Saturday, December 4, 2010

THE CLERY ACT: Smart law enforcement or grieving parents gone awry?

So I was watching the Crime & Investigation Network on a lazy Saturday afternoon.  Do you know why I have a difficult time watching that channel?  It's because every one hour program is full of about thirty minutes of CSI advertisements or whichever new crime drama the network recently purchased syndication rights, and the channel is unapologetic about smothering a viewer with scenes of melodramatic crime dramas.  I have a HUGE problem with TV crime dramas.  They all feel the same, and ever since watching the film Forgetting Sarah Marshall and it's hilarious mock crime dramas, my suspicions have been validated and I doubt I'll ever watch one again.  And honestly... with so many documentaries channels on cable these days that feature true crime, why would you even bother with the phony drama?  You can see the real stuff, starting with gruesome forensic pictures all the way to the tearful interviews of those involved.  THAT's real drama, not watching the latest bulimiac Hollywood model act like she spent seven years in college and law school, or that typecast cop actor who if not for the bushy eyebrows, crooked nose and still prevalent Brooklyn accent just might have had a shot at replacing George Clooney.

CSI people acting like CSI people
But anyways, I'm watching this program and because I'm trapped in my pathetic pop culture life, I come to find out that in the last twenty years there has been a huge selfless push by two dedicated parents to improve campus security at our nation's universities.  You see, in 1986 their daughter was brutally murdered and raped in her own dormitory room on the campus of Lehigh University.  In maybe one of the biggest guilt trips ever given to a 19-year-old kid to live with, even though there were automatic locks on the dorm doors, three co-eds apparently propped the doors to their residence hall open with pizza boxes so other students could easily get inside.  Because of this, the perpetrator was easily able to sneak inside and commit the crime.  The defendant in question was a fellow student who had just lost his bid for class president by one vote and in one of the most obvious cases of anger and/or women issues, the losing political aspirant, drunk off his knockers, took it out on poor Jeanne Ann Clery.  The assailant said it was a botched robbery.  Yeah.... right.


So of course the parents sued the hell out of the university with attorneys who I'm sure were only too eager to get their paws on the awarded verdict.   Then they launched a crusade to change campus security which eventually amounted to the Clery Act which was signed in 1990 by our eldest Bush.   Did they improve training for police officers?  Launch education initiatives for students?  What exactly did they do?  Well, it's a mixed package.  Like most bills, it was full of different offerings, but the main purpose of this bill was to.... drumroll, please... force universities to release their crime statistics!   Huh?  Because knowing that a university had a few more violent crimes than the next neighboring campus somehow affects violent offenders?  Or because we all know that our nation's higher institutions of learning are breeding grounds for crime and violence, and potential students should avoid several of them at all costs.  Avoid the cafeteria, it's where the hardest gangs hang.

Connie & Howard Clery, some good people.
One fact about the victim and her parents should let you know where this stemmed from.  You see, when deciding on a college, Jeanne Clery originally looked at Tulane University, the alma mater of her two older brothers.  But because of one violent crime against a female student off-campus, her parents decided to send her instead to the safer Lehigh University.  Put two and two together, and you suddenly realize where the parental anger comes from.  Apparently, these parents thought that if their daughter's university had released the statistics about violent crime against students, a stat which was abnormally high from 1983 to 1985 at Lehigh University, they never would have sent her there, and thus, their daughter would still be alive today.   So this all sounds altruistic, and who really has the guts to argue against grieving parents, but was it worth a federal law, a huge bureaucracy, and who knows how many more tax dollars diverted to a single, albeit noble, mission?

