The year is 1962, and we find our protagonist donned in the most appropriate costume the pre-women’s liberation movement era can offer. In her 25-year career it has become a rare sight to find Knightley’s characters in contemporary garments, and Boston Strangler is no different.
★★★✰✰
From Disney + and Hulu, Matt Ruskin’s crime drama borrows heavily from the work of Jonathon Demme and, notably, David Fincher’s iconic Zodiac (2007)—for better or for worse. Following the crimes of the titular serial killer(s), Ruskin engineers the tale into one of sexism and a struggle for power, a tale mirrored in the hideous crimes Loretta (Knightly) and Jean (Carrie Coon) are assigned to report on for the Boston Record American.
Emerging with little marketing, it would be easy not to notice Boston Strangler’s existence, which would be a shame given its tenacity and determination to maintain historical accuracy in a culture fascinated with the theatrics of true crime. Trading gratuitous violence for gender politics and the blatant incapability of law enforcement, and the telling of two female journalists’ exhausting personal investigation, is more appropriate than ever as the general public’s faith continues to wane in the institutions we are taught to trust. The film opens with Loretta’s craving for more than the trivialities of the publication’s Lifestyle section, a craving that leads her to pursue and title the Boston Strangler case. However, as the story follows the thirteen murders and various suspects over several years, it becomes easy to lose track of Rustin’s delicate plotting.
In an attempt to veer away from the crimes themselves and delve further into the investigation, much like Fincher did with the aforementioned Zodiac, it’s easy to find yourself lost amidst the jumping time periods and sheer amount of spoken information fired at you. Knightly and Coon manage to offset some of this confusion with their typically magnetic performances, continuing to hold your attention even when the details of the case begin to feel monotonous. With each increasing murder, the stakes are visibly higher for the duo, with Knightley’s Loretta in particular beginning to crack under the pressure. As she invests more of her time into the case and away from her family, it becomes clear that her previously supportive husband James, portrayed by Coon’s co-star in HBO’s The Gilded Age, Morgan Spector, isn’t truly as comfortable with the idea of an independent wife as previously thought.
Whilst the film could have very easily decided to peddle the narrative of a stereotypically sexist home environment, it instead boldly explores the intricacies that come with being working parents and how the weight of employment can simultaneously affect both married parties in equally difficult ways. As the case continues to baffle everyone involved and Loretta’s life falls apart, even more confusing theories are delivered for us to digest and it isn’t until Loretta’s final, and much needed, monologue that the pieces fall into place.
As disappointing as it is to say, women aren’t much safer from the atrocities of society in 2023 than they were in 1963, except nowadays such horror is documented via iPhone as opposed to the hard typeface of Boston’s local news. But despite a somber ending note, it’s the bravery and resilience of women, especially those under the control of men, that proves to be the film’s prevailing sentiment, one honed in by a pair of strong female leads.
The Verdict
Much like the case that inspired it, closure is never provided—despite strong sources of evidence and a string of likely suspects. Determining the quality of a project without any succinct ending depends purely on the type of viewer watching the project. For those seeking something closer to Silence of the Lambs (1991) or Seven (1995), you may very well leave disappointed, given the lack of night vision and headless starlets. Instead, Boston Strangler devotes itself to the horror of institutional terror, something much more frightening than any lone killer.
Words by Ben Carpenter
Support The Indiependent
We’re trying to raise £200 a month to help cover our operational costs. This includes our ‘Writer of the Month’ awards, where we recognise the amazing work produced by our contributor team. If you’ve enjoyed reading our site, we’d really appreciate it if you could donate to The Indiependent. Whether you can give £1 or £10, you’d be making a huge difference to our small team.