I first saw this film on TV (late-night) about 8 years ago. It intrigued me to do some research. I found Gary Lagergne's book "A Sniper in the Tower" and read it. Whitman (Russell) was much the brooding silent tortured man as portrayed, but had a very violent streak and seemed to be amused by other peoples' pain. The film does seem to support the 'brain tumor' theory, but it doesn't touch any of Whitman's life. He was raised by a very rich and dominating, physically abusive father who loved guns and demanded obedience and success from his sons. Charles never knew what compassion and love were, but for achievement and abuse. He had to be the best at everything. He was the youngest EVER to become an Eagle scout, at age 12. He joined the Marines as a way of escaping his father's abuse and control. The Corps did, for a time, keep him in line, but when he attempted to get a degree at UT Austin in 1964 he was out of their control and failed to reach the standard they demanded. Then came his marriage and more problems. He was ambitious but not able to achieve anything. Failed jobs, a court-martial, getting out of the Corps he now hated, and a failed attempt at an engineering degree again at UT Austin caused him great anguish and depression. Above all, he was financially dependent on a father he hated. This couldn't have helped his self-respect. When Whitman killed his wife, mother and dog, and went into the University Tower on August 1, 1966, he was plagued with headaches, anger and severe depression. The film, with the never-happened 'airplane' sequence, and the compassionate detective (Forsythe) who tries to find out his name is overly dramatic and complicated. The 90-minute siege on the tower, finally ended by Martinez, Crumm and Foss was dramatic enough. Technically, it's accurate enough, despite being filmed in Baton Rouge LA since Austin didn't want to let the UT tower be used. But the amount of gunfire Whitman is loosing from the tower is beyond belief. He's using, early on, a bolt-action rifle. Time between shots as he pulls and cycles the bolt is at least 2 seconds. Yet as people below are running for cover, you hear shots like from a semi-automatic rifle. It hurts what needed to be simple, more stark and horrible, not a hail of bullets raining down from above. So as in my other comments, Hollywood doesn't always get it right, even though they can tell the authentic story and do it well, if they trusted the intelligence of their viewers. But when was that ever the case?
Review of The Deadly Tower
