Movie Review of Crazy Love

I thought, in my youthful naivete in 1959 (I was born in 1952), that the biggest New York event of the year was when I saw Ted Williams hit one of his final career home runs in Yankee Stadium in September. The movie I saw tonight at Salem's Documentary Week, however, tells me about the real story that riveted New Yorkers in 1959--the trial of Bronx Attorney Burt Puglach for hiring "hit men" to throw lye into the eyes of his former girlfriend, Linda Riss, after he learned that she was engaged to be married to another man. But that was only the start of the fun; in 2007 they are, and have been for 30 years, Mr. and Mrs. Burt Puglach. The film Crazy Love (2007), directed by ad-agency heavyweight Dan Klores, narrates the fascinating, revolting and, when you think about it for a while, explicable relationship that developed between these two New Yorkers.

Setting the Tone

Burt was born in 1927, the son of a dysfuntional family, who married his first wife for reasons other than love, and together they had a daughter with significant developmental disabilities. His legal career took off in the 1950s as "ambulance chasing" became a staple of big-city tort lawyering. It was a practice that became lucrative because of fee-splitting arrangements between attorneys and the attending physicians. Physicians would inform their lawyer friends of "cases" in front of them; the lawyers would pay off the physicians from the proceeds of recoveries in order to keep the cases coming. Through this sleazy lawyering, which Burt tried (unsuccessfully, in my judgment) to distance himself in the film's interviews, he earned as much as $80,000 a year when the take-home pay of an average worker was about $4,000.

You can imagine what happened next in Burt's life. Burt, who never felt attached to his wife or disabled child (about whom he utters not more than one line in the film), began a "career" of philandering which eventually brought him into the life of Linda Riss. Riss, about a decade younger than Pugach, was spotted by Pugach on a park bench in the Bronx while he was out trolling for babes one day and, according to his story, it was not just love at first sight but it was a never-ending and never-changing love at first sight. It was a love so possessive and obsessive that it immediately wanted to occupy itself with Linda's life in every way possible. She, though flattered by the attention, felt that he was a little out of her league, but she no doubt liked the celebrity life that he brought to her (he also owned a NYC nightclub).

We, who know some of the story line before entering the theater, see still shots of him from the 1950, and what we see is disconcerting to say the least. A man with focused eyes, set jaw and deliberate gait, is focused on "getting the girl" no matter what the obstacle. But eventually Linda learns that he already has a wife and child, even though he falsifies legal papers which try to give the impression that a divorce was granted by a county court in Alabama. But when she learns the truth, and then hooks up with another suitor, Pugach hires two (or three) Black toughs to throw lye into her eyes. She is nearly blinded, and her other relationship quickly folds.

Burt is convicted of the crime (he bellyaches about the tactics of the prosecutor; he admits he tried to manipulate the system through outrageous attempts to kill himself in court, etc.) and is sentenced to 30 years at Sing Sing. Linda is still able to work at first, but as days go by her life turns darker and darker as her vision dims. He is suddenly released from prison after serving about 15 years when the parole board becomes aware that Burt has sent Linda money to help her "get on her feet." He pledges to do the same when he is released. Even though there are strict requirements that he not have contact with her, these "rules" are only looked on by Burt as interesting challenges to overcome. Contact is resumed, he offers to care for her, proclaims her undying love for her and, surprise of surprise, manages to convince her to marry him.

Reflection...

But, upon further reflection, is it a surprise that she ends up marrying her tormenter, the one who at first planned to kill her if he couldn't have her? The more you think of her "options" in the mid-late 1970s, the more you see that her choice is a perfectly rational one. Her grandmother has died; her mother is infirm. Her life is now almost completely encased in darkness; she barely leaves her apartment. Perhaps she interprets Burt's continued protestations of love through her own filter--that he will rescue her from her blindness and, in fact, that he gives her the best "escape" from her limited world. And, from Burt's perspective, he has her just where he wants her--dependent and loyal. It was not as if she wouldn't have been loyal to him before; it is just that she didn't feel dependent. But Burt has made sure that she feels that dependence deep within. The director tries hard (too hard, really) to portray their "current" life as a bit of "payback"--he is at her beck and call for all details of life now, but there is probably some truth to it.

The film is facilitated by interviews with about eight or so friends and family members who knew and know both parties over the course of the drama. It certainly is a drama that plays out best in NYC, which wants big real estate tycoons, intemperate sports franchise owners and outsized human dramas. Neither of the principals is a particularly sympathetic or entrancing character; some of the commentators (Jimmy Breslin, for example) are engaging, insightful and even humorous.

Conclusion

So, does a reviewer pass a "moral judgment" on what has happened? Does this drama add something to the twists and turns of human nature of which we were unaware? Upon longer consideration, I answer both questions in the negative. I have lived long enought to know that what "works" for couples is as varied as the couples themselves. I wouldn't want to be in over 99% of the relationships I see around me; so I wouldn't want to be in this one either. This may be a bit of an extreme story, but it bears some strikingly similar quirky features to some marriages I have seen.

But does this give us "Dostoevskian" insight into human nature, cutting to the division of the joints and marrow of the heart? I really don't think so. It is a strange tale, to be sure; it reeks of obsession and hyper-jealousy and efforts to control. It shows that seeking "pure" anything, such as love or devotion, is often a mirage. But I don't think we see anything here that is inexplicable or starkly revelatory of the deep springs of human existence. It is a made-for-tabloids story, before the tabloids proliferated. Maybe that is a good thing.

2938