HBO & David Mamet's Tele-Play on Phil Spector History

 Phil Spector prison booking photo.  

This is how Spector really looks.

UPDATE: 4/3
If you think that, the disclaimer that was placed at the beginning of Mamet's film is all that's needed to inform the public that the movie is totally a piece of fiction,  you are mistaken. A few moments ago, the following Google® search hit my blog:

"how did the prosecution deal with the bloodless white dinner jacket in the second Phil Spector trial"

Do you see how this film twists the facts regarding the evidence presented at both trials?

There was backspatter found on the front of Spector's jacket.  There was also a tiny spot of backspatter that was found on the edge fold of the end of the right jacket sleeve, indicating that fold was pointed directly at the source of the spatter.

During the first and second trial, the defense tried to tell the jury that if Spector had been in the vicinity of when Lana Clarkson was shot through the mouth, his white jacket would have been covered in blood.  The truth is, bloodstain analysis experts testified that backspatter from a high velocity event (gunshot wound) does not travel very far at all.  Backspatter droplets will be tiny, mist like.  And because of their size, they rarely travel more than 2-3 feet from the source (injury).  Sprocket.

UPDATE: 3/26 Corrected link to Harriet Ryan's article.

I had hoped to get this post up last week, but alas, real life responsibilities to Mr. Sprocket’s business kept me from writing.  HBO’s Spector movie aired Sunday, March 24th, 2013. My apologies. Sprocket.

It began over a week and a half ago. It seemed like every other email, tweet and Facebook posting I received, was about the upcoming release of David Mamet’s Phil Spector movie on HBO.  Sprocket!  Did you hear about the movie?  Rachelle is going to be on CNN’s Piers Morgan!  Are you going to see the movie?  Did you see Rachelle?  What do you think?  You have to write about it and tell the truth. The film totally trashes Lana.

Lana being Lana Clarkson, the tall, strikingly stunning woman who was murdered in Spector’s mansion in the early morning hours of February 3rd, 2003.  She had been shot through the mouth while sitting in a foyer chair, her purse on her shoulder, waiting to be driven home.  Spector was convicted of second degree murder on April 13th, 2009.  He is serving 19 years to life.

Some people consider me an authority on the Phil Spector case because I'm the only journalist who attended most of the first trial and every single day of the second.  It's the case that launched T&T and started me on my journey of attending murder trials and writing about them.

For me, the movie is old news.  I’ve known about the HBO film since it was announced that Al Pacino would play Spector back in October 2010. That’s how long it’s been.

I first reported on Mamet's film  when it was announced that Bette Midler had joined the cast. Midler had to drop out six days into filming due to an injury and Helen Mirren took over the role of defense attorney Linda Kenney Baden. As you can see, Mamet’s film has been in production for a long time.  Since the film was announced, I covered two first degree murder trials, Casey Anthony was acquitted of murder and Los Angeles County elected a new District Attorney.
 
Mamet has given interviews discussing the focus of his film as far back as June 2011.  I wrote about Mamet’s comments that he gave in a Slate.com article not long after that.

I’ve known from the very beginning that Mamet --who never followed the trial-- based his movie entirely on watching filmmaker Vikram Jayanti’s documentary, The Agony and the Estacy of Phil Spector, which was basically a love-letter account of Spector’s life and the murder charge, from Spector’s point of view.  (If you read any of the reviews of Mamet's film, most don’t mention this important fact.)

Although there are archival clips of other people in the documentary, Jayanti interviewed a single subject for his film, Spector --which begs the question, how objective could Jayanti’s ‘documentary’ be? Jayanti spent several months with Spector, much of it during the first trial.  Jayanti would come into court and hug Spector in the gallery.  Everyone who was there saw the public displays of affection. It was all part of the “show” if you ask me.  Jayanti was courting Spector, even during his murder trial.

So, if you can keep all that in context --that the film is not based on any of the facts presented at the trial-- then tune in to watch Al Pacino give an over the top performance as the maniacal Spector, and Helen Mirren in the role of sickly, mothering defense attorney, Linda Kenney Baden.

