Watched it when it first came out and am watching it again now.
Right from the opening scene it was wrong. Lizzie's shown outside in the barn in her slip, going through the yard, and even making eye contact with a young man in the yard. There's no way any Victorian woman would be caught dead outside in her slip, let alone make eye contact like that with a man!
If they wanted to loosely base this on the Lizzie Borden story, and make it a different narrative, that's fine, but they should have stated it at the start, and at least gotten details right about the behaviour and dress of people from this period.
They have her as a Sunday school teacher (which is correct, Lizzie was that), and the daughter of a wealthy Victorian father, which is also correct. But that makes it all the more ludicrous that she'd behave that way in the opening scene.
Nor would she, or any Victorian woman, have worn a low cut dress like that to the party.
Lizzie was not invited to parties, she had no friends except one, who didn't throw parties. Lizzie was an outcast, not in the least flirtatious, and she was socially ill at ease and awkward.
This version has her crying her eyes out after "discovering" her dead father, when part of the reason she was suspected was her abnormal lack of emotion not only after she "found" him, but during the trial. Why change that? Those details makes the story all the more intriguing.
The acting is pretty good. The casting for Mr Borden and Emma was good, and Ricci did a good job with what she was given, although she looked and acted nothing like Lizzie. Casting and writing for Mrs Borden was terrible.
Costuming and sets were good.
Really, it's the writing -- poor in general, and terrible if they wanted to tell the Lizzie Borden story. There are so many inaccuracies, I can't count them all.
Was it? I'd forgotten where it originally aired. Yes, Lifetime has a bad rep. An aside: did you know Lifetime is a subsidiary of A&E? Remember when A&E was good? I do.
Then I should be surprised the acting, costuming, and sets were as good as they were.
I remember when A&E was not just good, but excellent. That network must have been sold to a company that put $$$$$$$$ before everything else. Really, they destroyed the entire "Arts" part. It's a shame.
I remember when A&E was good, the History Channel actually broadcast shows about history and not ancient aliens and when MTV showed music videos. Now most cable channels broadcast trash with never ending commercials. I am a sucker for cooking shows though...
I recently watched this version and 1975's "The Legend of Lizzie Borden" with Elizabeth Montgomery back-to-back and I give this one the edge. It's a little more compelling and has an excellent edgy soundtrack, albeit anachronistic. People complain about the music, but it's not like it's anything new to apply rockin' soundtracks to historical movies; "Marie Antoinette" did it in 2006 and Spag Westerns did it decades prior in the early 70s. Besides, the soundtrack's not all rockin'; it's diverse, creative and thoroughly entertaining. I recommend seeing both versions to compare the data and understand what was going on behind the scenes at the Borden abode.
While it's impossible to defend Lizzie's gruesome actions, both movies help you see why she felt she had to do what she did (with 99.9% certainty). Her father was rich, a struggling mortician turned businessman and property developer, but he refused to update their house (they still had a pit latrine instead of flush toilets) or move to a more affluent neighborhood. Lizzie just turned 32 while Emma was 9 years older and marriage was less and less likely of a potential escape. The stepmother, Abby, was short & fat and pressuring Andrew to change his will for her benefit. The Borden house itself was curiously structured in that there were no hallways and thus one room linked to another, which hindered privacy. In short, the household was a ticking Victorian time bomb with mounting hostilities waiting to explode.
I don't buy these strict rules that so-called historians apply to earlier eras. Like the argument that there's "no way" Lizzie would ever be outside in her slip or make eye contact with a male. For one thing, Lizzie obviously wasn't like most Victorian era women.
All things considered, I thought this movie kicked axx and provides a nice springboard for viewers to look up the history.
This version does absolutely nothing if anyone wants to understand anything about Lizzie Borden, her family, and the murders. It's wildly inaccurate. Whereas The Legend of Lizzie Borden followed the facts and details pretty closely, and presented a theory about what actually happened; this one didn't.
I hated the soundtrack. Not because it was anachronistic -- Baz Luhrmann used an anachronistic track to great effect in The Great Gatsby (the year before this came out). But he chose the tracks carefully and thoughtfully, just as he did the entire film. Whereas this served no purpose, was carelessly and thoughtlessly chosen, as though they thought "Hey, let's do what he did last year! Trendy and edgy!" without any understanding or thought beyond that. The rest of it was done with the same thoughtlessness and lack of attention to detail.