Plaque outside of Jeanne Clery's former dormitory
The answer might be no.  Beware the grieving parent.  Have you seen the latest Batman movie?  One aspect of Batman's famous origin that I always felt was wrong was that the child takes in the cold-blooded murder of his parents and dedicates his life to a single cause, bypassing everything around him because he is so focused on the memory of this murder.  If Batman were a real life story, there would need to be one simple switch: The parents would have witnessed their son's murder. Why?  Have you seen how many parents spark national movements because of the tragic death of their child?  John Walsh and America's Most Wanted, the story of the AMBER Alert, and so on.  Look... the murder of anyone is a sad incident, and no parent ever wants to outlive their child, but you know what?  It happens.  This is a dangerous world we live in.  Random acts of violence do occur.  If something happens to someone you love and you find out that the security measures that you thought were in place were negligent, then by all means -- sue their butts off!   But if you're going to enact a law and spend thousands of man hours and millions of dollars, please make sure that it's responsible and honest, and not another method to vent your grief or anger because any politician with half a brain knows it's good politics to support a cause like this and political suicide to publicly question its merits.

The real Batman
Want some cold hard facts?  Check out this 2002 study about the initial effects of the Clery Act.  The study privately interviewed almost a thousand senior law enforcement officials in various universities and found these numbers:
  • 43% said the Act was a stimulus to improve the quality of campus law enforcement procedures
  • 45% said the Act was a stimulus to improve the quality of campus law enforcement policies
  • 57% said it improved the quality of reporting procedures
  • 88% said they made crime reports public that did not affect pending investigations
Okay, you can see some results.   Almost half of the college police institutions believe it acted as a stimulus to improve their on-campus security.  That's a good thing.  It did its job.  The half in which it didn't improve matters?  Maybe those colleges already had a good grasp on student security?   Who knows?  In the defense of our academic law enforcement forces, the timing of this bill also probably coincided with the realization that it just wasn't a safe place anymore, even for our students.  Think of all the changes in schools at all levels since 1986.   High school students have metal detectors and clear backpacks even at fairly safe schools.  The Virginia Tech shooting or Columbine couldn't even be imagined in the mid-80's.  As a nation, we were just starting to deal with those types of tragic events occurring annually.   The school shooter at the University of Texas was a distant memory and the exception.  Watch any movie from that period about high school or college life and you'll see a country that had no idea what type of brutal reality was about to hit.  As a matter of fact, campus police really didn't start appearing until the late 1960's and it was a reaction towards Kent State and student protests more than it was crime. 

Early campus police forces (University of Kentucky).  Do you think these guys knew how bad it would get?
Going back to the study though, there are three questions that stand out:
  1. Since the passage of the Act, has the campus crime rate changed? 15% said it increased, 15% said it decreased, and 70% said it remained about the same.
  2. Can any change in the crime rate on your campus be credit to the Act and its requirements?  10% said yes, but an overwhelming 90% said no. 
  3. Has the act been effective in increasing the number of campus safety programs? 73% said no.
So yeah, it basically did its job for the parents of Jeanne Clery who wanted more public information about campus crime.  It pushed the slackers who weren't reporting crimes into a higher gear and increased awareness with campus police forces across the country.  But it didn't help stop crime.  It essentially gave scared parents an excuse not to send their children away to certain colleges. Want to know if your university is safe?  I have a simple litmus test.  Is your school located downtown?  If it is, you're probably in more danger of random crimes than your counterpart on that nice secluded rural property.  Many universities were built decades or even centuries ago and the founders had no idea what type of cesspool the local community would be in the distant future. Look at the "top 50 most dangerous colleges in 2010" and you'll notice a trend with a majority of the dubious nominees.  They're older institutions founded on the Eastern seaboard or in the Great Lakes regions which are now surrounded by tougher neighborhoods, and there's also a large number of historically black universities which are sometimes now planted smack dab in the middle of some of our nation's tougher inner-city neighborhoods.  But even with these numbers, nothing can be taken for face value.  Schools have been getting in trouble every year since the passage of the Clery Act when they fudge their numbers such as not reporting off-campus incidents or having different definitions of the word "assault."  And then there's the elephant in the room which is sexual assault.  An alarming number of women in colleges everywhere face this problem which has a history of being covered up or not reported at all.   If you're a concerned parent, you don't need statistics to tell you what to do.  Drive around the neighborhood and check it out.  Duh!  But most importantly, pray that you've taught your child enough common sense to live a safe and productive young adult life.  Young women don't need to get smashed and hang out in private rooms in the fraternity house, nor do they need to walk around campus after midnight without a partner. All students should lock their doors no matter how safe they feel.  Any college student should be aware that when they parade around with a laptop, an Ipod and the other valuable accessories they perhaps took for granted in their safer home environments are now a target for roaming thieves.  College life is just like any other normal adult life.  It's time to grow up and realize the world can sometimes be a harsh and unforgiving place.

