Swoon

Two highly intelligent young Jewish men, who are also lovers, attempt to get away with "the perfect murder". This intriguing drama was also filmed as "Rope" (1948) and "Compulsion" (1959). Based on the true story of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, this version stars Craig Chester (as Mr. Leopold) and Daniel Schlachet (as Mr. Loeb). Of the three features currently available, this is undoubtedly the most "realistic" version of the gruesome crime. Yet, for most, "Swoon" will also be the least entertaining of the three films.

This one focuses on not only the murder, but also the sexual relationship between the principals. With unsavory flourish, "Swoon" comes across as an attempt to move responsibility for the crime from Leopold and Loeb, to an intolerant society, with the former explaining, "I wanted to murder the idea of suffering as my condition; I wanted to surpass the boundaries of intelligence for something more pure." Excuses, excuses.

Director Tom Kalin makes it an outstanding looking production, with Ellen Kuras contributing terrific black-and-white photography. Due to the availability of archival footage and Mr. Kalin's expert editing, the real Leopold and Loeb can be seen. And, due to and Leopold's relatively long life, we have one of the subjects characterized becoming an actor in the film. The real actors, Mr. Chester and Mr. Schlachet, perform superbly.

******* Swoon (2/19/92) Tom Kalin ~ Craig Chester, Daniel Schlachet, Ron Vawter

Swoon tells the story of Leopold and Lobe with homosexuality constantly in mind, because it was important (or at least everyone at the time it actually happened believed it was important). This film points out how the trial focused on their homosexuality, using authentic court transcripts, despite the murder having nothing to do with sexual orientation. This mirrors Michael Foucault's History of Sexuality regarding the policing of sexuality. Thought-provoking.

Although a bit confusing at times, a movie worth watching once. Perhaps do a bit of research on the background of the case to supplement the film.

What a riveting, startling and altogether masterful achievement. The idea the we're actually seeing Leopold and Loeb in person crossed my mind more than once. The illusion is overwhelming and the idea that we're seeing and hearing something that we shouldn't is part of its fascination. I loved Richard Fleischer's 1959 film from Meyer Levin's novel. I was enthralled by Dean Stockwell's performance and that's the only missing element here. Dean Stockwell. However, Tom Kalin has masterminded a narration that makes the whole thing so close to what it really must have been that the experience, for all film lovers, should be a must.

This is the third film on the case I've seen and it certainly has merits of its own. There was no grandstand acting here, no over-acting for the Academy Awards or anything like that. I actually found the acting quite adequate unlike some others. It was downplayed, true, but sufficient. Let's remember that these people were not the norm for their time - or for any time. They were bigger than life, or at least they thought they were. The cinematography and staging were wonderful with so many scenes "unbalanced" in their composition. The cutting too was uneasy but uneasy on purpose. The characters were not portrayed as likable and, no, an intolerant society was not set up for blame. There is much going on here - certainly more meets the eye on first viewing.

The true story of gay lovers, Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold Jr. who kidnapped and murdered a child in the early 1920s for kicks. The plot covers the months before the crime, the investigation, trial and final fate of the two men.

Of the few film versions of this story out there, they all seem to be naturally quite good. "Compulsion" is no doubt the best, and this film definitely takes some cues from it. Based on what I know of the case, the script follows reality quite closely.

This version does play up the homosexual angle a bit more, though there is some debate on that. My understanding is that one of the two was clearly gay, but the other may or may not have been. Regardless, this is an aspect that makes the case all the more interesting... even when it is more subtle such as in "Rope".