markcarlson2222

I first saw this film on TV (late-night) about 8 years ago. It intrigued me to do some research. I found Gary Lagergne's book "A Sniper in the Tower" and read it. Whitman (Russell) was much the brooding silent tortured man as portrayed, but had a very violent streak and seemed to be amused by other peoples' pain. The film does seem to support the 'brain tumor' theory, but it doesn't touch any of Whitman's life. He was raised by a very rich and dominating, physically abusive father who loved guns and demanded obedience and success from his sons. Charles never knew what compassion and love were, but for achievement and abuse. He had to be the best at everything. He was the youngest EVER to become an Eagle scout, at age 12. He joined the Marines as a way of escaping his father's abuse and control. The Corps did, for a time, keep him in line, but when he attempted to get a degree at UT Austin in 1964 he was out of their control and failed to reach the standard they demanded. Then came his marriage and more problems. He was ambitious but not able to achieve anything. Failed jobs, a court-martial, getting out of the Corps he now hated, and a failed attempt at an engineering degree again at UT Austin caused him great anguish and depression. Above all, he was financially dependent on a father he hated. This couldn't have helped his self-respect. When Whitman killed his wife, mother and dog, and went into the University Tower on August 1, 1966, he was plagued with headaches, anger and severe depression. The film, with the never-happened 'airplane' sequence, and the compassionate detective (Forsythe) who tries to find out his name is overly dramatic and complicated. The 90-minute siege on the tower, finally ended by Martinez, Crumm and Foss was dramatic enough. Technically, it's accurate enough, despite being filmed in Baton Rouge LA since Austin didn't want to let the UT tower be used. But the amount of gunfire Whitman is loosing from the tower is beyond belief. He's using, early on, a bolt-action rifle. Time between shots as he pulls and cycles the bolt is at least 2 seconds. Yet as people below are running for cover, you hear shots like from a semi-automatic rifle. It hurts what needed to be simple, more stark and horrible, not a hail of bullets raining down from above. So as in my other comments, Hollywood doesn't always get it right, even though they can tell the authentic story and do it well, if they trusted the intelligence of their viewers. But when was that ever the case?

This film is pretty good for emotion and drama. I've been to St. Helens and love the region. It's largely grown back and is green and fertile again, dominated by the stark gray gutted monolith of the mountain. In a way, it's a tombstone of granite and pumice, still steaming and hot despite more than two decades of slumber. Very somber and impressive sight. I liked the movie the first time I saw it probably about 20 years ago on TV. It was cut a bit for commercials so I probably saw about 75 minutes so there were a few plot holes, but nothing to worry about. After all, it's a fictionalized docudrama. The only real characters? Harry Truman (Carney in a real departure from Ed Norton), the crusty old soldier who won't do what he don't want to. He's earned the right to die on his own land. And David Jackson (Huffman) who is based on the late David Johnston who died on the mountain in the eruption. He's portrayed as the antithesis of Truman, a calm dreamer who hates stupidity and bureaucracy (one and the same) in the local businessmen and NGS officials. He and Harry hit it off despite their differences and find common ground in the love of the mountain about to destroy everything. I rather liked Tim Thomerson, the sheriff, who's out of his usual stand-up routine but a 'stand up guy' in the local community, as he tries to keep peace as the drama unfolds. The Huffman/Yates love interest? Probably untrue, and in my opinion, unnecessary in the film. A bit of country-western 'local yokels' in the bar, getting to know one another is a decent way of helping us like the town and the folks, but one wonder something. For instance, why does Cassie Yates and her son, who have a car, get a helicopter ride out of danger? And when the news report of the eruption comes on, the first thing they say is that Harry Truman was at his lodge and David Jackson, the 'Young Geologist' was on the face of the mountain when it erupted. Fast work. The end theme, "Here's to You, Harry Truman," is a pretty good ballad, and catchy, even if old Harry himself would probably have scoffed at the overly maudlin lyrics. "Sounds like pigs being murdered." The film of the eruption and the later destruction are impressive and gut-wrenching. It was a huge disaster which flattened thousands of acres of forest and wilderness. Yet, if you go up to St. Helens, the thing you'll be most surprised by is the roadside attractions. "ST. HELENS: FEEL THE ERUPTION! EXPERIENCE THE DESTRUCTION, THE QUAKE, THE POWER, from the comfort of a chair. All over the place, you can see movies, buy lava chunks and explore houses buried under ash. What a country.

I've always loved this film. It's moving, emotional, stirring, and poetic. It's even capable of generating great empathy with a man who we'd all prefer not to marry our daughters. Stroud, portrayed by Lancaster, is slowly pulled from a life of solitude, misery, hatred and violence by his love of birds. He becomes someone we can identify with, to care about, to wish he was free.

But...and I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but Hollywood doesn't always get it right. Yeah, really. The movie is fiction from start to finish. Tom Gaddis' book was wonderful I actually bought a copy at the Alcatraz gift shop years ago and read it eagerly. I believed I had the true story of Stroud. And believed it for years. Until I read 'Birdman: The Many Faces of Robert Stroud' by Jolene Babyak. What a change. When I confirmed the book's accounts from other sources. I was stunned that we'd been so duped by the book and movie.

So there's a lot more to Stroud than Lancaster's gentle giant. He was a vicious psychopath who had killed twice, and wanted to kill more. He wasn't in solitary because of some misprint in his execution order. He was kept in solitary because he was too dangerous to keep with the regular prison population. He was also a savage homosexual rapist who wrote child pornography and had absolutely no regrets about it. When he was up for parole, he openly stated he wanted to get out before he was too old, because 'there were some people who needed killing.' His birdwork, too, was a fabrication. it's been proved now that most of Stroud's writings were plagiarized from other bird books, and even his remedies were nearly as dangerous as they were healing. He got lucky on some, that's all. No reputable bird breeder uses his remedies today. Stroud was alive when the movie was made. He'd smuggled bits and pieces of his 'autobiography,' heavily slanted in his favor, to Tom Gaddis, his own little gullible ghostwriter. And then it hit the big screen. The story generated piles of mail pleading for Stroud's release. He must have smiled at that, if he knew. The U.S. Bureau of Prisons knew what it was doing keeping Stroud in captivity. He was dangerous and would have probably killed even as an old man. He died the day before JFK was shot. I have an old San Jose Mercury News, from November 23, 1963 which on the fhird page has a small article entitled: "Autopsy Performed on Birdman Stroud.' His death in Springfield would have been front-page news but for the JFK Assassination. Actually, a tiny blurb is all he deserved. Have I seen the movie since I read the truth? Sure, but now I watch it for the acting, the cinematography, the drama, not the fiction. It is a great movie, and even Academy Award material. Frankenheimer's direction is superb, with a wonderful score and high accuracy in what life in prison was like in the early half of the last century. Lancaster, Malden, Brand, even a young Telly Savalas did a masterful job. The only thing I'd add is I wonder what the producers who decided to tell this story in such a favorable light, including the writers would have thought if Stroud had been paroled, and then started killing again. I wonder.

For the film, I give it an 8/10. For a work of fiction, a 10/10.