How Accurate Was the Movie Bugsy on Las Vegas and Bugsy Siegel?

Executive Summary

• The movie Bugsy was very well received by critics and by award-giving entities.
• This article analyzes its accuracy.

Introduction

This article will only focus on the historical accuracy of the 1991 film Bugsy. This will involve not only Bugsy, the mob, and his relationship with Virginia Hill but will also address the claim perpetuated by Las Vegas today that Siegel was instrumental in the development of Las Vegas as a tourist destination.

General Quotes on the Movie

The following are interesting quotes from Wikipedia on the movie.

Bugsy was given a limited released by TriStar Pictures on December 13, 1991, followed by a theatrical wide release in December 20, 1991. It received generally positive reviews from critics and was a minor box office hit, grossing $49.1 million on a $30 million budget. It received ten nominations at the 64th Academy Awards (including for Best Picture and Best Director) and won two: Best Art Direction and Best Costume Design. It won the Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Drama. – Wikipedia

As we will see, a film’s historical accuracy is unrelated to the film awards it receives. There is no academy award or any other award I am aware of for historical accuracy.

During the course of six years and in between two films that he was involved in, Toback wrote a 400-page document of Bugsy’s life. However, under some strange circumstances,[clarification needed] Toback lost the entire document. Under pressure from Warner Bros., who Beatty learned also had a Bugsy Siegel script ready to be produced, Beatty pursued Toback to write a script based on his lost document. – Wikipedia

This is what document management could be before computers were ubiquitous in script and book writing, which made creating backups easy. Computers were used in writing a little before 1991, but at that time, many writers were still using typewriters as this is what they learned. This story is reminiscent of Ernest Hemmingway sending originals with no copies to publishers from his house in the Keys to East Coast publishers.

Analyzing the Historical Accuracy

Accent Accuracy

The accents used by both Warren Beatty and Annette Benning were inaccurate. In the movie, or for most of it, Annette plays Virginia Hill with a New York/New Jersey accent. However, Virginia Hill grew up poor on a farm in Alabama and then moved to Georgia at around seven years of age. She did not leave until approximately 16 or 17 for Chicago, where her accent would have already been cemented. The next place she moved was to Chicago, where she became a combination sex toy and bag lady for the mob. For this reason, she would not have had a New York/New Jersey accent.

I found this video which is her giving testimony.

You can hear the Southern accent in her voice, although it’s not strong. The question of why Annette Benning chose or was told to use a New York/New Jersey accent becomes more curious when considering the following quote. 

Originally, Beatty played Bugsy with a heavy New York City accent (which can be heard in the trailer). However, both Levinson and Toback thought that the accent was not right, so Beatty dropped the accent (which he thought was “charming”) and used his normal voice. – Wikipedia

So Levinson and Toback thought Beatty’s New York accent was “not right,” even though Siegel grew up in Brooklyn; however, Hill kept using that accent, who did not have a New York accent. So the person who should have had a NY accent is Siegel, who does not in the film. And the person (Hill) who did not have the NY accent in real life does in the movie. Another central character in the film is Mickey Cohen, played by Harvey Keitel, who uses a NY accent, which is accurate, as Cohen was from New York. However, it seems just close to Keitel’s normal speaking voice, made gruffer.

(Source: YouTube)

Hill was quite a character.

In testimony to the Senate, they asked Virginia Hill how a woman from Alabama had come to play such a pivotal role in the mob. She seemed to know everyone. Her response was

“Because I am the goddam best lay in the country!”

This was how Virginia Hill exited the hearing, where she testified.

“After the committee finally excused her and on the way out of the hearing room Hill spewed obscenities at the press, slugged and floored a female reporter, Marjorie Farnsworth, and covered her face while walking quickly through the corridors. Before climbing into an awaiting cab, she told reporters she hoped an atomic bomb would fall on them.” – Wikipedia

After reading about Virginia Hill, I don’t think Annette Benning’s portrayal of Hill was very much like Virginia Hill. The Virginia Hill role could have been a great opportunity for a different type of actress. Benning is much more refined than Hill, and she did not capture the toughness of Hill.

