Taking on the notorious murder cases perpetrated by the “Boston Strangler”, altogether 13 women were killed from 1962 to 1964 in Boston, Fleischer’s film adaptation is an ambitious undertaking trying not just to be a police procedural, but a snapshot of the 60s counterculture and indecency, and boasts a distinct visual swagger: split screen.

Unlike the symmetrical, equal divide of split screen that is arranged to brilliant merriment in Michael Gordon’s PILLOW TALK (1959), in THE BOSTON STRANGLER, what it portrays is a seedy business. Images are telescoped, juxtaposed or superimposed onto the screen to present different perspectives (subjective/objective, victim/murderer) simultaneously, to stimulate our curiosity and dangle our dread, but is not a genre flick that taps into horror or violence for pleasure, nudity is tantalized, but perverse and macabre sequences are left largely off screen, the battery subjected to a struggling victim Dianne Cluny (a bruised and traumatized Kellerman) is the closest scene to which we feel objectionable. Also there is no smoke and mirrors around the ultimate suspect, spoiled by the opening caption, the only question is when will he pop up?

The alleged strangler himself, Albert DeSalvo (Curtis) would crops up after one hour into the movie’s 116 minutes length, before that, led by the chief investigator John S. Bottomly (a scholarly, characteristically four-square Fonda), we are shown the police force’s bungling action of approaching one red herring after another, as if a vice squad is in the line of duty, enumerating those on the list of sexual indecency one by one, from adultery, crank-call mischief, homosexual (Hatfield, the quondam Dorian Gray spits in the eye of heteronormativity), lecherous imposture, domestic abuse to masochistic kink (Hickey is captivating as the poor sad sack), how swell! But what is the heck with that ESP charlatan? (Voskovec is a veritable luvvie!)

After DeSalvo comes under the limelight, the film changes its lane to a bogus psychological study, and offers Curtis, the “pretty boy” who has passed his prime, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to flex his muscles as a thespian, and Curtis doesn’t disappoint, mapping out DeSalvo’s twisted psyche in broad strokes but remains strikingly convincing when he stills himself and processes DeSalvo’s concealed horror with a modicum of inner disturbance. But Bottomly’s approach is so savage and the result is too simple (for example, why the perverse MO?), what he does is indiscriminately pushing DeSalvo toward a pernicious nervous breakdown, just to satisfy his suspicion, is it even a scientifically approved method?

Sacrificing a more fine-grained study of DeSalvo’s DID etiology (it is made far too hasty before the case could be more elucidated by later evidence and technological advancement) to a socially conscious drama, THE BOSTON STRANGLER may not be described as edifying or perceptive, but it earns some risible bonus points for being a self-serious Dutch uncle who tries to make good sense of an unsolved grisly case through pure postulation and half imagination.

referential entries: Fleischer’s COMPULSION (1959, 7.3/10); Michael Gordon’s PILLOW TALK (1959, 8.0/10)

Title: The Boston StranglerYear: 1968Country: USALanguage: EnglishGenre: Crime, Drama, MysteryDirector: Richard FleischerScreenwriter: Edward Anhaltbased on the book by Gerold FrankMusic: Lionel NewmanCinematography: Richard H. KlineEditing: Marion RothmanCast:Tony CurtisHenry FondaGeorge KennedyMurray HamiltonMike KellinRichard X. SlatteryHurd HatfieldWilliam HickeyCarolyn ConwellSally KellermanGeorge VoskovecJeff CoreyWilliam MarshallGeorge FurthLeora DanaAustin WillisJeanne CooperJames BrolinEnid MarkeyCarole ShelleyRating: 7.3/10