Welcome to life, kid!  It sometimes sucks.
So in conclusion, was the Clery Act needed?  Many people would probably argue it was needed because too many colleges swept embarrassing incidents of violence and crime under the rug and this bill forced them to admit what was truly happening... at least on-campus.  Off-campus is another story.  Would universities eventually have modernized, expanded and improved their police forces even without the Clery Act?  Probably.  Violence at all academic institutions is a sad trend of the new century.  One big lawsuit is really all it takes for people to take notice and god bless their hearts, once the precedent is set, the lawyers and insurance companies quickly react.  I'm not going to throw out an ultimatum on whether or not the Clery Act was productive, but it was a feel good cause.  There's also always the argument that free information is NEVER a bad thing to have in a democracy.  My point is that the term "random acts of violence" was coined for a reason.  In this insane country we live in, believe it or not, YOU or someone you love may be the random victim.  It's easy for me or anyone else to say this when it hasn't happened to us, but then again, this same complacency is probably what helps launch grieving parents to monumental crusades.  At one time, they might have been the insensitive jerk who didn't think it could happen to them and never gave any of these causes the time of day.  Like everything in our nation from counter-terrorist initiatives, to environmental disasters, to natural disaster preparation, when the game changer happened, we reacted swiftly in our policy changes. Your mission in life is if you are the unfortunate victim of these unavoidable tragedies that often drive even the survivors to an early grave, you must somehow act rationally and ask yourself if the proper precautions were in place or if you were the unfortunate victim of a tragic act that was going to happen to someone, and will happen again.  How much is too much?  How much of the future can you really change? That sounds insensitive but it's the truth.  When your opponent shows a flush and takes a large stack of your chips, don't panic and start throwing out extreme bets to save the game.  Sometimes, life happens and takes your chips away.

FILM HISTORY SNOB: People loved the film Bugsy, but was it just another glamorized look at famous yet ruthless gangsters?

BUGSY (1991)
Tristar Pictures 

Oscar Nominatons: Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Actor (Beatty), Best Supporting Actor (Keitel and Kingsley), Best Cinematography, Best Director, Best Music, Best Original Score, Best Picture, Best Screenplay

Gross: $49.1 million (25th ranked film of 1991)

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 90%




MAIN CHARACTERS
HISTORICAL GRADE: C-

Bugsy Siegel (Warren Beatty): The film attempts to feature two of Siegel's most enduring legacies -- his playboy image and temper. His playboy image in the film is an accurate portrayal of his real-life exploits. Siegel was known for his good looks and way with the ladies. The film also does a decent job at displaying Bugsy's legendary temper although he's passed off as more of good-natured eccentric rather than a true sociopath. Like the film says, Bugsy moved to California to try and claim California's rackets for the East Coast bosses, but what the movie didn't cover was that Bugsy fled New York along with other gangsters after authorities started cracking down hard on organized crime. After moving to Los Angeles, Siegel was able to use actor George Raft to quickly move up in Hollywood circles and become one of the first "celebrity gangsters." At the time, Raft, along with James Cagney, was one of Hollywood's most popular film gangsters. Siegel was known to hobnob with several famous movie stars including the likes of Cary Grant and Clark Gable. He was also linked in romantic escapades with famous actresses such as Jean Harlow. Bugsy quickly seized most of the illegal operations in California and brought a windfall of profits for his partners back in New York. Siegel was so enamored with his pampered Hollywood lifestyle that he initially refused to move to Las Vegas and only did so after prodding by Meyer Lansky.

