “Paradise Lost” light. I wanted to know more about the less socially acceptable aspects of Sacco and Vanzetti. I know that they’re anarchists, but I didn’t feel like I got a very clear understanding as to why. Talk more about their time as part of the radical Galianisti. They paint these two men as near saintly innocents who could do no wrong, when that most likely isn’t the case. The film even goes so far as to romanticize anarchism. That’s all well and good, because that actually does open the floor up for debate. But how about instead explain why the anarchist dogma would contradict these two men from stealing money intended for blue-collar laborers?

On the technical side, the picture is your standard found footage/photographs and talking heads documentary shot in PBS style, aside from a few unnecessarily shaky outdoors shots. Luckily, Miller does well with what he has. The interviews are extremely informative, edited together smoothly and structured perfectly. He makes sure there’s a visually interesting backdrop for each subject as well. The overabundant supply of pictures and letters written by the two while in jail are also integrated quite well, but again fall into the television documentary mold. I can’t help but think that this important story, of which I was still enthralled, should have been given a more unique identity. Make it stand out like Sacco’s mustache.

The one aspect that should have been utilized better is the art. In a couple of tiny sections throughout, we see how the trial and the battle of S & V inspired a couple artists. It’s not until near the end when we see the true extent and reach this emotional tale had. These men were inspirational figures, deeply symbolic figures. That’s why the documentary was made. This story caught the attention of the entire world and motivated people of many countries to congregate on the streets in protest. You just don’t see that kind of call to action anymore, which is actually pretty sad. I would have loved to know more about the emotional, inspirational side of this story. The historical aspect is great, and, as someone who knew nothing of this incident, I was glad to have heard it. However, I think anyone familiar with Sacco & Vanzetti may not find nearly as much substance in the movie as I did by not exploring the social and artistic outbursts that came about from this famous case.

respond to jon@filmbrats.com