|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Murder By Decree (1979)
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: Specific Titles:
Film / Movies (Fiction):
Murder By Decree (1979)
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Thursday, 19 November 1998 - 08:51 pm |        | Murder by Decree
Director: Bob Clark, Canada/UK. 1979
Starring: Christopher Plummer, James Mason.
An unusually interesting production, Murder By Decree still falls nevertheless to the inevitable category of "don't go out of your way to see this film" so common to the Ripper genre. Admittedly, it is more successful than most others which have followed it, but as those who have seen these "films" must know, this isn't saying much.
Once again, the plot involves the Royal Conspiracy theory set forward by Sickert, although the names of Gull, Netley, and a number of others go by different names (surprisingly not Annie Crook for some reason, who goes by her own name). To give it a twist, the usual Sherlock Holmes connection is thrown in for good measure, and he becomes our valiant hero.
I won't bore the reader with the details of the movie, as they follow the usual plot almost to a tee, but suffice it to say that Holmes eventually discovers the harrowing truth. In a surprisingly successful final scene, Holmes confronts the Freemasonic Prime Minister with his knowledge. He agrees not to say a word as long as Annie Crook's daughter is not harmed.
The cast is of fairly good calibur, and the plot holds together nicely. Definitely recommended as one of the best in an admittedly shallow group, especially for Holmes fans. |
Author: Bill Warren
Monday, 19 April 1999 - 08:47 pm | | As a Ripper movie, this is about average, and, in fact, that's how it should be judged overall.
Furthermore, while Christopher Plummer mkaes a very good Holmes, he's not one of the greatest, up there with Peter Cushing, Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett.
However, Plummer and James Mason, as Watson, make the best Holmes-Watson TEAM in movie history. You can see more clearly the affection between the two, and how each must put up with the other -- in short, the entire basis of their relationship -- than in any other film. Their scenes together make the movie worth seeing for anyone interested in Holmes. |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Monday, 19 July 1999 - 06:08 pm | |  |
Author: Jane T.
Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 06:13 pm | | Even though the Royal Conspiracy theories make good fiction only, I found this an above average film compared to some of Hammer Horror type efforts. I must say I thought it was earlier than 1979, I could have sworn I saw it advertised with the date 1973.
Best of all this film is what started my fascination with the Ripper in the first place. |
Author: Cindy Collins Smith
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 11:49 am | | Okay, let me respond to some of these comments.
Jane: The film's date is definitely 1979. It was made in the same year as TIME AFTER TIME. It was kind of an interesting year for these fanciful sorts of Ripper creations. In this one, Sherlock Holmes goes after Jack the Ripper. In TIME AFTER TIME, H.G. Wells goes after Jack the Ripper. I think that sort of stuff is a lot of fun.
Bill: I disagree that it's an average Ripper film. I'd say it's above average, but not the great Ripper movie that a lot of horror genre fans think it is. In other words, it's not the 1944 LODGER. I agree, though, with your take on the acting. Plummer is good, but not AS good as the "classic" Sherlocks you mention. But Plummer and Mason together are AWESOME though. And I love that scene where Watson "saves the day" for the Prince of Wales. He's just SUCH a royalist. :-)
Stephen: It's interesting that you and I have a completely different reaction to the final scene. For me, the final scene is the film's weak point. Holmes breaks character and becomes a saccharine sentimentalist. I mean, isn't there even a tear in his eye at one point? And then there's that slushy violin that keeps setting him up to make some heart-rending point. It just doesn't work for me. I prefer my Holmes to be a bit more emotionally detached during the presentation of his solution.
I would add to this discussion, by the way, that this is only the second Ripper film I know of (and I know almost the entire Ripper oeuvre) to mention the victims by name. It's the first to de-glamorize them. So it is QUITE significant in the history of Ripper cinema for that reason alone.
In earlier Ripper cinema, the victims were always presented as far more glamorous than they were in real life. And of course, with the exception of the LULU films, they were never actually prostitutes until 1965's A STUDY IN TERROR. They had been blondes, young women, actresses, dance hall girls. There's even a kind of randomness in JACK THE RIPPER (1959) about the victims (basically, any woman the killer runs into and asks his question of).