The film also covers his notorious temper which helped land him the nickname of "Bugsy" because he was known to "bug out" when angered or confronted with danger. Siegel was seen as a crook who often reacted with strong impulses. Events in the film such as his blatant public executions and crazy tantrums are accurate depictions of his personality, although his surprise attack on Joey Epstein near the end of the movie for his comments about Virginia Hill is purely fictional. What isn't covered in detail are Siegel's true predatory exploits and sociopathic behavior. Warren Beatty does an excellent job being himself and bringing out the playboy nature of Siegel as well as some nifty scenes where he displays Siegel's legendary temper, but in the end, whether it was purposefully written to make the character more appealing, or because Beatty simply doesn't have much of a natural villain in him, the worst side of Bugsy isn't as obvious. Siegel is almost excused as as an eccentric visionary in the film who doesn't care about money which couldn't be further from the truth. Siegel may have been less careful with his money compared to mob bosses such as Meyer Lansky and "Lucky" Luciano, but it was because he loved to spend it on a glamorous lifestyle or in the case of the Flamingo Hotel & Casino, was simply out of his league. One could say that Siegel simply got out of control as he refused to give money to his partners from the gambling wire service that he seized after moving to California. Those same celebrities who once desperately craved his attention at parties would soon pay as he controlled the unions and extorted high priced stars for hundreds of thousands of dollars to prevent unions from walking out on their next project.

Siegel was known to enjoy murder so much that even as his status elevated to a point where he no longer had to be a common hitman, he still tagged along for entertainment value. Siegel had also been known to rape women who tested his patience, as demonstrated by a famous incident in which he followed and raped a woman who had once threatened to turn him in and now taunted his manhood. Beatty was a natural choice for the role since he has his own reputation as a famous Hollywood playboy but he fails to present the true intimidating nature of Bugsy Siegel. Some if it is from his own lack of a natural tough guy element (which makes you wonder why he was nominated for an Oscar), but much of it is from a script that wants to show a more benevolent Siegel which is a shame because his true sociopathic gangster image would flex an actor's muscle even more.

Virginia Hill (Annette Bening): While Bugsy Siegel is purposefully made a more appealing character for audiences, Hill's real life faults are just as overlooked. Virgina Hill was in fact a criminally experienced foul-mouthed viper and it was that nature that actually drew Bugsy to her in the first place. Maybe the truest scene to her historical profile is the clip where Bugsy goes nuts on California mob boss Jack Dragna while Hill hides in the backroom and is so turned on by his display of power that she makes love to Siegel immediately afterwards. Friends of the couple state they both shared a volatile personality (as shown in the film) and were known to have intense love making sessions after unleashing their outbursts on each other. In the film, Hill is linked to Chicago mob boss Joey Epstein which is historical fact, but Hill had also been involved with several high ranked mobsters such as Frank Costello and Joe Adonis, moving her way up from prostitute to a co-conspirator in several Mafia operations. Virginia Hill actually represented Chicago mob interests in Vegas, while Siegel was connected to the New York branches. In Hollywood, Hill had taken the lessons of her mobster affairs and was known to blackmail several actors for thousands of dollars under the threat that she would reveal vices, including homosexuality, that could lead to ruined careers. Hill had made enough money from her exploits to rent two expensive mansions which Bugsy frequented since his wife and kids resided in Los Angeles, a fact skipped in the film.

