Between 1962 and 1964, thirteen women were murdered in their homes, most of them raped, by the so-called “Boston Strangler”. We are well aware of this disastrous affair. What is less known is that before arresting the serial killer, the authorities were first forced to admit… his existence. Indeed, journalist Loretta McLaughlin was the first to draw connections between the first murders. After a 1968 blockbuster movie left her out of the equation, boston strangler (The Boston Strangler) finally highlights the capital contribution of this brilliant and intrepid young woman.
Keira Knightley, who also acts as a producer, plays with conviction Loretta McLaughlin, whose point of view the film privileges. The always formidable Carrie Coon plays Jean Cole, a colleague with whom she wrote several articles.
Confined to the “lifestyle” section of the newspaper American Record, Loretta seizes her chance to get out of it by convincing her editor (Chris Cooper) to let her investigate three murders that she is convinced are connected. It is after this first article has had the effect of a bomb at the town hall that Loretta sees herself imposing as partner Jean, an experienced investigative journalist.
The film paints an interesting period portrait. Both from the side of the newsroom and that of the Boston police station, the two female reporters are confronted with the macho and sexist culture of the time. Add to that the killer’s crimes, which are fundamentally misogynistic — we smile sadly when, five victims later, a detective admits to Loretta that the authorities have no idea the motive for the murders. However, it is obvious: the motive is the hatred of women, whatever their age or their skin color. Another time, another blindness.
And Loretta and Jean to stand together. That’s what the film is about: sisterhood versus patriarchy. However, several male characters appear as allies, including Loretta’s husband (Morgan Spector), who supports her…until her work encroaches, he believes, on their family life (the recent Annie Anger offered similar torque dynamics).
In short, the subject is not Manichean.
From Sub-Fincher
Where it gets stuck is at the level of the realization of Matt Ruskin, who also signs the screenplay. Very often, visually, technically, we are in sub-David Fincher. The sequence where Loretta will interrogate Daniel Marsh, a suspect, evokes that, very similar but much better directed, of the film Zodiacwhen Robert (Jake Gyllenhaal) follows a sleazy guy into a dismal basement.
With regard to violence, Ruskin is sensitive, first favoring off-screen evocations during feminicides, before becoming more explicit as the urgency to arrest the killer grows (David Dastmalchian plays Albert DeSalvo).
The approach is never sordid or flashy, unlike the 1968 film, The Boston Strangler (The Boston Strangler), where Richard Fleischer used a host of flashy techniques, including split-screen. This bias worked really well in the context of this largely fictional film, though we prefer the chilling austerity of Fleischer’s next film, 10 Rillington Place (The Christie Affair), another story of a serial killer, John Christie.
Doubts remain
Matt Ruskin’s film, from its angle, comes closer, while suffering from the comparison, from the excellent Mashhad Nights. The last act is especially disappointing. Indeed, after cleverly suggesting that the crimes of the Boston Strangler may have enabled other men to commit feminicide by mimicking the modus operandi of the killer, we sink into over-explanation and over-demonstration (and an excess of fiction), with editing illustrating the said hypothesis and narration explaining what is more than eloquent in the image.
The film is most effective in its celebration of the determination of Loretta McLaughlin and Jean Cole. He is equally so in his condemnation of the sexist culture which not only put a spoke in the wheels of these journalists whom we did not want to hear, but doubtless compromised unnecessarily the safety of the women of Boston before the thesis of the killer in series is finally admitted.
And yet, as the film reminds us, it is far from certain that DeSalvo was indeed the “only” Strangler in Boston. To this day, several experts doubt that he could have committed all the murders…