|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Archive through 19 September 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: Specific Titles:
Film / Movies (Fiction):
From Hell (2001):
Archive through 19 September 2001
Author: Scott Weidman
Monday, 10 September 2001 - 09:28 pm |        | Thanks, Ally, your point has been well taken. Obviously, I'm new to this sort of format. I'll try to play by the rules next time. I suppose I am a bit hyper-sensitive at times. Thanks for being so understanding. You seem to be a very cool person and it's a shame you won't be able to attend the conference in Bournemouth. And, yes, multitudinous a wailing still echo across the world in regards to your not being able to attend, mine included. Maybe next time?
Take care.
Scott |
Author: Phil Beers
Thursday, 13 September 2001 - 03:03 am | | Hi all,
In reading the posts, I gather From Hell is another re-telling of the Royal conspiracy. Is that correct? I was also wondering if its based on the serialized book/comic(?) written by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell of the same name. Or, is it possibly a remake of Murder by Decree? For that matter, didn't Michael Caine do something similar fairly recently? (I think it was called, uniquely enough, Jack the Ripper...
Curiously,
Phil Beers |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Friday, 14 September 2001 - 11:45 am | | I saw From Hell at the Toronto Film Festival the other day, (The story of how I got tickets to see the film is an epic in itself and best left told over a couple of pints in some Bournemouth pub, hint, hint. Suffice to say that I will not be attending the Film Festival again in the foreseeable future, or until Battlecrease opens here.)
First off, I'm not going to reveal the ending of the film, (which caused me to literally say out loud "what the f*** !!!???"). I know that rumors about the ending have caused some consternation and many of you probably have questions regarding this point but I think that when the film finally opens to the general public you should just sit back and try and enjoy the Hughes' brothers ride. I'm also not going to reveal who the Ripper is, although anyone who has read From Hell, the graphic novel, will know the answer and many of you can probably guess.
I'm going to break this up into three parts, the film, the story and the facts. First the film.
The film, From Hell, is visually stunning. From the filth and degradation of Whitechapel to the wealth of Victorian high society, the film strikes an incredibly realistic tone. Sets and costumes were, for the most part, marvellous. My one quibble being with the Hollywood version of what East end prostitutes wore. Here they are dressed like a sort of feathered dance hall girl rather than dressed in the drab and dirty clothing that they actually did wear. This, however, is a minor quibble. Some scenes, such as a time laps film segment around the body of Polly Nichols in which we see several hours of the comings and goings of police in mere seconds, were fascinating to watch, while others, the death of Elizabeth Stride for example, were incredibly violent (this is not a movie for children). The acting was wonderful especially Johnny Depp as Abberline and Robbie Coltrane as a Scottish accented, Shakespear quoting Detective Sergeant Godley.
The story:
One might think that this is a movie version of the graphic novel From Hell. In many ways you would be wrong and I suspect that anyone who really loved the novel will be greatly disappointed in this film. Gone is the intricate and richly layered gothic tale. Gone are the glimpses into the lives of all those who make up the story. Gone is the psychological study of a killers descent into madness. Gone are his visions, his apparent shifts in time and space, and indeed almost his whole role in the story, one that was fundamental to the novel, (the only time that the movie even comes close to the novel is with Abberline's visions and with the final murder in which the Ripper's mind seems to let go in front of us. These scenes are wonderful). What we are left with is merely another telling of the Royal/Masonic conspiracy theory put forth as a who done it and for those of you who are fans of the theory, the gangs all here. Annie Crook and her daughter Alice, Prince Eddy (here called Albert), coachman John Netley, a kindly and infirm Dr. William Gull, Sir Charles Warren and various other officials in their masonic aprons even the famous grapes are used. It is clear that the Hughes Brothers have also studied Stephen Knight's book, Jack the Ripper, The Final Solution and the whole Sickert story. At one point we see hanging on the killers wall a copy of Hogarth's The Reward of Cruelty and in another scene the Ripper enters Mary Kelly's room and sits on her bed in a recreation of Sickert's, the Camden Town Murder.
In an attempt to match the richness and intricacy of the novel we are also introduced to several characters, some very briefly, who may or may not have had something to do with the crimes. Sir Frederick Treves introducing Joseph Merrick, the Elephant Man, to a group of wealthy patrons at a London Hospital fund-raiser; members of the Nichols gang extorting tribute from the six prostitutes (Tabram is included with the canonical five); the Star reporter, Best, who later claimed to have written some of the Jack the Ripper letters; Drs. Phillips and Bond; John McCarthy as a stringy haired lout; Israel Schwartz as a very Orthodox looking Jew; George Lusk barging into Abberline's office to plunk down a kidney and demand action, (proving once and for all that this was not Catharine Eddowes' kidney as she was still alive at that point in the film!), as well as a couple of major characters who are fictionalized. One, a brash young surgeon who may be loosely based on Dr Theodore Dyke Acland, and also a powerful and shady Special Branch Inspector named Kidney.