The film depicts an innocent Siegel who was duped by Hill for millions in the construction of the Flamingo but in fact, both were most likely involved in skimmings and it may have been Siegel who controlled most of it with the experienced Hill serving as his henchman. Siegel may have trusted Hill too much with his secret skimmings, and she may have informed on him to the Chicago underworld bosses, as seen by her convenient departure from Las Vegas during Siegel's murder. The picture has her in Vegas, but in fact, she was out of the country during Siegel's hit. The film attempts to give the impression that Hill was so affected by Siegel's death that she committed suicide but that didn't occur until almost 20 years later and most doubt it was actually a suicide. During the time of her death, Hill had already re-married. Local reporters theorized that she might have gone back to her blackmailing ways and been knocked off to keep silent since Chicago crime boss Joe Adonis was seen in the Austrian village of her death only two days earlier.  Hill may have been fond of Siegel but the film's attempt to portray her as madly in love with Siegel and so broken that she committed suicide is absurd, although her highly jealous nature shown in the production is based on historical records. Because Annette Bening is a better thespian than Beatty, her character reveals some unreadable inrigue that probably took place in the actual Virginia Hill. When given a chance to capture the complexity of her character, Bening pulls it off, but once again, Hollywood goes for a more sympathetic character rather than a true depiction of history. If the real traits of both Siegel and Hill were written into the screenplay, audience sympathy would be non-existent, which is why they were probably written that way.  Audiences don't like true bad guys.

SIDE CHARACTERS
HISTORICAL GRADE: C+

Meyer Lansky (Ben Kingsley): In the film, Meyer Lansky is almost treated as a "good guy" who seems to be more subdued than his mafia boss peers. The movie portrays a Meyer Lansky who is out for Bugsy's best interests such as the scene where Lansky talks about Bugsy Siegel taking care of him in their youth. It is historical truth that Siegel and Lansky grew up together and ran their own gang on the streets of New York. In real life, Lansky even takes credit for giving him the name "Bugsy" by once telling him "you have bugs in your head" after Bugsy surprised him by a brutal retaliation against a crooked cop who was taking their earnings. It's also historical truth that Lansky did try to delay the killing of Bugsy. In fact, Lansky may have been instrumental in saving Siegel's life even before his move to California. Bugsy had become such a high profile target for law enforcement in New York, the bosses met about his future and decided to send him west to claim Dragna's outfit in Los Angeles when normally such meetings would result in an execution order.  Lansky's quote in the film about letting him deal with Siegel if the Flamingo failed was somewhat accurate as Lansky tried to delay execution orders of Siegel, even convincing his partners that he could get back the money skimmed by Siegel if the Flamingo was a success. In later years, Lansky was quoted as saying if it was up to him, Siegel never would have been killed. Lansky's soft-spoken and patient nature portrayed by Kingsley is historical truth although like most of the characters in the film, Lansky is given a softer touch when compared to his real version. It's highly doubtful Lansky ever would have looked at Virginia Hill with admiration and commented on her positive change as shown near the end of the film. Lansky was regarded as the smartest man in organized crime and would have recognized Hill for what she was, although there may have been some admiration out of respect for her ability to earn money. Lansky still stands up as one of the more historically accurate characters in the film though, and it's difficult to think of a better casting choice than Ben Kingsley.

Mickey Cohen (Harvey Keitel): Mickey Cohen isn't given much time in this film which is a shame because he's one of the more interesting gangsters in modern history.  The choice of the strong acting presence of Harvey Keitel to display this infamous person in mobster history is a good one for a mobster who started as a professional boxer. One of the first fallacies of Cohen's history in the film was the story of him ripping off one of Bugsy's operations which led to Siegel's admiration and recruitment. In fact, Cohen was already linked to some of the "Jewish Mafia" and was sent from Cleveland to help Siegel and become his number two man. If Cohen had stolen from Siegel, he probably would have met a swift ending, but it is known that Siegel liked Cohen's brash unrepentant style. Allegedly, Cohen was so angered by Bugsy's murder that he walked into the Hotel Roosevelt where he believed the killers were staying and shot his gun into the ceiling demanding they show themselves. Cohen lived for several decades after Bugsy's death, surviving several attempts on his life by Jack Dragna, and becoming somewhat of a celebrity mobster until he did what few career mobsters accomplish -- a natural death.