Major Inaccuracy #1: Was the Flamingo Hotel Built Out in the Middle of the Desert, and Was it the First Hotel on the Strip?

Both of these claims, which are not only made in the movie but are even promoted in Las Vegas today, are invalid.

The movie also shows the Flamingo as if it is in the middle of the desert.

Just visiting Vegas shows you that the Flamingo — which is still there, although the building itself has been replaced with newer structures, is on the main strip, which is not Freemont Street, which is where the first casinos appeared. The Flamingo today is only a few miles from Freemont Street, where there were some casinos already and where casinos were first built going back to roughly 1906.

This is the original Flamingo Hotel building after construction in 1946. (Source Vintage Las Vegas)

Here is the original Flamingo Hotel. Note the structures close by; further up is Freemont Street. 

Treasure Island casino in 1940. This was the first version under this name. This shows large casinos in Las Vegas before the Flamingo was built. (Source: Facebook)

The El Rancho was built in 1941 and was also on the strip. 

A large shot of the El Rancho. Both the El Rancho and Frontier were western-style hotels/casinos. The Flamingo changed that trajectory. (Source: California Archive) 

Something I found out that is not well known is that Siegel attempted to purchase the El Rancho in 1941, but was rebuffed by the owner.

This is Freemont Street in 1954. Yes, it was a bit smaller in 1946, but Freemont street had been filled with casinos for decades before any were added to the strip. The difference was the casinos on the strip were larger and higher-end. Therefore, these new casinos were expanding on an already well-established model in the area. 

Furthermore, not only was the Flamingo not the first hotel/casino on the strip, it was the third hotel/casino on the strip.

The significant difference was that the Flamingo was not western-themed and was higher-end and has more of a European aesthetic.

This is explained in the following quotation.

“The popular image is of the visionary Siegel imagining a luxurious casino in the middle of a desert wasteland. But in the mid-1940s, the Las Vegas Strip—or Highway 91, as it was then called—already had a few resorts. The El Rancho Vegas opened in 1941 and the Last Frontier in 1942.

Both offered deluxe accommodations and high-end entertainment in a western setting—if the Flamingo had a “first,” it would be for being the first to abandon the dude ranch aesthetic for a more cosmopolitan style.” – Culture Trip

I will soon delve into another significant inaccuracy on this topic which is titled Major Inaccuracy #3.

“The Flamingo was going to be, if you will, this kind of Southern California or Miami, Florida, kind of nightclub,” Gragg said, “very, very different” from the El Rancho Vegas and Hotel Last Frontier. – The Mob Museum

Major Inaccuracy #2: Did Virginia Hill Embezzel $2 Million from the Construction Budget of the Flamingo?

One of the enormous and unforgivable inaccuracies in the movie is that Virginia Hill embezzled and took 2 million dollars of investors’ money and hid it in a Swiss bank account. In the film, Mickey Cohen tells this to Bugsy Siegel as if it is a proven fact. If this were known to be a fact by the mob, Hill would have been killed. So that is just one reason we know this did not happen. The movie then extends the inaccuracy with a scene where Hill comes to Siegel in a tear-filled conversation and shows him the receipt for the funds in the Swiss bank. Siegel then tears up the receipt and tells her not to say anything and that they can save the money for a rainy day. This is also far-fetched, as the cost overruns on the Flamingo Hotel were a significant source of contention between Siegel and his investors. It is doubtful that a man of Siegel’s violent temper would have taken the news this way. Furthermore, Hill had a long history since she was 19 of being very trusted by the Mob (she was connected to the Chicago mob, and Siegel was the East Coast mob).

So she followed the rules.

The most likely explanation for the budget on the Flamingo growing from $1 million to $6 million is severalfold.

• The $1 million estimate was not created by Siegel (as shown in the movie, but by Wilkerson, who began the Flamingo project).
• Building materials were scarce and expensive due to the war.
• Siegel had no experience as a property developer, and his original estimate was just a guess. Siegel was a terrible manager, a profligate spender, and undisciplined. Siegel was also incompetent and did not account for spending nor did he have a grasp for many of the technical topics required to manage a construction.

