Albert Fish is not only one of the most notorious serial killers and sex
offenders to have ever lived, he could almost be seen as an urban legend. The
scrawny, elder gentlemen, who looked like the nice old man next door who
couldn’t be able to harm a fly and seems like the perfect person to entrust
with your child, caused havoc in various American cities for many decades.
Because he wasn’t caught for a long time, he was able to live out his perverse
sexual and homicidal urges without restrictions. Not only was he a pedophile,
he also engaged in various acts of murder, sadism, masochism and even
cannibalism. His deeds were so despicable that it is hard to find the right
words to describe them.
What may sound like the plot of some cheesy slasher film, is, in fact,
grim reality. Albert Fish is not a fictional character taken from an exploitation
or splatter film, he actually existed. Basically, this cinematization of his
crimes is a mixture between your standard true crime documentary, for example
“A & E Biography and the likes, and some re-enacted scenes, breathing life
into the troubled emotions of the film’s “hero”. It uses the usual tricks to
create atmosphere and win over its audience: slow and dramatically spoken
narration, sinister sounding classical background music and photos of the
original murder sites etc. It seems that the producers invested a lot of time
into thorough research, hence one is presented with highly interesting details
about the murderer and information on the case which one has not seen or heard
before, at least embedded into such an easily consumable format.
Fish’s lifetime of debauchery is presented in full detail, starting with
his childhood and ending with his execution. But not only the offender is
analyzed and introduced, also the victims, their abduction, suffering and
untimely demise is thematized throughout the film. The film certainly cares
most about the latter and seems to put its main focus on it. On first glance,
this appears to be a typical form of over-dramatization, i.e. exploitation of
subject matter, but in this case, the events don’t really require any
supplements from over-ambitious filmmakers and the events turn out to be far
more accurate than anticipated, for Fish’s deeds were truly indescribable. He
molested children, murdered them and fed on their flesh for days. After having
devoured his ghastly meal, Fish masturbated in remembrance of it and even
taunted the victims’ parents by writing them letters describing the atrocities
he committed and even the taste of their child’s flesh. Not only was he a
sadistic pederast and homicidal maniac, he also had masochistic tendencies. He
indulged in religiously motivated self-flagellation, enjoyed the pain others
inflicted on him and even went so far as to insert nails into his genitalia and
buttocks, shortly before his execution. His sexual misdeeds and murders were of
course NOT re-enacted for the movie, but their description is enough to make
the average viewer quench. Furthermore, “Albert Fish” proves to be very fluently
edited and technically solid, without a doubt enforcing the effect the film has
on its viewership. Due to the fact that Fish’s story is based on true events,
one can ascribe a high level of “scariness” to the film, if one chooses to
think in these dimensions, that is. 
This documentary/motion picture tells the old pervert’s story without
too many distractions and spares us most of the hokum known from some films
about serial killers. Everything is ok on the technical side, the film’s
ambitions are straightforward and when it comes to quality, it can hold up with
most of the professional documentaries shown on TV. The usage of re-enacted
scenes proves to be pretty neat and rounds up the film nicely. On the whole, “Albert
Fish” is kind of an independent equivalent to the typical American-style
documentary, relying mostly on thrills and sensationalism. This, however,
proves to be pretty entertaining. Although many people prefer the sober,
British approach, the film’s sensational, at times even corky, tone is its
greatest strength. Furthermore, we get treated to Fish’s original testimonies
from his interrogations. He and the policeman in charge are voiced by separate
voice actors. Pretty effective, at least when viewed in union with the story and
the re-enacted scenes. Since they don’t serve explanatory purposes, these staged
adaptations of Fish’s private life can’t really be seen as part of the main
storyline, but they benefit the film anyways. Especially the passages dealing religious
fanaticism and showing Albert flagellating himself in front of a large crucifix
and Christian imageries are very well crafted and can be seen as an unsung
highlight. The abstract outlandishness of some of these scenes is a nice
contrast to the rest of the plot and visuals of “Albert Fish”. Documentary
worth can’t be ascribed to them, but the real life photographs, the narration
and the specialists’ commentaries already take care of that. Therefore, the
film maker’s decision to spice up this documentary with bonus scenes is pretty nifty,
although it must be said that this probably had a lot to do with marketing. “Albert
Fish” is definitely a documentary before everything else, and a simple
documentary can’t be sold off to the gore-hungry sickos as easily as a film can.
Apropos specialists: one of our “companions” during the odyssey through
Albert’s life is the one and only Joe Coleman, whose work comes highly
recommended to just about anybody.
Conclusion: Entertaining flick, laid out to be half film, half
documentary and flavoured with some rather interesting stylistic devices. Solid
crafting, a straightforward agenda and a lot of information, which seems a bit
overdramatized and blown out of proportion here and there, are the trademarks
of this film. In a certain way, especially the latter suits the film pretty
well. I recommend this film to anyone interested in the case of Albert Fish and
True Crime documentary in general. It’s certainly worth a try.
7/10
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen