The Ethics of Retelling: 1968’s The Boston Strangler

Boston Strangler is an upcoming crime-drama film starring Keira Knightley as the reporter who broke the story of the serial killer dubbed “the Boston Strangler.” The film is likely going to explore the sexism that Knightley’s character, Loretta McLaughlin, faced as a journalist in the 1960s. However, this is not the first time that the story of the man who terrified Boston will be brought to the screen. In 1968, prolific Richard Fleischer directed another adaptation of the true crime story following the criminal investigation as pressures on the Boston police department increased. The film is largely reviewed positively by critics, and it’s clear why. There are beautiful, Kubrick-like shots and editing techniques that would be considered adventurous even today. The performances are all good, and much of the film is disturbing, even to a somewhat jaded viewer like myself. Tellingly, Roger Ebert reviewed this film writing: “The Boston Strangler requires a judgment not only on the quality of the film (very good), but also on its moral and ethical implications … this film, which was made so well, should not have been made at all.” This ethical question is what I have been turning over in my mind for the past few days. 

The film feels like two distinct halves, the first depicting a decidedly unfocused investigation into all Boston-area perverts and the second focusing on the authorities zeroing in on the man who would be convicted of the crimes, Albert DeSalvo. I much prefer the first half, which I found to be largely empathetic, to the women who were victims and potential victims and the people who were wrongly accused of the crimes. A very rational approach was given to the aspects of the story revolving around race, gender, and authority, especially for the time. The second half is where problems started to emerge. The issue that emerges is the potential exploitation in making a film less than a year after DeSalvo’s sentencing (and even a few years before the term serial killer was even coined). That is, without mentioning Tony Curtis’ ambitious and odd performance as DeSalvo, which seems to contribute to a potentially stigmatizing and inaccurate depiction of mental illness. 

And that brings us back around to the upcoming Keira Knightley feature. While there are flaws that stem from the retro approach to true crime storytelling, the 1968 film is a solid (and underappreciated) film, which begs the question: why is it being re-told? I watched the 1968 film before hearing about the upcoming flick, and so I had an initial negative reaction that I couldn’t quite explain. It’s sort of an intersection between two common talking points in current discussions of the media: the contemporary issue of incessant remakes, spin-offs, reboots, etc., and true crime, ethical or otherwise (while the 2023 Boston Strangler is not necessarily a remake or a spin-off of the 1968 film, it’s definitely in the same vein of storytelling trend). Make no mistake, I love woman-centric stories and will always be in support of revisiting lesser-known historical stories, but something about it all just feels off.