From Hell seems to land somewhere between the story lines of the film, Murder by Decree and the Thames Television mini series, Jack the Ripper. Although a very much better film than the cartoonish mini series that starred Michael Caine, From Hell seems to owe much to this version. Based as it is on Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell's graphic novel, this is, of course, inescapable but From Hell, the novel, is so much more than this tired story line. From Hell, the film, however, is not. Like the mini series we have the story of Inspector Frederick George Abberline's investigation into the Whitechapel murders aided by his faithful sidekick, Detective Sergeant Godley. In both versions, Abberline seems to be surrounded by suspects and in both versions he seeks the advice of the kindly doctor Sir William Gull. Both versions also incorporate a love story between Abberline and a woman, in this case Mary Kelly, (there is no Joe Barnett in this film just as there is no John Kelly. All the women are alone and friendless.) What is added here is a version of the Royal/Masonic conspiracy that was the story line of Murder by Decree along with that films dark style and beauty so that the look and feel of From Hell is very much like that of the Canadian film starring Christopher Plummer. If you liked Murder by Decree then you will love From Hell.
The facts:
Here is the part that makes one think of a Trekkie disappointed with some latest Star Trek film, (as one Canadian comedian put it, don't go see Star Trek V on opening day unless you want to be surrounded by people who haven't left their basements since Star Trek IV. They'll sit there with graphs and charts and yell things at the screen like, "Hey!! The Enterprise can't reach that speed in that type of atmosphere!!!").
From Hell is a Hollywood film. It is supposed to be entertaining and it is especially supposed to make money and lots of it. Certain constraints are therefor placed on the facts and the truth becomes secondary to "the story". Just as Moore and Campbell used the Sickert/Knight story as a frame work to tell their tale the Hughes brothers have used the Moore/Campbell story as a frame work to tell theirs. Will the average person notice the many glaring errors in the film? No. Will the average person wonder why Elizabeth Stride has become a lesbian in this film? Probably not. Will it bother the average person that as a plot twist Johnny Depp's Inspector F.G. Abberline is a drug addict who smokes opium and who takes Laudanum with his Absinthe and who has psychic visions of the murders? No, of course not, this only adds to "the story". Here is an excerpt from a movie magazine that should give us a glimpse of what the average person will now come to believe. Written by David Giammarco for Marquee Magazine he has this to say to the general public: Depp plays Inspector Fred Abberline, the real-life detective in charge of the case, who was not only an opium addict but was also plagued by debilitating psychic visions of the horrific crimes." So Abberline has now gone from Michael Caine's drunken sot to Johnny Depp's opium addict.
This was one of the major factual errors in a film that is littered with errors big and small but it is an error that is purposely made by the Hughes brothers for effect. Some of the errors are meaningless and in no way detract from the film, (the Lusk kidney I have already discussed, also the name Jack the Ripper being used before the publication of the Dear Boss letter), Some errors do not advance "the story" and are simply sloppy. Martha Tabram is murdered in such a way as to suggest that the Ripper was responsible and indeed we are told that her throat was cut and her uterus, (Godley says "her livelyhood"), was removed. Later we are told by Abberline that she was killed by a different hand and was not part of the series. So, who killed Martha Tabram? We are to infer that she was murdered by the Nichols Gang who are extorting money from the six women but it would have been much less confusing if they had merely stuck to the facts surrounding Tabram's death, (on second thought, why even mention Tabram?)
I was also annoyed with the way that Dr Phillips was portrayed. The character becomes an amalgam of Drs. Killeen, Llewellyn and Phillips which is an understandable decision in a two hour film but he is portrayed as a fat, high-strung and excitable buffoon. When Godley tells him to show Abberline the wounds of Martha Tabram he blows up telling Godley, "You show him! I don't want to have to look at that again!" (Or words to that effect). Later when Polly Nichols is lying in the mortuary Abberline throws back her skirts exposing her wounds, (this causes a mortuary attendant to faint) and then blithely asks Phillips for a list of whatever is missing. "Missing?" asks Phillips, "Yes, she has been disemboweled and it looks as if certain organs have been removed." This then causes Dr Phillips to start gagging and retching. This character assassination is used as a plot devise to force Abberline to seek expert medical opinion from the kindly Dr Gull but it leaves the truth, (such as Abberline's involvement with the Tabram murder inquiry, the extent of the wounds to both Tabram and Nichols and the character of Dr Phillips), very far behind.