The Trial Bride
I can’t write a piece about Spector without mentioning his gold lamme-clad supporter and spouse. Phil Spector’s trial bride (Rachelle) recently appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan talking about the film.  From what I read on Gary and Louis Spector’s Facebook pages, she was not invited to the start-studded premiere (although former prosecutor Alan Jackson was).  According to Rachelle, the trial bride and Spector were not consulted for the film.  As far as catching the Morgan show, I saw enough of the convicted murderer and the ‘screech she tries to pass as singing’ misses during two trials to last me ten lifetimes, which is why I took a pass on watching.

Reviews
Back when I first heard about the film I thought for certain I’d watch it, just to see what Mamet would do with his limited knowledge of the trial that convicted Spector.  But as more information came out about the film (Linda Kenney Baden inaccurately presented as Spector's lead attorney, Lana Clarkson’s character trashed, etc.) I decided it wasn’t worth my time.

Alan Jackson, who prosecuted both cases appeared on CNN 7AM weekend show on March 16th to talk about the overwhelming evidence that convicted Spector.  Unfortunately, I missed seeing Alan talk about the case of his career.

The LA Times’ Harriet Ryan wrote a very good piece  on the film.  During the first trial, Ryan worked for CourtTV and was in the courtroom every day that I was there.  She knows exactly what evidence was presented at trial.  She dropped in on the second trial a little over a dozen times.

Ken Levine’s review hit the nail on the head. It is a must read for the comparisons he makes and how Levine puts the film in context. Levine starts off his piece by stating: “If David Mamet had made LINCOLN, the official cause of the president’s death would be boating accident.”

My friend, historian and lecturer Barry Bradford saw the film and wrote a review titled, David Mamet Is A Murderer.  In Bradford’s view, Mamet committed two murders. Mamet “murdered the truth” and then “murdered the reputation of Lana Clarkson.”

All I can say now is, I’m glad it’s finally aired and reviews about the film are informing people about the incredible amount of creative license Mamet took in telling this story. If you would like to know more about the film, here are a list of reviews.

Robert Lloyd, LA Times TV critic
Robert Bianco in USA Today
Mail Online 
Ed Siegel in The Artery 
Tim Appelo in The Hollywood Reporter 
Matt Zoller Seitz on Vulture
Vikram Jayanti in The Daily Beast “My Dark Days With Phil”

David Mamet: Brilliant Filmmaker, or Just Plain Stupid?

Updated 2/1/13 for clarity, spelling, by Days Like This
Special thanks to an anonymous poster who left a comment on my last entry regarding David Mamet's latest statements about his HBO film. Sprocket.
David Mamet was recently interviewed by John Gapper for an article appearing in Slate.com. Mamet talked about his love of Sarah Palin and his upcoming HBO film about the eccentric music producer, Phil Spector.

From Slate.com

Spector, to be played by Al Pacino with Bette Midler as his lawyer, Linda Kenney Baden, was jailed for murder in 2008 after being convicted of the killing of Lana Clarkson, an actress, at his California mansion. "I don't think he's guilty. I definitely think there is reasonable doubt," Mamet says briskly when I ask what interested him about the case. "They should never have sent him away. Whether he did it or not, we'll never know but if he'd just been a regular citizen, they never would have indicted him."