Meyer Lansky supported Seigel in managing the Flamingo development. Lansky was considered a quite smart, but he let his friendship with Siegel get in the way of knowing that Siegel could not do that job and had no background.

Siegel had all kinds of apparent impulse control issues. He was extremely violent; he was a sex addict, they sort of show these impulse control issues in the movie.

Major Inaccuracy #3: Was the Flamingo Siegel’s Idea?

One of the most shocking inaccuracies, which again is not only presented in the movie but is presented as part of Las Vegas history through numerous sources, is that the Flamingo was not Siegel’s idea.

This is explained in the following quotation.

“The concept for the Flamingo originally came from Billy Wilkerson, founder of The Hollywood Reporter and owner of a number of Sunset Strip hot spots including Ciro’s. Wilkerson wanted to bring the glamour of Hollywood and Monte Carlo to Vegas, with a “French casino” and bidets in the bathrooms. When Wilkerson ran into financial trouble, he accepted a loan from Meyer Lansky’s New York mob, and soon, Siegel arrived to “represent” the outfit’s interests. The two soon came into conflict, and Wilkerson realized it might be easier—and safer—to sell off his interest to Siegel” – Culture Trip

This is also explained in this quotation.

A compulsive gambler, Wilkerson had been going to Las Vegas since the late 1930s, drawn to the action in legal casinos. A friend suggested that since he visited the place so often on gambling excursions, he should build a casino there, where he could gamble, but also own the house, said historian Larry Gragg, author of Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel: The Gangster, the Flamingo, and the Making of Modern Las Vegas, published in 2015.

That suggestion inspired Wilkerson, but he didn’t want his project to fall in line with the Old West theme popular in Southern Nevada at the time. Wilkerson labeled his planned resort the Flamingo.

“He wanted to bring the element of Southern California lavish nightclubs to Las Vegas to attract that celebrity crowd he was used to, and the high-rollers,” Gragg said. – The Mob Museum

This can be found, but it is not at all common knowledge. Also, Billy Wilkerson is a person who was a serial entrepreneur who came up with many successful ideas. Siegel was a mob enforcer, and Siegel muscled Wilkerson out of the casino and then took credit for Wilkerson’s idea.

Wilkerson’s son, clearly miffed at the inaccurate attribution of the origin of Las Vegas to Siegel rather than his father wrote a book attempting to correct the record. This is a description of the book. 

This book corrects a popular misconception and explains that it was W.R. Billy Wilkerson Jr., founder and publisher of The Hollywood Reporter, and not Benjamin Bugsy Siegel who created the Vegas Strip. This compelling, richly-researched book was written by Billy’s son, W.R. Wilkerson III, and it finally uncovers the secrets behind the building of the Flamingo Hotel and the death of Bugsy Siegel. – Amazon

I would also debate that the Flamingo or any one hotel made Las Vegas. For example, while the Flamingo was the first to go upper end, the Sands, a casino built in 1952, added the idea of big name entertainers, and was of course made popular by bringing in Frank Sinatra and the Rat Pack to perform. Other casinos, like Caesars Palace, and the Bellagio (built much later) all added a different flavor and dimension to Las Vegas. And furthermore, there is an issue with saying that the Flamingo was something that became common in Las Vegas. I will use the following quote to illustrate this point.

105 beautifully appointed hotel rooms, 150 cottages, health clubs, gymnasiums, steam rooms, tennis, badminton, squash and handball courts, stables with forty head of fine riding stock, a championship AAU specification swimming pool, a trap shoot range, nine hold golf course, and nine different shops of national prominence. One hundred thousands have been spent on 50 minds of scotch, the European cooks, French croupiers, who run the Chemin De Fer, the thousands of gallons of straight four year whiskey – Hank Greenspan, Las Vegas Life Magazine for the Flamingo Dec 27 1946

Did other hotels that followed the Flamingo have these things? Is this the type of hotel that followed the Flamingo? The answer is no because these things are two upper end, and therefore, only a small percentage of the population can afford this type of cost. Las Vegas went high end again, but it was many decades later.