In the end, if one forgives the many errors and ignores the absurdity of the Royal/Masonic conspiracy and forgets that they are supposed to be watching a filmed version of an excellent graphic novel, they will find that this is a rather enjoyable film, one which I can't wait to see again. Will the film be a success? I would bet on it just as I would bet on an influx of new Ripper enthusiasts who will inundate us with their questions, beliefs and "facts" regarding the film and its story line.
Wolf. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 14 September 2001 - 04:42 pm | | Dear Wolf,
An excellent review!
Rosey :-) |
Author: Tom Wescott
Friday, 14 September 2001 - 05:38 pm | | Wolf,
For once Rosey makes complete sense. Ha ha. That was an excellent review. Thanks for satisfying my growing curiosity a bit. Also, as a side note let me add that I've read quite a bit around the murder of Mary Kelly and consider your article in the last issue of RN to be the final word on the subject. I imagine it will be quoted in quite a few books in the future (my own included, of course .
Scott,
Thank you very much for the kind words in regards to my articles in RN. I hope you will become a subscriber and contributor as well. Let me point out that although RN is published in America by Americans, it should not be considered to be the 'American point of view' on the case. Many, if not most, of the contributors are from other countries, mainly England, just as Ripperologist boasts many American writers.
As to Jack-The Musical, I've got a little extra money now and perhaps it's time I see what all the fuss is about. Be sure to give us all a review of the live production once you've seen it.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Kevin Braun
Saturday, 15 September 2001 - 12:29 pm | | Wolf,
Probably the best review we will see of "From Hell".
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Monday, 17 September 2001 - 11:48 am | | To Rosemary, Kevin and especially Tom, I thank you for your kind words. Tom, I also thank you for your very generous assessment of my article in Ripper Notes, it was much appreciated. To Mr. Carter, please do not go see this film, as I said it is not for children. To those of you who will be attending the Bournemouth Conference, I will probably be speaking more on the movie, From Hell as part of Saturday mornings panel discussion, Jack the Ripper, the foreign view, along with Christopher George and Eduardo Zinna. Please don't hesitate to come up and say hello.
Wolf. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 18 September 2001 - 12:55 am | | Wolf,
Keep up the great research! Any more articles planned? As for the conference (which I will regrettably be missing) why is Chris George on a panel of foriegners? He's an American. YOU CAN'T CALL US AMERICANS FORIEGNERS!!!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 18 September 2001 - 11:09 am | | Hi, Tom and Wolf:
Actually I am both British and American, having been born in Liverpool, England, but am now an American citizen and resident of Baltimore. Tom, I believe Paul Begg and Adam Wood plan the Saturday morning panel as meaning a "furrin" perspective for the mostly Brits who will be in attendance! 
Wolf, I will be very pleased to meet you and to share the panel with you. We should have an interesting discussion with Eduardo, I believe, that should be lively and enlightening for the audience. In line with the conference theme of "Faction," the blending of historical fact with fiction, I for one would like to talk about Hollywood representations of historical events, specifically sparked by the upcoming "From Hell" movie but also other Ripper movies, and ranging I hope into the historical "truth" or should I say historical distortions presented by such movies as "The Patriot" and "Nixon." I really do think there is a very dangerous trend at present whereby filmmakers are presenting historical events and bending the facts to suit themselves. Possibly it has always been that way with moviemakers, but I think the topic merits discussion.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Kevin Braun
Tuesday, 18 September 2001 - 02:34 pm | | Chris,
The fiction, non-fiction dilemma with films, however loosely based on actual events, in recent celluloid history has been a directors, producers and backers nightmare.
"Pearl Harbor" is the most recent example. I hope the Hughes brothers do not go a bridge too far.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: D L Lewis
Wednesday, 19 September 2001 - 02:36 am | | Dear Kevin,
then again 'Saving Private Ryan' or 'Schindlers' List' were inaccurate, but historical, and they made a bomb. it's partly to do with story (shock, horror), but it's also to do with evocation. I guess From Hell will stand or fall on whether it is evocative (in the richest sense, not just in the sets, fog, etc). In other words, does it make you 'feel' like you are there, talking with 'real' people. Until more of us see it, we won't know really... |
Author: Kevin Braun
Wednesday, 19 September 2001 - 01:59 pm | | Dear D L,
Great post. I agree. But 'From Hell' will fail (critcally and financialy) if the Germans win World War II.
Chris,
"sacrificing historical truth for special effects"
Maybe farfetched story lines (in the case of 'Pearl Harbor',etc.)were more of a problem. We will see about 'From Hell'.
Take care guys,
Kevin |
|
|
|
|