George Raft (Joe Mantegna): At one time, Raft was one of the biggest upcoming actors in Hollywod. He was a famous dancer who Fred Aistaire once complimented as the "fastest Charleston dancer I ever knew." He was also a talented actor who was soon typecast as a gangster in films of the time and other than James Cagney, might have been the most popular actor to play that role during the 1930's. Raft's career started to decline in the 1940's, in part because of the public's dissatisfaction with his real-life gangster ties, but mostly because he made some of the worst choices in acting history by turning down the lead role in films such as High Sierra and The Maltese Falcon which eventually transformed Humphrey Bogart into a film icon. The film portrays Raft as a man who introduces Bugsy to the Hollywood scene which is historical fact. Raft had grown up in rough circles and still maintained mob connections. Bugsy's attempts to voice Raft's line and style in early parts of the movie are also accurate as it's believed most mobsters tried to emulate the famous actors who portrayed them in early cinema, rather than vice versa. Mantegna, while not a bad actor, doesn't do that great a job at imitating some of the voice mannerisms and movement styles that made Raft so famous.

Murder, Inc. - Siegel & Greenberg's hit squad
Harry Greenberg (Elliot Gould): Harry Greenberg's friendship with Bugsy is a large sub-plot in the movie until his untimely demise at the hands of Bugsy. The movie portrays the relationship as a reluctant friendship in which Bugsy realizes his friend's faults but lets him slide until it's too late. In the later half of the movie, Greenberg arrives at Siegel's mansion because he has nowhere else to go after turning in his fellow mobsters. Bugsy reluctantly kills Greenberg on a remote drive with Virginia Hill, and even mentions that he wished Greenberg had never shown his face. Greenberg's story in this movie is based on some historical truths, but again, it is another character distorted to make Bugsy a more appealing character for the audience. Greenberg's primary connection with Bugsy was that he was a fellow member of Murder Inc., the hit squad organized by Jewish gangsters. In fact, Greenberg was a much smarter criminal than the broken, soft character portrayed by Gould. While the movie borrows from some historical truths showing Greenberg threatening to turn in his friends unless he could get money, he never visited Bugsy and was only in Los Angeles because he had almost been killed while hiding out with his former gang in Detroit. He was a marked target in New York after sending a letter to mob bosses implying he would narc them out if he wasn't given more money to survive since he had been on the lamb for several months after an intense crackdown on organized crime. Bugsy killed Greenberg with the help of three other mobsters, including Siegel's brother-in-law, and Hill was most likely not waiting in the car. Furthermore, Siegel was only too happy to be in on the hit, and was advised by other members of his posse to stay away from the slaying.  His gang was too scared to try and make him change his mind or plan a smarter method of execution, and it was a sloppy hit with the ensuing trial revealing Bugsy's true image to the West Coast for the first time.

Esta Siegel (Wendy Phillips): One of the biggest errors in Esta Siegel's movie version is that she was forced to stay back east while Bugsy built his empire out west. In fact, Esta travelled with Bugsy to Los Angeles and resided in the mansion he is seen purchasing in the movie, although it was actually rented, not purchased, and was worth far more than the $40,000 price tag mentioned in the film. Bugsy actually committed several crimes with Esta's brother, a well-known mafia hitman, so through family or behind closed doors, she was probably not as innocent to his activities in the film make us believe. Esta divorced Bugsy in 1946, a year before his execution, and never remarried. She died in 1982 and was buried in the same cemetery as her former husband.

Jack Dragna (Richard C. Sarafian): In one of the more unrealistic portrayals of history's gangsters, Dragna is seen as a pathetic character in the film who easily lets Bugsy intimidate him. The reality is Dragna was just as scary as most mobsters of the time, but he was smart enough to know when he was outgunned. Dragna had huge respect for "Lucky" Luciano and when told in no uncertain terms by Luciano that he could either "take part or be taken apart" by Siegel and the interests he represented, he decided to go along with the powerful east coast bosses. When Siegel was killed, Dragna and Mickey Cohen went at it for control of the California underworld, but in a mix of incompetent hitmen and blind luck by Cohen, Dragna was never able to snuff out his rival. He died shortly after in the 50's from natural causes.

