The Secret Agent (1907)

Actually, the evidence for their guilt was substantial, but not unequivocal. At the time of their arrest Sacco was in possession of the pistol that was of the same make, caliber, and type that fired the fatal rounds into the dead security officer. Vanzetti was in possession of a pistol that was of the same make, type, and caliber as the one that was missing from the dead security officer's holster.

There was evidence that the pistol Sacco had might not have been the weapon that fired the lethal shot and Vanzetti's pistol could not be proved to be the same pistol that had belonged to the security officer. Also, a lot was presented about the two anarchists being anarchist, which a good defense lawyer would have prevented from being given to the jury because it was irrelevant to their guilt and highly prejudicial.

The eye witness testimony placed them both at the scene and shooting the security guard. However, I don't put a lot of reliance on eye witnesses, and there were contradictions in the testimony.

I think they were guilty, but it can certainly be argued that they were not. The movie simply claims they were innocent and avoids providing any evidence one way or the other. The Sacco and Vanzetti Case has been handled much better and much more even handed in prior movies.

Emma Goldman can be argued to not have been deported to Russia. The civil war resulting from the overthrow of the democratically elected Kerensky government by the Bolshevists was going strong, so depending on where her ship landed or her train stopped, she may have been deported to the Soviet Union. Her deportation was probably illegal, but I'm not terribly torn up about it.

Luigi Galleani was an open advocate of using violence as a means of promoting anarchism, including the destruction of the existing United States government. Advocating the overthrow of the United States government by non-Constitutional grounds is a Federal felony. I think it was proper to deport him.

Followers of Galleani killed several people and attempted to kill several more with package bombs. Some of them were delivered by personally by the anarchists, others were mailed. I don't know all of that history. I have read that the anarchists attempted to mail a bomb to the home of United States Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer. He is that guy who treats the suspected anarchists badly and is eager to deport all foreign born suspected anarchists. The bomb was intercepted and defused. So, the anarchists tried again and this time Carlo Valdonoci, the Italian born anarchist attempting to deliver the bomb was blown up by his own weapon. I think the Attorney General's perspective may have been prejudiced, but I forgive him.

It is interesting how any movie that shows anything positive about America is immediately labeled as "propaganda" by some jerk in the IMDB message boards. Yet, a movie like this that blatantly skews the facts, grossly embellishes some events, and deliberately ignores others is sucked in as though it is the 'God's eye view' of history.

This is an interesting movie. It shows one legitimate perspective on the post-Great War Red Scare. "Reds" is another great movie that was much more widely released, more financially successful, but just about as distorted. The distortions can be chalked up as for dramatic effect. I think that as being at least as likely as that the producers deliberately want to obfuscate history for the sake of encouraging the overthrow capitalism. However, if the subject matter interests you, it should be a starting point to study American history. It is probably beyond the ability of most of the people who read these boards, but I recommend that you do your research in depth and with an open mind.


The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.