|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 26 October 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: Specific Titles:
Film / Movies (Fiction):
From Hell (2001):
Archive through 26 October 2001
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 04:16 am |        | Sometimes I wonder if this crowd isn't just a bit too greedy! I admired and appreciated "From Hell" despite some of its liberties with the known facts of the case.
As many of us, I have seen countless dozens of recreations of the Whitechapel murders on both television and film. And I can say, without slightest hesitation, that "From Hell" is the most technically accomplished, thoroughly entertaining, and yes, historically accurate version of Ripper fiction.
Now I think it is important to recognize that the movie is a work of fiction. Does anyone really believe the film makers actually believe their resolution of the Abberline/Kelly romance (let alone that one never existed)? This is a plot contrivance and, may I say, as drama it works.
This movie is not supposed to be a docudrama. Yet it does work on several levels. I attended the movie with my brother who is not a Ripper afficianado. Repeatedly during the film, he would lean over to me and say, "Is that true?"
Frequently, I did have to let him down that things didn't actually happen as depicted on film; Abberline addicted to drugs, the countenance and appearance of the prostitutes, witness testimony that contradicts the premise of the film, each victim clutching grape stems etc.
What startled and pleased me were how many times I replied to his inquiries, "Yes, that did occur as shown."
Indeed, the crime scenes were startlingly detailed (admittedly a few errors here and there); more so than any other depiction of the Ripper murders previously on film.
I found myself frequently smiling when certain aspects of the case were depicted accurately but in every other film on the Ripper I have seen are either botched or not even addressed at all. To mention a few examples: how people slept in doss houses, the vision of Israel Schwartz (how often is Schwartz overlooked in a Ripper film!), the set designs of the Hanbury and Miller's Court crime scenes, etc.
Frequently fictionalized as a stalker who slits the throats of his victims and slowly ambles off, here, we have the Ripper's monstrous crimes artfully, tastefully, and for the most part, accurately revealed.
The butchered remains of "Mary Kelly" are astonishingly recreated. Yet it is edited in such a way as to be both incredibly accurate and tolerable for the viewer. The full depiction of this atrocity, never as accurately depicted on film, is not exploitive yet is necessary for the full comprehension of the monstrous crimes of the Ripper (a man who committed violent, savage mutilations - not the frequently indicated slash of the throat followed perhaps by one slit of the abdomen frequently portrayed on film).
This is not to so the film is overly gruesome or gory. Yet the film does give a faithful representation of the acts of these crimes which necessarily is revealing about the kind of man who carried them out.
Were I to compare the history of this movie to any film, I would suggest Oliver Stone's "JFK." Both films are filled with contrivances and inaccuracies. However, they do also contain many facts and images neglected in standard versions.
These films are in the tradition of Shakespeare's "Richard III." This is not to suggest that "From Hell" is Shakespeare. However, these works of art (not history) take certain facts to build a dramatic and fictionalized plot to present a thought-provoking and entertaining look at an ancient mystery.
As to the quality of the fiction in "From Hell," I have to depart from Jon (with whom more often than not, I agree). I found the story energetic and engrossing. The ambiance, to this viewer, was hypnotic and horrifying, somber and sobering. And I disagree utterly and completely with his assessment of the script and performances. But I leave that to other viewers to decide for themselves.
And the film's title "From Hell," is intended as a double entendre. Indeed, it is lifted from a letter purportedly authored by the Ripper meant to reflect the killer's insane view of his own turmoil. But as a working title of this movie it gives and symbolic address to the harrowing, nightmarish existence of Whitechapel denizens (frighteningly and accurately depicted).
Do I believe the film's conclusions? No. Is the portrayal of Jack the Ripper as a shadowy figure in top hat, cape, and gladstone bag inaccurate? Most definately. But does this combination work as Ripper lore and mythology? Absolutely.
I was formerly a regular on these message boards but have not visited for several months. "From Hell" inspired a return visit. I suspected an avalanche of hostility to the movie would come from Ripperologists complaining about inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the story.
The Jack the Ripper case is not only true crime but mythology. Why do experts even refer to the Whitechapel murderer with a nom de plum that is obviously a fake? (Please, no reprimands for mentioning my opinion of the "Dear Boss" letters in the wrong topic heading).
My dear friends, the name "Jack the Ripper," as lore is a much more appealing title for the killer than the contemporary names for the killer prior to September '88; "Whitechapel Murderer" or "Leather Apron."
Had the killer's invented name by a journalist seeking to fictionalize aspects of the case not been so astounding and appealing, these 1888 crimes would never have attained their legendary status or maintained their interest by so many.
In short, the hoaxer who invented the name "Jack the Ripper" contributed greatly to the public's continuing fascination with the crimes.
