The Elizabeth Montgomery film

Becky7/19 · Post by **Becky7/19** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:07 pm

In your opinion how historically accurate is the Elizabeth Montgomery film?

Thanks,

Becky :)

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 8:55 pm

Yes Becky7/19............my opinion aside, fact, NOT VERY accurate.

That movie did more to confuse people than anything else.

There exists an innumerable amount of folks out there who believe that Lizzie Borden did the murders in the NUDE.

It shows Andrew as an embalmer. Andrew Borden was an undertaker, funeral director of sorts. There is no proof or evidence that he ever embalmed corpses; and especially that he did it at home in the basement. Fiction, fiction, fiction.

There is no report of Lizzie stealing an AX as it shows in the movie.

Nowhere in the movie do we see, hear, or is anything mentioned about, John Morse. He's not even in the movie.

Good movie though. Well done. Not very accurate though, and should never be used for reference or study.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:06 pm

In addition to the things mb has mentioned, the accents are horrible! Now, ordinarily this would be a small and rather insignificant matter, but there are times when it can be aggravating. I saw the film on television when it premiered eons ago, and ever since, each time I read either Lizzie’s inquest testimony or Emma’s testimony, the voices of Elizabeth Montgomery & Katherine Helmond are those that whisper along in the back of my mind as I read! They’re both great actresses but the accents (or lack of accents, whichever) really get in the way for me!

Having said that, the film is a dandy excuse for a large bowl of buttered popcorn all the same. I try to watch it about once or twice a year just for fun!

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:56 am

Yes doug: I know what you mean. It's like watching the play Hamlet done with anything but an actor with an English accent. Give me Sir John Gielgud over Mel Gibson any day. (Though, I loved Gibson in his adaptation of Hamlet)

But, being from Fall River the movie starts off all wrong when the first scene shows a "Fall River" with mountains in the background. Fall River Colorado. Or is it Montana?

Though Fall River is known for it's hilly landscape and the Second Street house is located on a very slight incline. 2nd street was more of a congested side road in a busy downtown zone which ran parrellel to the South Main business district. In the movie it looks like a sleepy small town community.

For movie purposes it makes for nice vistas..............but looked nothing like it.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:08 am

Yes Becky:

Not sure if you have already watched the Montgomery Movie.

Not trying to put you off to the movie. You should watch it.

None-the-less............

If you want to do an in depth study of the case it is important to watch and read the dubious and cynical works on the case, such as this movie and even Arnold Brown's book.

Read everything you can on the case and in good time you will be form your own sudious interpretation and intelligent conclusions.

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 3:14 pm

The house in the film (which I love, nevertheless) is huge from the front and looks nothing like the actual house, but becomes magically half the size when you enter and, except for a missing closet here and there and brown doors intead of white, the layout is suddenly stunningly close to the original.

Also, the existing back-lot house exterior they used (on a dirt road, not the actual paved road of Second Street) was dressed with clapboards starting halfway back on the northern side so that the side porch entrance would look more like the side entrance we know from photos.

The back-lot, with those aforementioned hills, makes the area look much less like "downtown" than it actually was.

Even though we now know that there was originally a folded "camp" chair leaning against the wall near Abby's head (it's not in the correct place in the police photos, as it was moved - it can be glimpsed in the side photo of Abby, the one with the bed removed, on the western side of the room), it doesn't appear in the film.

Andrew's injuries are minimized. though the film was still controversially bloody and risque for its time as a made-for-TV offering, with one ABC affiliate in Texas refusing to show it!

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 12:15 am

It's a good film to watch, Becky, but don't believe everything you see in it. Way too many blunders. It was made with "drama" in mind, not "facts."

But like Doug said, grab some popcorn and maybe a Pepsi or two and enjoy it. The opening music is very creepy, and very fitting.

-1bigsteve (o:

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:42 am

I just watched the movie again a couple of months ago.

Andrew didn't exactly rush into the barn and hatchet all the pigeons with blood all over the place, as depicted in the film. The movie "Lizzie" was crying that they were her pigeons. We don't know that anything like that happened.

Abbie is depicted as a kind of a nasty lady, trading snide remarks with "Lizzie" and seeming to hide behind Andrew when "Lizzie" turns on her. She also seems uncouth and gluttonous while slurpping her mutton chowdery stuff.

When the examination of witnesses takes place, in real life, all those who will testify are not allowed in the courtroom until after they speak and after there is no chance of a recall. This TV movie has witnesses reactions to each other in the earlist hearing.

Also, as noted earlier, there is no Morse. That has been a huge stumbling block to purists. It removes any credibility because it shows the program's slant towards Lizzie being the only possible perpetrator.

It shows "Lizzie" really drugged too. We don't know about that.

