MovieChat Forums > Gacy (2003) Discussion > Not true to the events of his life...*sp...

Not true to the events of his life...*spoilers*


I just watched this film and decided to read about Gacy on the internet a bit as i felt the film was quite weak and wondered how much they changed to fit the short running time.
Gacy had a son and a daughter not two girls. His wife also divorced him after he was imprisoned for raping a young boy/man of about 18. The marriage portrayed in the film was in fact his second wife, a big chunk of his life was simply missed out. He never owned KFC or similar branches of a franchise, he worked for them by appointment of his father in-law before his divorce.
These are just a few of the things ive read up till now and ive only read a couple of chapters of the online crime library.
Why was so much changed? I cant think of a reason for it, it simply affected the integrity of the entire film, not that i was expecting a masterpiece but it was simply very poor of the people involved in making this film.
ultimately I do not particularly recommend viewing this to anyone unless perhaps you are extremely bored and it happens to come on tv. Watch Ted Bundy instead, that was far better researched and the end product is simply a more interesting and scarier viewing experience.

reply

That really isn't that much of a change. Whether or not he owned parts of a KFC franchise or he just worked there is totally irrelivant. The film only showing the second part of his marriage is also not a huge deal. I'm not sure how much of his life "was simply missed out" so you may have a point there. It seems that there wasn't really much "changed" as there was just plain LEFT OUT of the film, which seems perfectly reasonable.

reply

I really hate it when film makers decide to change or cut out important bits..

reply

Could be in respect to relatives of the people he killed...nt sure, maybe it's due to copywrite type issues with the companies involved......??

The world largest Villain Index!
http://villainabode.com/index.html

reply

It's not a documentary it's a drama, so it doesn't need to read exactly like his bio. If you do read his bio on crimelibrary.com you'll see that it actually is pretty accurate from a historic perspective. The guy that he picks up by offering to smoke a joint with him is Jeffrey Ringall... the film shows exactly what Jeffrey says happened to him. The kid that threatens to kick his ass because Gacy owes him his pay is Johnny Butkovich, who was never seen again after the day he went to Gacy's house to get his pay.

There definitely were lots of complaints about the smell (though I think the bugs part was added by the film makers for the gross-out value... in the case of a drama they can do that if they want to). Even though the smell was gawd-awful people still came to his block parties because Gacy really knew how to throw a party. One of the largest of which was a western theme party.

As far as him claimimg to own the KFC store... Gacy was a big liar, so it doesn't surprise me that he would say something like that.

So yeah, I think the film makers left out the actual tourture and killing scenes in respect for the families and because it is really not a rape/gore flick... other than that though the film was mostly an accurate depiction of the period after he married his second wife until the time he knew he was going to be caught and confessed to his lawyer. It doesn't show everything, but what it does show is mostly accurate.

I'd just like to add that anyone who wants to research a serial killer should do it at crimelibrary.com instead of the wikipedia. I love the wikipedia but but in some cases there are better sources of information, this being a case in point.

reply

[deleted]

Yea! When I watched it, I wondered why they didn't show his first wife and how they were swingers and the kids he had with her. And I think they should have included the part about him doing time for raping the 15 year old boy. And how after he was arrested other boys said they were sexually abused too.

reply

It's explained in the beginning of this film that the events portrayed are him attempting to rebuild his life, AFTER the first imprisonment.

There was a lot left out, simply to compress for time constraints I guess... but so far as I can work out from reading supplementary material, most of the big events shown really happened.






Born when she kissed me, died when she left me, lived whilst she loved me

reply

Oliver, he did have 2 girls only they were his step-daughters. He also had 2 biological children that he considered "dead to him" after his first wife divorced him when he was found guilty of rape/sodomy in 1968.

If you are interested in (what appears to be) truthful information, there are 2 books that I would suggest reading. One is by the prosecutor, Terry Sullivan (Killer Clown). The other by his Defense Attorney, Sam Amirante (Defending A Monster).

The reason I consider theirs to be truthful is because they coincide (with a differing opinion) with each other as to how the investigation and trial went. They both had personal experience with Gacy and were involved with the personal aspects so I would venture to say that they were pretty accurate as to what actually happened.

reply

Wasn't it true that he raped/killed quite a few young boys and not just young men that were depicted in this film? I didn't see even one of THOSE crimes being committed in this. It seems like a watered down version that Gacy's lawyers had full cinematic ownership over or something... possibly to paint him in a better light, who knows.



Just sayin'...

reply

Yes. Some of the boys were 14.

There is another book called Buried Dreams where Gacy re-enacted what he would do. It was hard to read. The book is a compilation from interviews done with Gacy and some of the information was from the court file. It is all told from Gacy's point of view and he blamed his victims.

If he couldn't trick them, he would drug them. Several got away from him. More than I had thought.

There were several times when he probably would have been caught if not for his political connections in getting charges dismissed or dropped.

He was investigated more than once and one officer before the one that finally got him tried to get a search warrant but a politician blocked it. That was in the summer of 1978 I think. Before that, his name was brought up repeatedly in the investigation of some of the missing boys from 1975 all the way through 1978. They never went past questioning him except for the one that wanted the search warrant.

reply