My view is also that Vegas has been ruined by overbuilding and by making the Strip look like Manhattan. So, there are not only those casinos and hotels that have added to Las Vegas, but those who have detracted from what is Las Vegas today.

Major Inaccuracy #4: Did Siegel Have Little Experience in Las Vegas Before Building the Flamingo?

The movie makes it appear that Siegel was barely in Las Vegas before deciding to build the Flamingo. However, this is incorrect. Siegel came to Las Vegas in 1939 to manage the mob’s wire operation. He intimidated businesses to use the wire service. In 1941, Siegel made and offer to buy the El Rancho. In 1945, Siegel, Gus Greenbaum, Meyer Lansky and Moe Sedway all bought an interest in the El Cortez casino and hotel in Las Vegas. However, in the movie it is presented as if Siegel has to not only convince Lansky and other mobsters to invest in a casino (the Flamingo) but in even doing business in Las Vegas. Furthermore, these men sold the El Cortez to pay for the Flamingo’s construction.

This gets into another major inaccuracy

Major Inaccuracy #5: Did Siegel Have to Convince the Mob to Invest in Las Vegas?

In the movie, Lansky and the mob appear to behave as if building a large or luxury hotel is a completely foreign and new idea. The movie does not say definitively, but appears to propose that the mob had no experience in these types of hotels. And this brings us to the topic of the El Cortez Hotel.

The investment into El Cortez by the mob was in 1945, so before the construction of the Flamingo. (Source: Las Vegas Review) This was the first luxury hotel in Las Vegas in 1941. Although it was smaller in scale. Therefore both a luxury hotel and much larger hotels on the strip already existed before the Flamingo was constructed. 

The investment in the El Cortez is what caused Wilkerson to join forces with Gus Greenbaum and Moe Sedway as they had experience running a casino, and eventually lead to Wilkerson meeting Siegel. A major reason for Wilkerson’s idea for the Flamingo was due to him staying at the El Rancho, and wanting to build a hotel that did not follow the western theme.

All of this is explained in this excellent video.

Major Inaccuracy #6: Was Siegel Killed Due to a Combination of Theft by Victoria Hill and the Flamingo Opening Poorly?

The first claim made by the movie and other sources is that the mob was unhappy with the combination of embezzlement by Victoria Hill and a poor opening at the Flamingo. There are many problems with this hypothesis. I have addressed the first issue of embezzlement already, and while there are suspicions, there is no significant evidence that Hill embezzled, and there is no evidence of a Swiss bank account with $2 million in it. Also, in terms of skimming, the mob was more concerned about Siegel than Hill, so the movie mixes up the suspicions, and transfer them from Siegel to Hill. Siegel is presented as a “dreamer” who does not care that much about money. Given Siegel’s history of proliferate spending, that is a bit difficult to buy. One thing that is true is that Siegel was very poor at accounting for money, but that is not the same as not caring about money. From his earliest years back in New York he used his criminal proceeds money to buy flashy clothes and cars.

Now I will address the second part of the claim, which concerns cost overruns and the Flamingo opening. The movie makes it seem he was killed immediately after the casino had a poor turnout during the opening of the Flamingo. The Flamingo did open poorly, but Siegel was not killed anywhere near this time. The Flamingo opened in Dec 1946. And Bugsy was killed in June of 1947.

Furthermore, while the casino started slowly, and it had many bugs due to mostly incompetence on the part of Siegel, and was not ready to open when it did as many parts of the casino, like the rooms for example were not complete. This is explained in the following quotation.

Another problem was that the casino floor at the Flamingo had opened before the resort’s 100 guest rooms were ready. For some visitors, it was an inconvenience to spend an evening at the Flamingo and then drive to another hotel for the night.