As former resident contrarian to this site, I wanted to take the chance to praise an exciting piece of fiction, once again visit my old friends, and, perhaps, evoke a bit of debate!
Rich |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 07:00 am | | Hi Rich,
One quick thought, since I had no problem really with the film's historical liberties and inaccuracies (I expected them and figured this movie would be to the Ripper case what the country-western Broadway musical "The Civil War!" was to that war).
You talk about the script. Can you cite even one line that was in any way interesting or memorable, from a writing point of view? Did you think the characters were drawn as humans in any way? And the clichés... "Goodnight Sweet Prince?" Ugh. Anyway, as far as performances go, I could name any one of a million films by comparison to show genuine range and depth and skill, but I'll use your own example -- look at the performances in Richard Loncraine's 1995 film version of Richard III. No Ian McKellens or even Annette Bennings in this one, though. Depp and Graham barely managed to avoid the Keanu-Reeves-as-block-of-wood style of acting and they certainly never produced any real fireworks or chemistry on screen.
But then, they had very little to work with, since the lines in the script -- look at the scenes between Warren and Abberline and then watch any Lethal Weapon or Die Hard or even Beverly Hills Cop or any other movie where the detective's boss calls him on the carpet about "the case" and "the press" -- were the stuff of shallow formula. The writing in these scenes was the sort of thing that's already been parodied on SNL. And the parodies are better. And what was that angelic light of cleanliness that surrounded Heather as she wandered through the filth? I mean, do the directors think we're complete dolts, such that they have to hit us over the head with such visual preaching?
I would have loved even a moment or two of subtlety of some sort -- even in a comic-book movie such things are possible -- at least in terms of the filmmaking skills.
Anyway, that's it for me on the film. It was fun talking about it, but I'm afraid I will forget the movie very quickly.
Thanks, all,
--John |
Author: Kevin Braun
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 10:37 am | | I must agree with Mr. Omlor. From Hell is a silly film. I was left wondering why the Hughes Brothers made the film in the first place. If they were attempting to compare Victorian urban squalor (and all of its ramifications) to the present day hood, they failed miserably. The characters are like stiff composites, with little depth, stereotyped, marginally human.
I firmly believe there is a great JtR film out there somewhere, just waiting to be made. I remember seeing one of the early advertisements of From Hell which compared it to the Brad Pitt Film Seven. I agree Seven is another piece of s***.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 12:53 pm | | Hi Jon and Kevin,
Arguing taste is often a futile assignment. I would agree that "From Hell" is melodrama - but I happened to enjoy this melodrama!
The Hughes brothers, I believe, successfully combined the historical realism of the nightmarish atmosphere of the 1888 Whitechapel District with the unsubtle characterizations of individuals of the era.
Were many of the characters one dimensional and their dialogue cliched? Absolutely. Yet I expected as much from a film whose ambition seems to be on par with the coverage of the Police Gazette at the time.
Yet, Jon, I indeed found memorable several lines of dialogue in the movie. The Ripper's final monologue, in which he refuses to accept judgment by his similiarly ammoral cohorts, "You have no right to judge me." Is that somewhat cliched? Yes. Is it the answer I would actually expect the Ripper to give if confronted in similiar, circumstances? Definitely.
I reveled in the detail of this film so often neglected in other Ripper films.
As but one example I would cite the depiction of Liz Stride's murder. I have seen many films which get half the story right - showing Diemschutz discovery of the body. Yet, as far as I know, this is the first Ripper movie ever to show Israel Schwartz stumble upon one man assaulting Stride and another lurking nearby. The film even got the detail of the epithet Stride's assailant screamed, "Lipski." Have we seen such detail in a Ripper film before?
Perhaps this a half empty/half full argument.
I do not contend the film is history. I agree it is lore. I found the direction to be fabulous, the actors played their parts well (save for Heather Graham who admittedly is miscast), and the script to be fine.
Yet as person who has studied this case for a long time, I would challenge anyone to cite one film that more accurately depicts the murders (admitting the film has several errors).
Has any Ripper film as accurately depicted the yard in which Annie Chapman was discovered - complete with fence, and the one step porch? Or how about the murder of "Mary Kelly"? Has any film ever risked depicting the harrowing nature of this mutilation as has "From Hell"?
These are but a few examples of the quite accurate depictions that kept me interested in this fictionalized plot.
However, I know I am in a minority in my affection for historical fiction. I have had many an argument with my American friends about the dramatic value and license of films such as "JFK" and books such as Gore Vidal's "Lincoln."
As for me, "From Hell" is a film I will remember for quite a long time. I thoroughly enjoyed it as mythology and lore.
Rich |
Author: Ally
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 01:30 pm | | "The dialogue was amateurish and shallow, there was no serious character development of any sort and not a single interesting or dramatic line found its way into the script."