It took all the way to 1979 before we saw a string of Ripper killings in which the victims were poverty-stricken East End prostitutes. In 1929's PANDORA'S BOX, Lulu's appetites have made her destitute, and she's going out to turn some tricks. But this is actually her first night "on the job" in London. She's not an established London prostitute. And she still has all her youthful vigor and glamour.
So MURDER BY DECREE is the first Ripper feature film to treat the victims at least somewhat realistically. |
Author: John Hacker
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 01:56 pm | | Coincidentally, Murder by Decree was released today on DVD in the US. It features an anamorphic widescreen transfer of the film, as well as a commentary by the director.
It should available pretty much everywhere that stocks new releases. I picked up a copy at my local Best Buy for 14.99.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Mark Andrew Pardoe
Monday, 27 January 2003 - 07:45 pm | | Whatho all,
I think the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes films are dreadful. The portrayal of Watson as a bumbling idiot is a travesty. Mr Rathbone was better employed as the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Cheers, Mark (Holmes purist)
ps. Nowhere in the stories is Holmes ever described as wearing a deerstalker, furthermore he had a collection of pipes and did not stick to just one design. |
Author: judith stock
Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 12:17 am | | Dear Mark,
I agree wholeheartedly! Holmes would NEVER have put up with Nigel Bruce as Watson! If he were as smart as we have been led to believe, having a totally stupid Watson around would have driven him nuts!
James Mason, as Watson opposite Christopher Plummer, has a great deal of charm; he is, however, pretty foggy, too. I just don't believe Holmes suffered fools lightly, and most of the Watson portrayals have been foolish.
I'd like to know if you like the Jeremy Brett Holmes as much as I do? The BBC series, with Brett and the two Edwards (both as Watson), is waaaaay high up on my list of great portrayals. At least Watson isn't a total git!
J |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 01:56 am | | Hi, Mark and Judith
I haven't seen the Jeremy Brett portrayals, but there was a pretty entertaining production of 'Hound of the Baskervilles' on last week (I never did catch who was in the cast). I thought the actor playing Watson did a great job (and he was a younger man, as was Watson in the early stories--in 'A Study in Scarlet', Watson is fresh from military service in Afghanistan). And it's true, Watson was no fool, although he did have the odd moment, like this one from 'The Adventure of the Empty House' (Holmes and Watson are casing 221B Baker Street from an empty room across the street, awaiting an attempt on Holmes's life. Holmes has erected a wax bust of himself in the window of 221B to fool the assassins. Watson is flabbergasted when he sees the dummy move):
"'The shadow has moved!' I cried.
"Three years had certainly not smoothed the asperities of his temper or his impatience with a less active intelligence than his own.
"'Of course it has moved," said he. "Am I such a farcical bungler, Watson, that I should erect an obvious dummy, and expect that some of the sharpest men in Europe would be decieived by it? We have been in this room two hours, and Mrs. Hudson (Holmes's landlady) has made some change in that figure eight times, or once in every quarter of an hour.'"
I love this scene, it's one of the few times you see Holmes really put out with Watson. 
Great point, Mark about Holmes's pipe collection--I don't believe he ever smoked a calabash, but they're so theatrical. I think the choice originated with one of the early theatre productions and just got picked up when Holmes made the transition to the screen.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Paula Wolff
Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 09:52 am | | Oh, boy! I am a big Jeremy Brett fan. He was the best Sherlock and I really liked his Watson. Not too dumb. Poor Nigel Bruce, always made to look so stupid and he wasn't. I watched the new Hound of the Baskervilles and was NOT impressed with Holmes as he didn't do anything!!! Watson was good. I wish Jeremy was still with us; his was a great loss to Holmesana (?).
But you have to admit that the deerstalker looks so detectiveish.
Ta,
Paula |
Author: Paula Wolff
Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 09:57 am | | And, Mark, you are right about Basil being a great sheriff of Nottingham. I love that sword fight with Errol. Good job, I thought!
He wasn't even too bad as Sherlock, but as you said not with his Watson.