“Not enough people were coming from out of town to fill up the casino,” Gragg said, “and if they did come, there were no hotel rooms yet.” – The Mob Museum

The Flamingo had picked up by April of 1947 and was profitable and looked to be a success. Not only was the Flamingo successful by this point, but as with many mob-owned casinos that followed the Flamingo, it created a vibrant opportunity for money laundering. Curiously the Flamingo was sold just a month after Siegel’s death –and to a owner named Morris Rosen who was a Jewish adjacent (Lansky, Siegel, and others in this group are often incorrectly categorized as Italians, but they were Jewish as is obvious from their last names – although their last names were changed during the immigration process. Siegel name before immigrating to the US was Siegelbaum). Rosen also bought the El Rancho. This was part of a strategy that the mob began to use after the Siegel murder. Rather than placing high profile mobsters at the head of a casino they owned, they used front men. The Flamingo sold for $3 million, Lansky, Sedway and Greenbaum continued to hold stock in the Flamingo (Greenbaum and his wife would be killed in a mob hit in their Phoenix home in 1958.) Lansky in particular held his stock in the Flamingo for decades. In fact Lansky would eventually have partial ownership in nearly all the major casinos on the Las Vegas Strip.

This video does a very good job of covering how the Desert Inn, a later strip casino also had a front man named Wilbur Clark, whose name was even on the sign. This is the first hotel that was purchased by Howard Hughes in 1966, and Las Vegas is where Hughes fell into insanity. 

This topic then broaches into who killed Siegel.

This is a complicated question, which while I was not able to drive to any definitive answer, is a very interesting story.

I have broken out into a separate article at Who Killed Bugsy Siegel and Why Was He Killed?

Conclusion

Overall, the movie Bugsy scores poorly for accuracy. The screenplay by Toback appears to have not been well researched, and many of the changes made to the script do not make the story more interesting but seek to simplify the story. I never read Toback’s book, and no one has. It was lost before publication, so I can’t say how much the script was changed from that book — but I did read that the movie had to be cut down from 3.5 hours in script time to 2.5 hours. This may have led to Toback changing things to be simpler, which was inaccurate but brought the movie into the studio’s time demands.

Overall, provides a great deal of inaccuracy. First the movie plays into the myth that Siegel was an innovator when the idea and even the name of the Flamingo were not his. This fits with a historical pattern I have observed in many attributions of attributing inventions to people who are prominent but took ideas from other people. One example Henry Ford did not invent the assembly line, he instead took the idea from other car companies that be visited in the Detroit area. He may have made improvements, but assembly lines existed before Ford built his. Thomas Edison was more of an exploiter of other people’s inventions than an inventory himself. He did not invent the lightbulb, but he tested many filaments to find the best material that would burn bright, but also last a long time. There is some common desire to simplify the history of innovations and attribute them to a single individual. Once this fake story gets embedded into the consciousness, it seems to stay there and even when later books are published that are more accurate, the original presented stories seem to take precedence.

Secondly, the behavior of Siegel as an innovator (which is either completely false or greatly exaggerated depending upon your view) is used to whitewash Siegel’s behavior.

I found this list of Siegel’s criminal activity.

Siegel’s Criminal Charges by 21 Years of Age

• Armed Robbery
• Bookmaking
• Bootlegging
• Drug Dealing
• Hijacking
• Murder
• Rape
• White Slavery

At 21 years of age, Siegel was just getting started, and Siegel was killed at 41 years of age. Siegel was constantly killing, threatening to kill and otherwise bullying people.

What is the interest in rehabilitating and even celebrating this man? (Source YouTube)

Siegel came out to California in 1937. And while a known gangster he was accepted by many top Hollywood actors and others that worked in the industry. It was not until he was brought up on murder charges that he was finally shunned by these elite.

What did they think Siegel did before he was indicted?

Therefore Toback and the rest of the Bugsy production seemed intent on aggrandizing a hitman and mob thug. My view on this is well encapsulated by the following quote.

The Bugsy image is not something that was particularly endearing to the Flamingo or Hilton. We’re talking about a robber, rapist, murderer. These are not endearing qualities. We want to remember the history of the Flamingo without glamorizing it. We’ve made a conscious decision to distance ourselves from the Bugsy heritage. – Terry Lindberg, Flamingo Hilton Spokesman – Las Vegas Sun December 20, 1996