This version shows very little of what you're talking about. Nothing about Lizzie wanting -- longing -- to move to a more affluent neighbourhood, nothing about the layout of the house (they got that wrong too). Abby was tall, slender, blond, and barely in it. She was presented as a normal person, and that was hardly the case with the real Abby.
In this, Lizzie accuses Andrew of giving Abby's family a big house on the hill (the affluent area of Fall River), which isn't anywhere close what happened. There isn't any evidence Abby was pressuring Andrew to change his will. Not a thing.
Lizzie had even more reason to not do something as socially foolish as wear her chemise outside than a normal Victorian woman. She *greatly* wanted to be accepted by society -- a society that was out of her reach both because of where and how they lived, and her strangeness or lack of social skills. More, their house was on a busy thoroughfare, the barn easily visible from the street. I didn't say she wouldn't make eye contact with a male; she, nor any other proper Victorian woman would not only not venture out in her slip, but if by some highly unlikely reason she did, and a male was nearby, would not have made eye contact the way it was shown here.
These aren't "strict rules," it's common sense based on what the social customs and mores were at the time, depending on one's place in society. If you're unaware of these details, the lack of awareness of them on the part of the writers wouldn't bother you. But I do, so yes, the sloppiness of these details and the lack of accuracy about Lizzie Borden, her family, and the murder, bothers me.
As I said, if they wanted to base a period drama on the case and do whatever they liked, fine. But it has even people like you, who know a little about the case, believing it has authenticity and should be watched to glean understanding of it.
This version does absolutely nothing if anyone wants to understand anything about Lizzie Borden, her family, and the murders.
Wrong, it superbly reveals how the household was a ticking Victorian time bomb with mounting hostilities waiting to explode. How you missed this I don't know.
Moreover, this version was more compelling than the 1975 Elizabeth Montgomery version and provided more details, like -- after her acquittal -- Lizzie living on the hill in the more affluent area (which was her lifelong ambition) and later 'fessing up to Emma, which prompted Emma to abruptly move out. Yes, I realize that this was an educated guess on the writer's part, but SOMETHING provoked Emma to abruptly leave and it could've very well been a confession as depicted in the movie.
The excellent varied score happens to be one of my all-time favorites, so I guess it's a matter of taste.
Lizzie was a bit of an eccentric and was known to have parties with artsy types, like actors, in her new life on the hill. She may have been "socially awkward" around conventional conservatives but not outcasts and libertines.
You think because the events took place in a New England town during that Victorian era that a woman "would never do this" or "never do that." Get real. Lizzie was the type of woman who did whatever the fudge she wanted, IF she could get away with it. The proof is in the pudding. It's moronic to apply rigid absolutes to every woman simply because it was the Victorian era. Pretentious "historian" types are known for doing this and they're honestly full of sheet. No offense.
reply share
"Wrong, it superbly reveals how the household was a ticking Victorian time bomb with mounting hostilities waiting to explode."
You're conflating what you already knew with what was shown in this version, which was little, and much of it inaccurate. That's not what I call superbly revealing.
Aside from a brief mention of the toilet (with no context for the viewer), it showed nothing of this: "Her father was rich, a struggling mortician turned businessman and property developer, but he refused to update their house (they still had a pit latrine instead of flush toilets) or move to a more affluent neighborhood. Lizzie just turned 32 while Emma was 9 years older and marriage was less and less likely of a potential escape. The stepmother, Abby, was short & fat and pressuring Andrew to change his will for her benefit. The Borden house itself was curiously structured in that there were no hallways and thus one room linked to another, which hindered privacy." Your own words on why Lizzie's actions were made somewhat understandable to you.
Added: I was mistaken, there isn't even any mention of the toilet! That was me conflating what I know with this movie. Nothing about not updating the house. Nothing that even shows Andrew was a wealthy man, except possibly the erroneous line from Lizzie about his buying Abby's family "the beautiful house on the hill."
This version may have been more compelling and entertaining to you, but it's not what anyone should watch if they want to understand Lizzie and the events of what happened.