POPULAR TALL TALES
HISTORICAL GRADE: F

The Countess with Gary Cooper
Bugsy Wanted to Kill Axis Leaders: In the film, Bugsy Siegel is seen flirting with Countess Dorothy di Frasso who in real life was known to have affairs with several high profile Hollywood names such as Siegel and Gary Cooper. The film only shows Virginia Hill's jealousy over the flirtation, and doesn't contain an actual affair. The film goes even further and tries to explain Bugsy's interest in her as an attempt by Siegel to get close to Mussolini and his Nazi allies so that he can help the war effort and prevent Jewish persecution. This is so far from the truth, it's not even funny. The historical truth is that Siegel traveled to Europe with di Frasso during their affair and attempted to sell explosives to Mussolini. The mob legend is that during this trip he met Hermann Goering and Joseph Goebbels at the same estate and took a personal dislike, perhaps because of their anti-semitic ways, and wanted to murder them until di Frasso convinced him otherwise. Again, it's another scene in the movie rooted in some historical truth but completely altered to make Siegel a more likable character. Like the rest of the world, Siegel did not know about the extent of the holocaust until after the war.

The famous Vegas Strip
Bugsy Created the Idea of Vegas: Gambling already existed in Nevada before Siegel's arrival with Reno as the epicenter of most tourist gambling. There were also hotels in Vegas before Bugsy took over. Bugsy wasn't even the mobster who forced his peers to aim their sights on Vegas. Crime bosses, including Meyer Lansky, had already envisioned Vegas as a "legit" nearby location to funnel their money. It can also be said that the concept of an exclusive European-style hotel such as the Flamingo was never Bugsy's original idea as represented in the movie. It was actually the brainchild of Billy Wilkerson, the owner of the Hollywood Reporter. Wilkerson was a notorious gambler and taking the advice of friends, decided to build his own casino. When Wilkerson ran out of funds, he was forced to recruit partners which allowed the entry of Bugsy Siegel who eventually took over the entire operation and helped launch the construction into significant debt. The main idea Bugsy Siegel brought to Vegas was a pampered exclusive hotel on the Vegas Strip that took no liberties. Before Siegel, most of the hotels in Vegas had a cowboy theme. Siegel took some of the luxuries in Wilkerson's original plans and expanded them even more, laying the groundwork for some of the ritzy hotels we now see everywhere on the strip such as the Bellagio, Palazzo, Luxor and more. The more sophisticated and extravagantly overboard Vegas hotels become on the Las Vegas Strip, the more Siegel's premise endures.

MAIN THEMES/EVENTS
HISTORICAL GRADE: C+
 
Syndicate Expansion to the West Coast: Lost in the Bugsy story is the central theme of mafia expansion to the West Coast of the United States. Organized crime already existed in California but it was an attempt by the organized east coast families to bring it into their fold. Led in part by Bugsy Siegel, it was accomplished and Nevada as an underworld gambling powerhouse was established. Nowadays, the mafia doesn't have nearly as much power as it used to enjoy, but it was at its peak during Siegel's days and the film covers some of these themes but primarily focuses on Bugsy Siegel's life.

The Mafia Builds Vegas: In the film, the Mafia is reluctant to grasp Bugsy's ideas which is not true at all. They were reluctant to grasp Bugsy Siegel's bloated budget. The mafia was always on the lookout for a gambling haven as exhibited by their conquest of Cuba. Bugsy Siegel had run several offshore gambling operations in California, and Nevada was just a natural extension of his operations. The film shows Meyer Lansky's appreciation of the future of Vegas, and after the success of the Flamingo following Siegel's death, mob families would move in quickly and build several high dollar hotels throughout the 1950's, which was a change from the cowboy joints that incorporated most Nevada gambling operations until that period. Probably the most telling event in the film is when mobsters seize control of the Flamingo and inform everyone that Siegel is dead. This actually happened and spawned several decades of mafia control and expansion of Vegas into the entertainment mecca we now know.