Did the Chicago-born Mamet, a man who claims he is "no longer a brain-dead liberal," lose too many functioning brain cells during his time as a member of the Hollywood elite? That's my conclusion.
Mamet has previously stated in the press that he didn't care about the trial when it was happening.
Mamet based his current opinion on Vikram Jiyanti's lopsided love-letter film The Agony and the Ecstasy of Phil Spector. It should be noted that Jiyanti has publically stated the single individual he interviewed for his documentary was Phil Spector.
One must be mindful on how Spector's story evolved. Jiyanti spent many months with Spector during his first trial, often showing up at court (but only during the defense case) and publicly hugging him in full view of the media. The initial "story" the truth, doesn't make for a good flick. The movie Mamet is making is revisionist history, not borne out by the legal record or the investigation; he is taking the new victim's side totally. I'm reminded of another revisionist history film, JFK by director Oliver Stone. That film had nothing to do with the way things really happened, but as time went on, and conspiracy theories festered, so grew the story . . . and so grew the grassy knoll/two shooters story.
Mamet's opinion is blatantly myopic. The California Court of Appeal, unanimously rejected Spector's attempt to get his verdict overturned. (You know, the appeal that was supposed to be the best appeal presented before the court since the invention of sliced bread; tongue in cheek here.) The Appellate Court also stated in their recent rejection of a re-review request by Spector's attorney Dennis Riordan, that in their ruling there was "... overwhelming evidence against Spector..."
Mament's knowledge and understanding of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office is seriously lacking the application of any properly firing brain cells if he truly believes that Phil Spector, having been just a "regular citizen" would not have been indicted when Lana Clarkson was found dead in his Alhambra mansion. What a complete insult to the L.A. Co. DA's office, as well as dedicated career prosecutor, DDA Alan Jackson, who tirelessly worked through two trials to convict Spector of second degree murder. (Not to mention all the hardworking staff at the L.A. County Sheriff's Crime Lab and the hundreds upon hundreds of man-hours Dr. Lynne Herold put into analyzing the blood spatter evidence.)
Let's look at this for a moment. Alhambra Officers arrive at the scene. Officers are called to the scene not because this "regular citizen" called police to report a suicide in his home, but because his fill-in driver, Adriano De Souza (after personally observing Phil Spector exiting the mansion with a gun in his hand, heard him confess: "I think I killed somebody,") did the right thing and immediately called 911.
1. So right away, a 911 call comes in with De Souza telling the operator Spector's statement, "I think I killed somebody."
Now to interject here, does Mamet believe the "regular citizen" would have done the exact same things Spector did post-incident? For this exercise, we can only assume so because Mamet doesn't mention anything else that would be different in the article, just that no indictment would have occurred if Spector was a "regular citizen."
Back at the scene, officers are interviewing De Souza at the gates to the mansion. He's describing what he saw when he briefly looked into the mansion beyond Spector and saw Lana Clarkson in the low-legged vintage chair, looking like she was lying flat, her long legs stretched out in front of her. The officers don't know if there is anyone else on the property. They plan a strategy of how to approach the house.
2. After reaching the house, they see Spector through a second story window pacing. Later, Spector exits the rear entrance of the house. Police address Spector, giving him commands. Spector doesn't follow the officers commands. He's obviously drunk. When officers finally enter the home, Spector resists arrest and has to be tasered and eventually tackled.

3. This "regular citizen" in the process of being subdued, makes a statement at the scene, that was overheard by Alhambra Officer Bea Rodriguez "What’s wrong with you guys? What are you doing? I didn’t mean to shoot her. It was an accident." (Statement is from Bea Rodriguez's Grand Jury testimony.)

4. Then, back at the station in custody, Spector is still drunk and belligerent. He's spouting off and motioning with his hands for police an impossible explanation of how Lana died. (Spector, unable to tell police Lana's name, demonstrated with his hand that Lana put a gun to her temple and shot herself.)

5. In addition to the confession and other post-incident statements and behavior, fourteen weapons were found on the premises.
6. Later, detectives learn of the various establishments Spector visited and the alcohol he drank prior to Lana Clarkson's death. The scientific evidence of his blood alcohol level is obtained.
7. The forensic evidence of high-velocity blood spatter on Spector's jacket placing him within two to three feet of the blood letting event. The forensic evidence at the scene of a "cover-up" with the bloody diaper and the movement of Lana's head from one side of her body to the next. The forensic blood spatter evidence on the chair. The partial print found on the weapon "in blood."
Of course this "regular citizen" would have been arrested!

Take that same "regular citizen" with Spector's history of gun violence, and he would have, most likely, already been locked up. "Regular citizen" Spector already has a record: two convictions for brandishing a weapon.
In addition to those convictions, consider Dorothy Melvin's testimony and her call to police who arrived at the scene. Consider Stephanie Jennings testimony and her call to 911, terrified in that NY hotel room that Spector was going to kill her. If Spector was just a "regular guy" he would have been arrested in both those instances and CHARGED.

Maybe he would have gotten off on one or both of those charges, but being a regular citizen, maybe not. With one or both of those additional charges on his record (including the two prior convictions for brandishing a gun) of course this "regular citizen" would have been arrested!
So who do you think Mamet is getting his "story" from? Has Mamet been lunching with the trial bride or Jiyanti? Or could it be the newly nip/tucked spouting head on TruTv, Linda Kenney Baden?