Ta,
Paula |
Author: Mark Andrew Pardoe
Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 07:11 pm | | Whatho all,
It's nice to see you agree with me. I've been banging for years against the Basil Rathbone films. Another Holmes I enjoyed was Peter Cushing in the television series from the sixties. If I remember correctly Nigel Stock was Dr John H Watson in those.
I even have dim memories of the radio programmes of the fifties. Carlton Hobbs was Holmes and Norman Shelly Watson. Mr Shelly also played the radio Winnie the Pooh!
A point of information; the Jeremy Brett series were made by Granada and not the BBC. Granada built a special set for Baker Street which, I think, still exists. It's just around the corner from the Coronation Street set.
The Brett programmes were incredible. I was pleased to see great chunks of dialogue were lifted from the original stories although it was redistributed between Holmes and Watson usually giving John more to say thus making him seem even cleverer.
Cheers, Mark reaching for his Bradshaw, the game's afoot |
Author: judith stock
Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 08:32 pm | | You're right, Mark....another senior moment strikes! It WAS Granada, not the Beeb. But, whomever did the series, Brett was stupendous, and I like that the producers didn't mess about too much with story lines.....I HATE THAT!
PAULA......I even tracked down a tape of Brett in REBECCA....it was on TV once, and then disappeared into the abyss.....but with the help of a great friend in Cambridge, and another in British Columbia, I can watch Jeremy as Max de Winter any time I want! AND, they stuck to the original story, too! Can't tell I'm a purist, can you?
OK, here's a purist's question for all those movie makers, past and present (YOU KNOW the ones I mean..the ones that screw it up every chance they get): WHAT about these murders isn't exotic, mysterious, dangerous, bloody, frightening, scary, heart-stopping enough for you?? WHY is it necessary to change the story?? This is THE mystery of all time, and they can't get it right, EVEN ONCE! AAARRRGGGHHH!
J |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 05:53 am | | I agree with you Judith, handed to them on a plate, thats what it was/is. They don't have to have a solution to make a good historical film.
Tell it how it was!!!
Rick |
Author: stephen stanley
Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 10:31 am | | Why do they change the story?..Because the public want to know "whodunnit"...& the conspiracy theory makes the best story(..Murder by Decree, The mini-series,From Hell...anyone would think there were no other theories), JTR hasn't suffered much more than other historical figures & events(why my wife won't come to the pictures when it's historical..says I embarrass her...)
Steve |
Author: Mark Andrew Pardoe
Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 02:19 pm | | Whatho Judith,
I can hear your scream from here. They will never get it right whilst they insist in bringing in sensationalist claptrap.
The story is mysterious enough but which actor would you choose to portray Jack? What did he really look like? Or would it be better just to infer Jack and never show him?
Cheers, Mark the pedant |
Author: judith stock
Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 03:47 pm | | Rick, Stephen and Mark...THANK YOU!! I thought I was the only one who felt the story is MORE than interesting enough just as it stands! I KNOW the conspiracy theories are a lot sexier, and that everyone wants an ending, but a lot of great movies have no ending...they allow the viewer to decide.. ....besides, how do you end this one? The killings just stopped. I do think that if done properly, the Ripper should never be actually seen as doing the nasty. He should be a shadow figure, and the audience would see the victims from his point of view, not as a third party viewing the action. I have my own idea about an ending, but think I'll keep that to myself and the screenplay I'll write someday........
My husband HATES to go see historical movies with me, too, Stephen!! All I do is bitch about how they got it wrong!
Cheers,
J |
Author: Esther Wilson
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 10:45 am | | I love the Jeremy Brett series of Sherlock Holmes shows from the BBC. Out of all the movies and shows that I've watched about SH......his would be the best in my opinion.
Esther |
Author: judith stock
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 11:20 am | | Esther, we agree about Brett; I think his Holmes will stand the test of time, whereas Rathbone's seems a caricature now. If you REALLY want to see a blast from the past, go rent MY FAIR LADY, and see Jeremy Brett as Freddy Aynsford (sp?)-Hill singing "On the Street Where You Live"....it's kind of like watching Hercule Poirot burst into a rendition of "I'll Be Watching You"!!!!
J |
|
|
|
|