These are off the top of my head- comparing fiction with what we know from testimony. I'd have to watch it again taking notes to answer in more range or depth.

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:12 pm

It's a dramatization, and real-life is not exciting - it needs editing. Hitchcock used to say that if most films were slices of life, his were slices of cake!

I was shooting an indie film I'm in in a very old house in the Brighton section of Staten Island Tuesday, and one of my scenes called for me to be asleep on the sofa...

...you can imagine the jokes I made.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:00 pm

“When the examination of witnesses takes place, in real life, all those who will testify are not allowed in the courtroom until after they speak and after there is no chance of a recall. This TV movie has witnesses’ reactions to each other in the earliest hearing.”

Minor point, but it appears that this conclusion may (or may not) be correct. Rule 21 of The Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure – which is applicable to both District & Superior courts of the Commonwealth – states as follows:

‘Upon his own motion or the motion of either party, the judge may, prior to or during the examination of a witness, order any witness or witnesses other than the defendant to be excluded from the courtroom.’
(See http://www.massreports.com/courtrules/c ... htm#Rule21)

So it seems that witness sequestration (within the scope of modern practice and procedure, of course) is a question left to judicial discretion. Before we can judge one or the other way on that point, it might be helpful to be aware – as best we can be aware, that is – of the history of witness sequestration in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Where a primary concern in real estate is often said to be 'Location, location, location', very nearly the same applies here, except that the key words are Jurisdiction, jurisdiction, and jurisdiction.

I'll do a bit more digging and see what if anything more I can find out about the history of witness sequestration in Massachusetts. Until then, I'd think that (barring any on-the-record discussions) we can't fairly conclude either way on the Borden matters as portrayed in film.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:54 pm

That subject is discussed on page 131+ of the trial:

"MR. ROBINSON. May it please your Honors, we may say with perfect propriety with the counsel for the Commonwealth that we have agreed that the witnesses that have not testified on either side might be excluded from the room during the testimony of witnesses. We concur in that and we think it right in order to arrive at a right conclusion. It may have been carried out thus far. I do not know whether it has or not.

MR. KNOWLTON. It has been, strictly.

MASON, C. J. Do you desire that the order be without exceptions, ---- including professionals as well as other witnesses?

MR. ROBINSON. I understand that the government desires to have some exceptions made.

MR. KNOWLTON. Yes, sir. I think it is a very proper order in itself. We have two witnesses who happen to be actively engaged in reporting for the newspapers in Fall River, however, whom we desire to except from the order, Messrs. Manning and Stevens. I have told our friends on the other side practically what they will testify to and they have agreed that they not be excluded. I never knew the order to include witnesses who are purely professional, who were to testify on matters of opinion only. We should not care to ask for the presence of Dr. Dolan because he testifies largely to facts, but when witnesses do arrive on either side who have no knowledge of the circumstances whatever, are called for their opinions as men of experience, I suppose the Court would not enforce an order for their exclusion?

MR. ROBINSON. We wish to except from the order Mr. Buck, Mr. Jubb, Mr. Holmes, and a reporter, a Mr. Caldwell, who may or may not be called.

MR. KNOWLTON. He is actively engaged in reporting now. That is agreed to.

MASON, C. J. The defence do not desire to have excluded experts who testify as such.

MR. ROBINSON. We do not.

MR. KNOWLTON. I would say Dr. Draper did assist at the autopsy, but I suppose you do not care to make an exception of him?

MR. ROBINSON. We do.

MR. KNOWLTON. We will talk of that later.

MASON, C. J. All the witnesses that have been summoned on either side, with the exception of the three that are serving as reporters and have been named, and with the exception of those who are summoned for expert testimony exclusively, and the three that have been named by counsel, called for the defence, may now withdraw, and the sheriff will see that a suitable place is provided and that all witnesses that may hereafter come will also withdraw from the room until they testify.

MR. KNOWLTON. As a matter of fact that has been largely done during the trial."

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:07 pm

Thanks, Harry - I'd forgotten about that exchange! It appears on its face to comply perfectly with the provisions of MRCP Rule 21.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:15 pm

Apparently Dr. Cheever was able ti hear testimony before testifying himself. He gave his testimony on June 13th following Prof. Wood and Dr. Draper. Dr. Dolan had also given his testimony beginning on the 12th and extending into the 13th. Here is a portion of Dr. Cheever's testimony (p1087+, volume 2):

"Q. Have you also examined the trial of this cause?
A. Yes, sir, I have heard most of the evidence.
Q. What was the day that you got here?
A. I got here on Thursday afternoon of last week.
Q. And have heard all the evidence since that time?
A. The majority of it. I have heard all the medical evidence.
Q. That is what I mean.
A. Yes, sir, I have not heard all the other evidence.
Q. So that you have heard the testimony with reference to the position and surroundings of the bodies as they were found?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the character and color of the blood and the heat of the bodies?
A. Yes, sir, I should say also that I have seen some photographs,---that I was present when the plaster casts were marked.
Q. Are these the photographs you have seen (showing exhibits 15, 16 and 17)?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have also heard Professor Wood's testimony and that of Dr. Draper and Dr. Dolan?
A. Yes, sir."

