MovieChat Forums > Neverland: The Rise and Fall of the Symbionese Liberation Army (2005) Discussion > Was Patty lying about being brainwashed?

Was Patty lying about being brainwashed?

posted 17 years ago by dougie_phresh
5 replies | jump to latest

Just watched this in ou documentary class today and thought it was an amazing story. But the end confused me - one particular loose end.

So she was missing for weeks and weeks and as the time went by she began to talk like the SLA members in the messages sent to the media; eventually renouncing her parents, her fiance and her lifestyle to become "Tanya."

But then at the end when they finally take the SLA down in the big shootout at the house, and arrest Patty, she claims the following in her statement:

- She was kept in a tiny dark room for weeks and weeks, terrified, until
- the SLA members brought her out and let her sit with them. Then
- she felt like she was "tripping on acid", and
- then all of a sudden it skipped to the bank robbery!
- and that's it! That's her side of the story.

Not a word about her media statements to her family, talking down to her parents about how they were dealing with the situation etc and how she said she wants never to see her fiance again. (though, with a moustache like that I don't blame her). Not a word about her supposed defection to the SLA, her love affair with (?), and not a word about the shooting at the sports store, in which the film earlier claimed she pulled the trigger. WTF?

So was this the filmmakers deliberately leaving this out or did she really just deny everything? I felt really let down by this because I thought the whole point of the story was to find out whether or not she "did it".

I'm going to look it up of course but just thought I'd see if anyone here knows anything about it.

Great documentary all the same.

Finally, you can really see how at the time a lot of people would have been rooting for the SLA. Like the guy in it says, if they had just put their hands up at the house in LA and walked out, instead of trying to shoot their way out, they could have gotten away with the whole thing.

[–] alex-1978 17 years ago

I think you hit the nail on the head about her brainwashing in that it remains the biggest question mark about the whole ordeal. We'll never know for sure and it is definitely up for debate. Don't be frustrated with the fact that they couldn't anwser that question. She claims she was brainwashed and she stuck to that story. It does appear to be a convenient excuse though.

To me this event was the capstone on the tail end of the radicalism that took hold in the 60's and 70's This documentary really gives insight into how crazy things got. I'm 31 and when I recommend documenaries like this to my parents they always decline to watch because they lived through the turmoil and don't want to think about what happened.

As a student of history it's great that this documentary was shown in a class. A recent 2 hr documentary on the history channel called "Hippies" is another good one about that time.

[–] captainbong 15 years ago

I know this comment is a bit old, but there was a reference to Hearst's love affair/sexual assault in the doco, they played Hearst's tape that she released after the shootout where she describes her love for him. There's also an earlier reference to her 'knowing' him.
I don't think the film maker glossed over anything, he was just subtle about it. I loved the ending too, great doco.

[–] Odilwerk 12 years ago

To be honest I don't think it would of been a good idea for the documentary maker to actually flat out say she was lying. He would surely of had legal problems in doing so.

IMO though from what I've read and such ( which I'l admit isn't all that much ) she seems to me to be the person in the world I'd most hate to be.

The only thing I've read about it that would even slightly go in her favour would be the idea she was given a script to read during these tapes. However I'm yet to come across any evidence of it. Otherwise there is literally nothing redeemable about the woman or her case at all. A rebel trying to find a cause is the best discription. Words cannot describe what she has actually turned into though.

[–] totokeke 11 years ago

[Just rewatched the film, know this thread is old] Stone actually glossed over almost all of Hearst's story. Of this whole period of her life, she spent most of the time alone with Teko and Yolanda hiding out, which must have been a nightmare. She was with the whole group for about three months, then with Teko and Yolanda for another year and a half. So there's a ton missing. Sorrentino's novel Trance is WAY more documentary than this film and tons of fun too!

[–] edlaxton 7 years ago

Just watched the film and the interview with the director (on the UK version of the DVD)
Do we know why Hearst was not interviewed? Seems a huge gaping hole in the story.