The 1975 version focussed on the events leading up to the murders, and the murders themselves. This version expanded to their lives post-trial, which would have been interesting if they'd paid attention to history, except in very broad strokes.
Emma left Maplecroft because she disapproved of Lizzie's lifestyle, specifically her relationship with Nance O'Neill, inviting Nance and her actor friends to parties at Maplecroft. This happened not long after Lizzie had entertained them for the second time. Whether or not, as some have speculated, there was a lesbian relationship between the two, I don't know. No one knows. Having Lizzie gleefully whisper a confession to Emma, who'd been her ersatz mother and champion all her life, defending her even to the end when they were estranged, was a cheap and easy way to go.
Musical tastes are subjective, so no problem on my part agreeing to disagree on the soundtrack.
Lizzie was much more than a bit of an eccentric. She was socially awkward from the time she was a small child, and remained the same through her life. This has been said over and over again by those who knew her.
She was drawn to the arts, that is true. May have been her true nature, may have been because that's what people of the social standing she so wanted to belong to did. Her socialising with actors (who lived out of town, because in town she was ostracised and had no way of socialising), who were looked down upon by the very people whose respect she craved, was both because she was accepted by them, and probably at that point she'd given up trying so it was a way of thumbing her nose at those who'd rejected her.
Speaking of Nance, this version had Lizzie meeting her at that party she'd have never been invited to, or behaved the way she was shown to, before the murders! Before she and Emma had even bought Maplecroft, years before she in fact met Nance.
Lizzie wasn't at all the type of woman who did "whatever the fudge she wanted" LOL!
In what universe would it make any logical sense that she'd do something so out of character, that would be so improper as to be seen as actually scandalous, by the very class she so desperately wanted to belong to? It's seems to me you have little understanding of the social mores of the time, or of Lizzie, or are unable to apply logic to the two.
She became a Sunday school teacher in an effort to fit in. She wanted to change churches from the one her father insisted they go to, to the "right" church, where people On the Hill lived. Lizzie was desperate to fit in, and wouldn't have deliberately done anything to jeopordise the life she wanted and believed she deserved. How you can't see this is beyond me, unless it's that you like this version so much it's an effort on your part to defend it.
Was the movie compelling and entertaining as a crime flick based on an infamous historical double murder? Yes. Was it superior to the 1975 movie with Elizabeth Montgomery? Yes. Was the soundtrack/score pleasantly creative? Yes. Were the locations/sets/costumes/cast excellent in relation to the film's TV budget? Yes. Does the movie generate interest in the topic? Absolutely. Will many viewers check out the historical account and learn the factual details. Naturally.
What more can you ask for? You're confusing dramatic film with documentaries.
In your opinion, and you, like everyone else, is welcome to have their own opinions. Mine, which you won't accept, differs from yours, and I've already explained to you why. No need to retread the ground.
It's all good, Cat. And I accept your opinion. I don't expect everyone to like what I like.
But please permit me to share some food for thought:
As noted earlier, I reject the blanket thinking -- which I occasionally hear from historian types -- that because it was the Victorian era (or whatever era) that "NO woman (or man) would EVER do such-and-such." This is an example of a blanket statement. The problem is that there are too many variables to make such an absolute statement. It would be better -- more accurate -- to say "Most women who were properly raised in Victorian culture wouldn't do such-and-such." I think Lizzie Borden has proved that she was quite set apart from the conventional Victorian era female. Most Victorian women wouldn't savagely ax their father and stepmother to death, but that didn't prevent Lizzie from doing just that (and the movie successfully shows the mounting tensions and hostilities in the Borden abode that led to this aberrant behavior).
As an example, consider historian-types from 125 years in the future and what they will say about common behavior in our society: While we currently live in a predominantly libertine culture, wouldn't it be silly for one of them to draw the conclusion: "Because it was a Libertine era EVERY woman wore a thong at the beach, drank from a beer bong, twerked her booty and participated in casual sex"?
I'm not especially knowledgeable about the real-life Lizzy Borden, nor am I concerned very much about accuracy. When I sat down to watch it I just wanted to see a good story well-told.
For a made-for-TV movie I thought the production values were solid enough and the performances were good. I've always liked Christina Ricci and thought she did a good job here.
