|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Katrina O'Neill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 5:51 am: |       |
Hi
Last Sunday in the UK, there was a biography on JtR that seemed to have some serious flaws in it, even though it said that it consulted the Scotland Yard case files.
Michael Caine was portraying Inspector Abberline as a whiskey drinking alcoholic who spent nights in the cells completely out of it. I couldn’t find any evidence to support this.
Just like I couldn’t find any evidence to say that Spratley and Abberline were trying to withhold information from each other so that they could get the glory for themselves. I couldn’t work this out either. If they were on the same side, they would have tried to help each other.
Can anyone help me work these misinterpretations out?
Thanks.
Kat
|
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 446
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 9:50 am: | |
Yep, that's because it wasn't a biography, it was a movie. Fiction.
-K
Hello Vinny. It's your Uncle Bingo. Time to pay the cheque. |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 184
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 10:22 am: | |
The producers did consult the casefiles , but it was just a film not a biography. They filmed several endings but in the end went with the old ' Royal Conspiracy ' theory. |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 93
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 10:56 am: | |
I'm sure the Royal Conspiracy theory is the most marketable but,damn, I rue the day it was ever thought up.
Or, is it keeping Ripperdom alive (think From Hell) and at least serving to whet the curiosity of newcomers?
Mags |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1414
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 10:58 am: | |
Hi Kristina
I have posted in another thread about this but, briefly, my thoughts are as follows:
I have no problem with any film treatment which uses the Whitechapel murders as a background for a fictional treatment. But what worries me about the 1988 Lorimar version is its claimed "credentials" to have carried out extensive research and to have come up with what it considers to be the "right", or at least most likely answer.
In view of the fact that it follows the "Royal Conspiracy/Freemason" scenario, its claim to have consulted the case files is irrelevant, as there is no mention whatever in any of the official files which substantiate the conspiracy theory in any way.
At least "From Hell" never claimed, to my knowledge, to be historically accurste or to be based on sound research.
I can only assume that scripwriters and directors assume that any film about Jack has to identify the killer at the end of the film. As far as I know, no film has ever been made which followed the facts of the case faithfully. Maybe such a treatment is overdue.
Chris |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1371
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 11:37 am: | |
Chris,
Just to clarify something Im sure you know....
....From Hell is based on Alan Moores & Eddie Campbells graphic novel (regarding the conspiracy) and not the actual murders. You are right in stating that this film never claimed to be historically sound.
They did however call in Stewart Evans to assisted the film makers with such things as scenery etc. Although, I believe such advice (like the out of sequence order with Kates kidney)was ignored by the directors.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about a factual account.....but I fear the ending would be a let down.
Monty
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1122
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 11:50 am: | |
You I don't think the ending would be a let down if it was written in the right way (like say by me!! Kidding on that last bit there)
anyway - i mean its almost write your own ending, clearly mine would have James Maybrick writing a (no that's me kidding again!)
Anyway
Cheers
Jenni
ps Oh RJL mis-portrayal alert!! I happen to know for example RJL had facial hair at that point (check your facts people! ok that's a stupid example i'm in a weird mood!) But the thing is i would mind less if they made less of claiming to be based on facts, and that same loop of music, is it me or is it like Little Britain (sorry to non Uk residents who don't know what I mean!!)
Gee that Ps was longer than the original post
cheers again
Jenni!!
and that's the only Ripper film I own so does that tell you something, I hear there are alternative endings on the dvd release?
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Katrina O'Neill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 7:07 am: | |
Hi.
Thanks guys. I was just thinking that if they claimed to go over the Scotland Yard files they must have also looked over Inspector Abberline’s personnel file as well, but obviously they didn’t. Bit stupid really.
Are there any biographies around that might actually be factual or will they all go with the Freemason’s/Royal conspiracies?
Thanks
Kat
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