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:19 am

That's good stuff Har!

Maybe each court decided in advance what some of the rules would be? I've had that impression before in this trial [like not allowing some testimony, such as Bence, if it didn't meet some *standard*]. Maybe, as the system evolved, and there was precedent, the *rules* became less flexible, and became *standards* in Massachusetts courtrooms and then made it into law books or whatever.
I wonder if Commonwealth courts are a bit different than other states?

Anyway, as for that movie: Harry reminds me that Lizzie's testimony was allowed in that court scene in the earliest hearing- and that didn't really happen-and that's a big one!

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:10 am

Well, they're different, but also in many cases similar - in intent if not in specific language. Take this, for instance. It's (generally-speaking) identical to provisions of the Massachusetts rule mentioned above:

(3) Witnesses. All witnesses shall be examined in the presence of the defendant and may be cross-examined. Either party may request that the witnesses be sequestered.

Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure (2008) pg. 36
http://www.floridalegalanswers.com/pdf/CRIMRules.pdf

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 12:27 am

Thanks for the link.

I was referring to *The Old Days*, tho - like principles and practices that became standardized over time.

Unless you know that the courtroom *rules* of conduct, of a Commonwealth, are substantially the same as non-Commonwealth states, in 1892 America?

xyjw · Post by **xyjw** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:47 pm

I am waiting for The Lizzie Borden Society to put their collective talents together and make the independant movie that needs to be made. Hollywood is not capable of telling this story. They are limited by running times, a star with "box-office draw", needs to use artistic license etc. This story is captivating enough on it's own with no embellishments. Thanks for letting me go off-thread about this. The Elizabeth Montgomery movie is at least something fun to watch but anyone who knows the case can see all the "falsehoods". Does anyone have a full-length version of the movie? I bought one from Victor Mascaro for $40.00. It is not the full length movie, I think about 30 minutes is gone. He recorded it from a t.v. show called True Crime. The logo appears in the corner. The problem I have with the dvd is that the original copy I bought played about 5 times and is now full of skips, pauses etc. The disc has no scratches or damage. I had a friend who is knowledgeable about video and recording look at it. He thought maybe because it was copied from a t.v. show, it had pauses in it that would shut off vcr's but he really wasn't sure. He said the program is definately unusual and made me a copy to see if that would work. It worked again about 5 times on different dvd players and the same thing has happened. I really don't want to buy another copy from Victor Mascaro. The packaging was excellent but something is wrong with the dvd. Has anyone else had the same problem? Does anyone know where I can order a copy of the entire Legend Of Lizzie Borden?

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:07 pm

Wish I knew- I'd be wealthy. The guests at the house beg for it every weekend and I must have sat through it over 100 times the past 11 years there. We have 2 copies. also bought from Victor. They have never skipped though. Odd.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:24 am

You'd have to hunt a bit on the site to find it, but that version Stefani mentioned (what was it, a year or so back) is still available on Google video. (The beast in question has an approximate runtime of 1:32:11.) Other listings have the film broken up into segments, but the one above is very likely complete from start to finish. The quality is not bad at all really, considering its age and other technical factors. The only drawback comes to mind, you'd have to watch the thing on the computer - Realplayer is actually pretty good for that, the newer versions even have a "download this video" feature. (You *could* actually decode and recode the file, make your own dvd copy - but you didn't hear that part from me!)

The file should be at http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=l ... of+Lizzie# and just might be the first one in the list!

xyjw · Post by **xyjw** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:40 am

Thanks so much for Google info Doug. We are trying to download it on Real Player. It's the entire movie and I'm so happy to see it (no matter how fictional) in it's entirety. The 20 minutes or so that are taken out of the True Crime episode always interferes with my enjoyment of the story that it is.

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:17 pm

I got skippy discs from Victor, but he replaced them. The grey market copy available at conventions doesn't have the chapter finales, when the screen darkens, the title of the film appears, and the children sing "La la, la la, LAAAAA." Only the reconstructed copy I got from Victor has those. I wish someone had the ABC opening to the film, which I used to have on audio tape. It was really creepy. It went along with the terrific full page ads in the papers that day, with the narrator proclaiming something like "They say she committed the crime of the century...did she?" while snips of the film played, including Lizzie's "What can I expect?" and Jennings' "Death by hanging." The montage ended with the sound effect of an axe chop. Unfortunately for the makers of the film, who didn't want the famous sung quatrain to be heard at all during the fim (I was told this by composer Billy Goldenberg), ABC used it in that opening sequence, and during stings before commercials ("Lizzie Borden took an axe...").