It's been a while since I watched it so I can't remember a lot in the way of specifics, but I do remember being pleasantly surprised by it. Maybe that's because I went into it expecting very little but it at least held my interest.
It's much easier to be entertained by it if you don't know much about Lizzie, and don't care about accuracy.
I wouldn't have cared about the lack of accuracy if they'd just based it on her story, and then took it in whichever direction they liked, but they didn't do that either.
I agree the production values were, overall, pretty good. The acting was solid, costuming, makeup, hair, sets, props -- all good.
It always helps if you go into something with low expectations. Unless something's out and out *bad* (and this had redeeming features), you're going to be pleasantly surprised.
I guess if it was an individual whose story I was invested in in some way then I would be disappointed if a film was inaccurate. In fact, I guess I can think of one example like that. . . I am a big fan of Agatha Christie and I know that in the 70s they made a movie about her. However, from what I've heard, the movie invents all sorts of fictions and is pretty far away from an accurate biography, and for that reason I just haven't bothered with it.
However, there have certainly been films I've enjoyed that were based on real events but that took great liberties with the story. For instance, Argo, Pain & Gain and Catch Me If You Can are all based on real events and include characters with the real-life names of the people involved, but details are changed for dramatic purposes. That didn't harm my enjoyment of those films, though.
Exactly, if you're interested enough in a subject that you've bothered to read about it, if a film or show comes out and it's obvious to you it's very inaccurate, it's disappointing. Probably a wise choice to not bother with that Christie movie.
I saw Catch Me If You Can, and Quiz Show, but since I know virtually nothing about the real events and people they were based on, I took them at face value and enjoyed them.
According to the Wikipedia article Christina Ricci has described the film (and the series that followed it) as "self-aware, campy, and tongue-in-cheek." It sounds to me like you may just not be the right buyer for what they are selling.
Were you aware that a series followed the movie (The Lizzy Borden Chronicles)? It takes place after the events in the film. I'm sure it is even more fictionalized than the movie in question is.
That isn't how it plays, regardless of what she says. Wuchak, you, me, nor anyone whose posts I've read commenting on it so far has said or even implied it's camp or tongue in cheek, either. Sounds to me like she was trying to make an excuse for its weaknesses, which no doubt were noted at the time it came out. After all, she and the other actors did do a good job, so she'd have reason to want to defend it.
Netflix classifies it as a thriller/crime thriller. IMDb as crime, drama, mystery. Wikipedia as a docudrama. So, yeah.
Yes, I know about the series that followed it and have been watching some of it. This I have no objection to because it is almost all fiction, and doesn't pretend to be anything else.
Well I do remember thinking that the movie wasn't intended to be something that should be taken especially seriously.
The poster, the soundtrack and other stylistic choices I think convey a sense that the film is supposed to be pulpy entertainment rather than a legitimate attempt at sober biography.
Looking at the poster again we see Christina Ricci in a picture that is highly stylized with its use of rich colors, bloody axe in hand, looking toward the audience with what is almost a smirk. I think that says it all.
Uh, I think you need to watch it again, LOL! It's a straight-up drama. Remember, I just watched it.
Rotten Tomatoes lists it as a drama too. So that's 4 of the biggest film and TV sites, all listing it the same way, plus all the posts here by viewers, versus one comment by the lead actor? Guess which I'm going with!
You can't go by posters. How many movies have you seen with misleading posters? (Or trailers, for that matter.)
A good example of actual camp and tongue in cheek is American Crime Story's season on the OJ Simpson trial.
I'm not saying it's not a drama . . . I'm saying it's a drama that doesn't take itself especially seriously.
Your own comments testify to this, I think. You wanted it to be more sober-minded than it is, to show its subject some reverence, when it just doesn't.
In any case, bear in mind that Ricci's comments were not just about the original movie but also the series that followed.
As an aside, if you have any interest in more thoughts from Ricci and director Nick Gomez, here are a couple of interviews:
There is nothing camp or tongue in cheek about it, as she claims.
Neither my nor anyone else's comments reflect that, including yours (up until you read that quote 😉). My problem with it is it was so poorly written.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with her comment about the series that follow, although it still fails as camp, but not this.