The Failure of the Flamingo Hotel & Casino: The film shows the effects of skimming on the Flamingo's budget although it points the finger at Virginia Hill when in fact it was probably Bugsy Siegel or both who were funneling most of the funds. It doesn't go into as much detail about high construction costs after World War II since building material was scarce, nor does it tell much about the many construction scams taking place that were making plenty of money off the inexperienced Siegel. Stories about the actual construction of the hotel are full of contractors who would send in product for Bugsy to pay for only to take off that same night, sometimes coming back with the same product and being paid twice. The movie does show some of the famous miscues from Bugsy such as his spontaneous reconstruction of expensive parts of the hotel. The legendary paranoid Bugsy even went so far as to build last minute secret escape tunnels from his suite. The film also shows the bad weather that hit the hotel during its launch. Bugsy had lined up planes for several Hollywood celebrities for the grand opening which could not take off because of weather conditions. The hotel was opened too soon and lacked comfortable living quarters. Most of the gamblers in its first days would take their earnings and visit other hotels. The hotel did not close after the first night as shown in the film but lasted a few weeks before being closed down and then re-opened. A few months after the second opening, the hotel started to turn a profit but it was too late to save Siegel.

Bugsy Siegel's Death: About the only thing the film got right about Bugsy's murder were the forensics of the gunshots. Bugsy was reading the newspaper when he was shot several times in the torso from a rifle by the window. The movie also shows the infamous "money shot" that hit his head and gruesomely popped out one of his eyeballs. The murder also took place in one of Virginia Hill's mansions and Bugsy was sitting on the couch, not standing up as shown in the movie, although that was understandably done for dramatic license. Not covered in the film include the fact that he wasn't alone but was actually visiting with mob partner, Allen Smiley, who ducked to the floor just in time to avoid being shot himself. Virginia Hill was not in Vegas, but was in Paris, and many have speculated that she knew about the planned hit from her Chicago connections and was warned to get out of town. Most historical records reveal that Bugsy knew his time was near and he had even tried to group together those still loyal to him in California in preparation for the upcoming war, but was too late. The movie presents his death as though it happened almost right after the Flamingo's failure but Bugsy was allowed to live for almost a year after the hotel's original failed launch, and the hotel was actually starting to turn a nice profit at the time of his death. Siegel's death was not because he allowed himself to be fooled by Virginia Hill, nor because he was a visionary who would do anything to create the legacy of the Flamingo Hotel & Casino. It was mainly because he had allowed himself to cut too many powerful interests (the same who had sent him there in the first place) out of his west coast revenues.  He had simply taken that famous cavalier attitude of his too far and failed to check himself. The movie did get one very important fact right about his death. The shooter was never revealed and to this day no one truly knows who shot Bugsy with the only unanimous consensus being that the hit was ordered by the families out east who had grown tired of his losses and rebellion.

WHAT THE MOVIE GOT RIGHT:
  • Siegel's hatred of the nickname "Bugsy."
  • Siegel's infamous temper
  • Siegel's mixing with the Hollywood Elite and playboy image
  • Siegel's love of and desire to be an actor
  • Meyer Lansky's dynamics
  • The gunshots that killed Bugsy
  • Virginia Hill's questionable motives and shady past
  • Mickey Cohen's personality
    WHAT THE MOVIE GOT WRONG:
    • The true evil nature of Bugsy & Hill
    • The Harry Greenberg murder
    • Bugsy's plan to eliminate Nazis
    • The original construction of the Flamingo
    • The timeline of the Flamingo's failures
    • Bugsy responsible for the vision of Vegas
    • Hill's reaction to Bugsy's death
    • Bugsy oblivious to Flamingo skimmings
    • Bugsy's family
    • Mickey Cohen's introduction to Bugsy
    • Jack Dragna's dynamics
    • Details of Bugsy's death
      OVERALL HISTORICAL ACCURACY GRADE:
       C-