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:52 am

We have it on VHS and on disc. I don't know from where tho. There's been no problem with either. One is the version that I think is considered "rest of the world?"

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 11:40 am

Yeah,the one in which Elizabeth puts on pasties with tassels before she kills Abby otherwise in the nude.

NESpinster · Post by **NESpinster** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:50 pm

I guess I'll be watching my Lizzie as Lizzie (okay, bad joke

) on the puter. I am clueless about downloading stuff and anything techie, but at least I do know how to watch a computer screen, lol!

Could someone puh-leeeze tell me why o why the Elizabeth (i.e. my 1st "Lizzie" reference

) Montgomery movie about well, the obvious 2nd Lizzie, has never been made available on DVD???

I know it has its faults, but I dimly recall watching it when it first aired on TV, and I think that's what sparked my fascination with all things Borden. So I would dearly love to add it to my DVD collection!

BTW--I hear ya about the accent thing! I couldn't do a proper New England accent if my life depended on it (despite the New England ancestry of which I am exceedingly proud)! Yeah, all my Southern friends think I'm nuts: "You're proud to be descended from damn YANKEES?!"

I say: "Yep, you bet I am!" and this just confirms their idea that I'm, uhh, mentally interesting.

But I think it's cool to be a native Southerner (for generations!) and still to have ancestors who lived in Connecticut and Massachusetts during the 17th century!

Oh, but back to the accent thing! (I am highly distractible!

)

A badly done Southern accent just drives me crazy! I'd rather hear someone just forget it and use their regular accent (as Clark Gable did in "Gone With the Wind"), than try to imitate a real Southern accent and murder it instead!

As for saying "ya'll" to one person---don't even get me started on THAT one!!!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:39 am

Here is the movie sound for the famous quatrain

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:26 pm

Sung by very California-accented children, as is the little Savage girl who plays Liz in the scene in the cellar, with the corpse.

FRhombre · Post by **FRhombre** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 4:26 pm

The Legend of Lizzie Borden definitely gets a "thumbs down" for accuracy. Many of the legends we now have to deal with first appeared here. Come on, Fritz/Andrew embalming in the cellar?

Interesting thing to look for on the horizon. A group of about 10 or so ABC Tuesday and Wednesday TV Movie(s) of the Week have just been released on DVD. As this was one, a Wednesday night, I recall, it might be worth keeping yours eyes open if your looking to own one.

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:17 pm

Nope. It was on a Monday, dude. And, though it was made-for-TV, it wasn't produced under that umbrella.

stuartwsa · Post by **stuartwsa** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:15 pm

Monday, February 10,1975, to be exact. I remember waiting for weeks with great anticipation for that movie event.

xyjw · Post by **xyjw** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:49 pm

Well, since I at least was able to play the Google site Legend Of Lizzie Borden I had fun making some popcorn and watching it on Sunday. It's all wrong, but it's all we have!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:22 am

I used to have that "wave" quatrain I posted with the chanting children, on my answering machine as background to my outgoing message. I think either Stef or Harry found it online long ago!

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:42 pm

That they even bothered to get the layout of the house so close to the real one, and that they have the maid called both "Maggie" and "Bridget" in an early scene without immediately explaining it speaks volumes to me about the care that was put into the making of the film.

Now, I'd like to see the epsiode of OMNIBUS with both the short play about the trial written by Agnes de Mille, with Robert Preston as Hosea Knowlton, and the shortened version of her ballet FALL RIVER LEGEND! Anyone out there...

SarahJay · Post by **SarahJay** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:11 am

Could someone puh-leeeze tell me why o why the Elizabeth (i.e. my 1st "Lizzie" reference Wink ) Montgomery movie about well, the obvious 2nd Lizzie, has never been made available on DVD??? [quote]

Hi NESpinster ,
maybe this is more of an insight into my lazy nature, but on Friday afternoons at work my favourite thing to do is to tell everyone i cant be disturbed and to tell any callers that im in a meeting.
Then i go to YouTube and watch The Legend of Lizzie -
this is the only 'copy' i have ever been able to watch - i dont think i saw the copy at 92 second street when i was there last.
Anyway im sure you'd be able to download it and save it, but if you just want to check it out, here is the user i watch it from:
http://www.youtube.com/user/BRUNOrapone

i think he also has another Elizabeth Montgomery film on there too that's apparently hard to find.

ENJOY!!!

SarahJay · Post by **SarahJay** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:16 am

PS

if you do watch Lizzie on YouTube from the user mentioned - just a tip: You will have to go to Page 14 before it comes up.