What Is The Difference Between Sacco And Vanzetti

The case of Sacco and Vanzetti reflected in the fear of communism, immigration and anarchy to all those living in America during the 1920's. As the commentators in the documentary debate whether or not the accusations of Sacco and Vanzetti murdering the payroll master and his guard were fair in this trial and if these two anarchists were guilty or not, I concluded that the aspects of the commentators towards the case was taken in a more personal matter. The narration of this documentary was told subjectively rather than objectively. Considering the fact that this documentary should be objectively told and only state the facts of the trial in which they occurred. All the commentators in this particular film at one point demonstrated some type
of personal connection with the case due to the great influence that Sacco and Vanzetti had towards the Italian immigrants and the effect they had on the communist party.
During the 1920's a vast amount of immigrants from southern eastern Europe traveled to America in hopes of a better life due to their poverty back home.
America did not view it in this perspective, but rather they saw Italian immigrants as a threat to their society for many of them were believed to be anarchist. These anarchists used violence ,such as bombings against the state, to push for radicalism and for what they believed "society should be like."(A.H.F Nicola Sacco an Bartolomeo Vanzetti. Youtube) These actions that took place was what we call today terrorist acts. With the government not knowing exactly who the terrorists were behind these bombings, they simply went into a widespread panic and began arresting everyone who they suspected of being an anarchist. A great deal of Americans declared that "Italian immigrants were different from us. Therefore, because they are different from us, we did not like them."(A.H.F Nicola Sacco an Bartolomeo Vanzetti. Youtube) A wide range of people also declared that a structural change was necessary in this country and throughout the world and the "anarchist were the extreme version of that."(A.H.F Nicola Sacco an Bartolomeo Vanzetti. Youtube) With the fear of communism spreading across America, they used the time of the red scare as an excuse to suppress all the people they did not want at liberty. It is then that the case of Sacco and Vanzetti was a significant example of "The difference between in what America is supposed to be about and what it has been in certain circumstances."(A.H.F Nicola Sacco an Bartolomeo Vanzetti.
Youtube)
Therefore, resulting in the commentators sentimentality of the case and exemplifying how their standpoint of the case is subjectively rather than objectively. One of the commentators in the documentary questioned, "Of course you wonder are they guilty or are they innocent?"(A.H.F Nicola Sacco an Bartolomeo Vanzetti. Youtube) She then stated that in the justice system that we have constructed, are those who are put on trial innocent until proven guilty and "in this [particular] case they were not."(A.H.F Nicola Sacco an Bartolomeo Vanzetti. Youtube) Hence she sympathized with the unfairness that took place throughout the whole trial. Another commentator also identified the fact that the judicial system is far from a fair system and that this system "does not guarantee"(A.H.F Nicola Sacco an Bartolomeo Vanzetti. Youtube) that there will be fairness in the end. Thus, effecting the views of the commentators emotionally and their objective position of the case. Resulting in them to be in favor of those who strived to prove the innocence of Sacco and Vanzetti and the corruption that took place over the extent of the case.
This film was not objectively narrated by the commentators for one—they expressed resentment towards the works of the judicial system. For example, one of the commentators said, "you would think that if this were a fair trial the judge would rule out that as irrelevant, but of course judge Fair is not going to rule anything out that has to do with the ideology of Sacco and Vanzetti."(A.H.F Nicola Sacco an Bartolomeo Vanzetti. Youtube) Therefore, insinuating that the perspective of this commentator was the response to the unlawful acts of the judicial system and how they "would be willing to lie to convict these two men"(A.H.F Nicola Sacco an Bartolomeo Vanzetti. Youtube). Secondly, many of the commentators became attached to the case, for they "followed the case for years"(Sacco & Vanzetti video) and "became so clos to the case"(A.H.F Nicola Sacco an Bartolomeo Vanzetti. Youtube) that they sympathized and were moved by these two men "of poetic sensibility"(A.H.F Nicola Sacco an Bartolomeo Vanzetti. Youtube). How can a documentary be narrated objectively and yet consist of emotionally attached commentators? Having these types of commentators on a documentary defeats the purpose of narrating an unbiased film.