"I had heard of her story and actually read about her a little bit." Well, there you go, she knew virtually nothing about the character she was playing. Although later in the interview she says otherwise, it's very obvious little research was done.
Changes were made for no apparent reason, things that made the story less interesting, less compelling.
"The interviews of the people who were questioned by the police, the pre-trial examinations and from the court itself, a lot were lifted directly." "I used as much language as I could because I wanted to be as authentic as possible."
Er, yeah, neither statement is true. It should have been that way, but wasn't.
I note that neither of them, in either interview, talked about it being camp. Both speak about it as a straightforward drama.
You seem to be really caught up in her statement about it being campy. Does it really matter? Does her statement in any way change your thoughts on, or relationship to, the film?
What I said was that when I watched it I got the impression that it wasn't meant to be taken too seriously. I wouldn't call it campy, but I would say it's pulp entertainment. If the director had wanted to make a totally serious, sober-minded reflection on Lizzy Borden then other choices would've been made in terms of style and tone.
Regarding research done, I'm not sure how much Ricci did but I would believe the director did a significant amount, but in certain regards he chose to take dramatic license with the story for what he thought were legitimate creative reasons.
It's you who are caught up in it being camp or not taking itself seriously. Does it matter? Of course! Big difference between watching something that isn't meant to be taken seriously, and something pretending to be a well-researched authentic dramatisation of a historical event and the characters in it.
A lot of people didn't get the OJ story portrayed on American Crime Story was supposed to be tongue in cheek, and criticised Travolta's characterisation of Shapiro because it wasn't accurate. But it wasn't supposed to be, so there was no sense in criticising it on that basis.
This isn't pulp entertainment. No one, including the lead and the director say it was; they say the opposite. The only thing pulp about it was the poster, not the movie itself.
The director didn't do a significant amount of research, that's the point. He changed and omitted things that weakened the story.
But I will leave you with this: the foremost experts on Lizzie Borden were contacted by the director and writers for historical research. Which they happily handed to him/them. After it was released, the same experts were dismayed to discover he/they had paid little attention to all of the research they'd handed over on a platter.
I'm not arguing that the film is historically accurate. What I am saying is that it was never really meant to be.
I believe the director when he said he did his research. But I also believe that he didn't feel a slavish devotion to that research. It was the starting point for the story but he didn't mind changing details for the sake of what he felt was a more compelling narrative.
This conversation reminds me of a Korean movie called Fighter in the Wind. Fighter in the Wind is a fictionalization of the life of karate master Mas Oyama, who founded one of the most popular karate styles in the world today, a style called Kyokushin.
Fighter in the Wind is not really historically accurate but it's still a fun and entertaining movie. The writer and director of that film I'm sure knew a lot about the real life of Mas Oyama, but they chose to go in fictionalized directions with the story for entertainment purposes
I think we see the same thing here with Lizzie Borden Took an Ax. Don't confuse historical inaccuracies in the movie with a lack of research or knowledge on the part of the filmmakers.
They chose a certain creative path. Some people, like myself, are satisfied with the results. Others like yourself, who wanted a more true-to-life account, are not.
I understand that's your basis, but reject your opinion that the director did his research, or that Ricci did, or that he (the director) made the changes he did for the sake of making a more compelling story.
I've said over and again, from my first post, I wouldn't have objected if he'd come up with a theory and ran with it, IF it were well done, which it was not.
He believes Lizzie was sexually abused by her father, which he states clearly. Fine, he's not the first to think so as a theory, and it's possible she was. No one know, nor will anyone know.
But why not run with that, based on what we know? Why show Lizzie as a flirtatious siren, socially at ease, confident, and popular, when that wasn't the case, and makes her less compelling, less interesting than she really was?
Why have show her with a lover at the start (yet Lizzie had no lovers anyone knew of) and again at the end, to serve no purpose? Or even any explanation?
These are only a few of the things I can point out as its failings.
Let me ask you, what is your basis for saying the director didn't adequately research the topic when he clearly says that he did?
It seems to me that since you didn't like the results of the film you've decided that he couldn't POSSIBLY have properly researched it. If he had, then he'd have made something you actually like.
I'm not sure that works out logically. I don't see any reason not to take him at his word.