MovieChat Forums > Patty Hearst (1988) Discussion > Totally Bogus

Totally Bogus

posted 14 years ago by mail-2775
11 replies | jump to latest

This film is useless. It is made very stylishly, it is first rate almost all the way around in production values, but I found it astounding that they'd succeeded in making a movie that was even more self-serving than the book it was based on!

I read her book very carefully in 1992, and I enjoyed reading it, but it was easy to tell what was true and what you had to shut off your brain to believe. This movie went further in that direction.

People have been going on and on about how great Natasha Richardson was in the film, but have made no mention of the great William Forsythe, who had a large role in it. He's too alive to get sympathy votes, but is 3x the actor that Natasha Richardson was.

This movie is a terrible, terrible source of what happened, and the way it was filmed documentary-style makes it just plain fraudulent.

The version of events given in the movie coincides 100% with the defense put on by her big-money lawyers. Bear in mind that the jury didn't buy it, the appellate courts didn't buy it, and she would not have been arrested in the first place if the FBI and US Attorney had bought into that self-serving fish story. That she is a socialite connected at the highest levels should not be in dispute now that two Democratic Presidents have put their own legacies at stake to get her out of prison and clear her name.

For a second opinion of what kind of person she was, notice what she did to her fiancee. How was she "kidnapped" from the home where she was to be married, when she never went back or even spoke to the guy she was to marry?

The real problem with this film is the first 20 minutes. What is shown there is a totally unverified version of events where the only source is a wayward heiress bank robber who---and please keep this in mind---made this book and this movie and promoted them like crazy while trying to buy a Presidential pardon. Winning the sympathy of the public was key to getting Carter and Clinton to pardon her. Please note that they didn't pardon a whole lot of bank robbers.

As for making a new version of this movie, even a good one would be nearly pointless. As Roger Ebert said in his review, "This whole story seemed so much more exciting from the outside."

P.S. For fans of the movie, the Hibernia Savings they robbed was not the real one on Noriega, they filmed it at the Bank of America at 38th and Balboa, both inside and out. I know because I opened my first bank account there in 1979! It is a pretty close match, the Sunset and Richmond districts look pretty much the same.

[–] ChristmasStan 13 years ago

Keep in mind she would of never of done anything if she wasn't kidnaped. She was a CHILD OF 19 when she was Kidnaped.

[–] jac91604 13 years ago

She was hardly a child. She was grown woman living with her fiance.

[–] howardkettle 9 years ago

*have, not ''of''

[–] kenburke (2280) 5 years ago

I suspect she was in on the whole thing from day one. At first it seemed like a game. Then there was the big shoot-out with the L.A.P.D. and she headed for the hills.

[–] drxcreatures 10 years ago

You had an account at Bank of America? I am so sorry.

http://www.cgonzales.net & http://www.drxcreatures.com

[–] mail-2775 10 years ago

Yes, it was a bad trip, but I tend to be loyal to anyone I do business with until I can no longer bear it. I've paid a high price for that senseless loyalty...

I've kept my personal banking (no money) there for 35 years just because it is free, but after 11 years I had to move my corporate banking (fair amount of money) to US Bank, 1) to eliminate the fees BofA was charging me ($204/year for N O T H I N G) and 2) to stop giving 100% of my revenue as an interest free loan to a fortune 500 company (BofA was intentionally hiding my credit card merchant deposits from 1-5 days, something they didn't do the first five years, US Bank gets them to me in 14 hours, about 10 hours better than BofA was at their best).

I tended to stay with BofA over most of those years because I am in CA and they were and are the main bank here. Of the thousands of banks that have come and gone from doing business in CA (Great Western, Security Pacific, Crocker, First Interstate, not to mention Hibernia shown in the movie), only BofA and Wells Fargo have been here the whole time, and the ATMs are everywhere, and were LONG before Star or whatever networks made different ones compatible (my Dad had a BofA Versateller card in 1978).

[–] kenburke (2280) 6 years ago

Personally, I think she was in on the whole thing from day one.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

That's incredibly unlikely. This was not another Getty III.

If she had secret violent or revolutionary tendencies that nobody ever knew about, before or after, why would she join those small-time losers instead of a revolutionary group that people took seriously? Why, with her connections and family money, she could have arranged to be "kidnapped" by the Black Panthers, Weathermen, or even the Red Guard! Not to mention that she went right back to being rich, dull, and respectable when she got out, if she'd ever been a true believer she should have at least become a far-left activist.

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 6 years ago

Violent revolutionary tendencies??? She was a spoiled brat who wanted an adventure and the far left gives her the perfect cover to have a fun little adventure at our expense. Social justice is for scoundrels not true believers. Most of them are trustafarian white males. What about these psychiatrists who invent Stockholm Syndrome for her?

So yes Patty Hearst was in on it from day one. She may have tried to contact black panthers but what would it matter?

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

You're incredible certain for someone who wasn't there, and who probably wasn't born at the time.

If she was after adventures or cheap thrills, there were much better ones available at the time, all sorts of drugs and fringe groups were available to s rich girl at Berkeley. It just doesn't seem credible that anyone with options would choose to join those low-rent losers.

[–] kenburke (2280) 6 years ago

I felt she was a classic case of a spoiled rich kid who wanted to stick it to her parents. At first it seemed like a game but then there was the big shootout with the police. After that she realized it was no game and did her best to hide out until she was caught.