Can anyone cite a line from any movie based on a comic book that isn't shallow and which contains signifigant character development?? It was a slasher flick based on a comic book. Who went in looking for dialogue and development? I really think you were expecting too much from this. It's based on a comic book for yegads sake. We should be glad we didn't get CRASH! ZAP!! POW!!! |
Author: Kevin Braun
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 01:32 pm | | Richard,
You are undoubtedly correct. From Hell is the best made film on the JtR mystery. But that's not saying much.
JFK tries to do too much. Try the BBC's The Men Who Killed Kennedy.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 02:08 pm | | Hi Kevin,
Thanks for the suggestion of the BBC's "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." I saw a British production of the same title here in America. It was a documentary that suggested a Corsican conspiracy. Is this the film to which you refer?
I found that film very interesting up to its own conclusion of the mystery. Perhaps this is a necessary problem with any fiction or fact based material based upon an unresolved controversy - those with a different opinion will necessarily be disappointed in its findings.
Take care!
Thanks,
Rich |
Author: Kevin Braun
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 04:11 pm | | Rich,
The Men Who Killed Kennedy, is based on the very, very hard to get novel by Steven Rivel. The plot is hatched in New Orleans (hello Scott). According to the novel, Carlos Marchello through Santo Traficanti, hires three Corsican hit men. Lucian Sarte using a hollow tipped bullit, fires the fatal head shot from the infamous Grassy Knoll.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 04:29 pm | | Hi Ally,
Fine. Then we are in agreement about the film's predictability, shallowness, amateurish and clichéd writing, forgettable use of music, sloppy and boring editing, and awkward lighting -- but we dismiss it all because "it's only a comic-book."
Well, then, I agree. It was a comic-book of a film and it was made with little or no apparent attempt to be anything more professional or accomplished. I don't particularly like many comic books either, so perhaps that explains my impatience with the hackneyed dialogue and the high-school Shakespeare references and the obvious-from-a-mile-away plot devices ("Gee, I wonder what they're gonna' use that French girl for?")
It was, then, and I agree, a film apparently and primarily aimed at fairly mindless adolescents.
And, by the way, there are more interesting lines, more significant and even profound moments, more glimpses of humanity and more real truths in each and every episode of The Simpsons than there were in this whole movie. And that's animated.
And this was hardly a "slasher flick." The actual violence was not just banal and timid, it was actually mundane, and it had no real effect and there wasn't a single moment of genuine terror or suspense in the whole film.
But really, I guess I'm not used to seeing mainstream Hollywood films (I don't see that many anymore). Because if this one passes as interesting, then I can't imagine what the "boring" ones are like. As I've mentioned, I'm certainly glad I could see the new Lynch film the next day and see something genuinely provocative.
All right, I'm off to take a nap.
--John |
Author: Ally
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 04:46 pm | | John,
Yes it was aimed at a shallow and juvenile audience and therefore all of us who enjoyed it are shallow and juvenile. Thank you for your analysis and for once again dissecting everything down to its tiniest most insignifigant details and wringing every last drop of entertainment out of something for the sole purpose of lofty analytical analysis. Can't tell you how much we appreciate it.
Perhaps rather than being aimed at mindless adolescents, it was aimed at people who have enough fiber in their diets to be able to enjoy the mundane things in life.
Ally |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 04:54 pm | | Hi Ally.
You write:
"Yes it was aimed at a shallow and juvenile audience and therefore all of us who enjoyed it are shallow and juvenile."
Now, now. This "therefore" is completely out of place. I enjoy lots of things aimed at a shallow and juvenile audience -- half-hour sitcoms from the sixties, for instance. South Park. Old pop music. That doesn't make me mindless or shallow, it just means I understand the context of my guilty pleasures (this film was not one of them -- it wasn't even bad enough to be good).
None of that changes the quality of the technique and the writing on this project, and these are not "insignificant details," at least not to me.
I have no idea what the "fiber in their diets" remark meant. I enjoy plenty of the mundane things in life as well. Driving with the top down on the car on a beautiful day is a joy. So is a pizza when I'm hungry for one. I'm a sucker for old re-runs of The Dick van Dyke Show and the mundane prose of Poirot novels. I even watch Survivor. But all that is irrelevant. In this case, I'm offering up my review of a new film and my opinion about how well it was made, that's all.
Bye,
--John
PS: "analytical analysis?"  |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 05:50 pm | | Hi Rich:
Actually, I liked Nixon better than JFK, though both were sometimes preachy to the point of mind-numbing distraction. Stone has a good eye, and fascinating rhythm, but no real subtlety of storytelling and a weakness for the simplicities of bad melodrama (Larry Hagman's character in Nixon, for instance). That's what separates him, finally, from the true auteurs.
This question of the relationship between historical narrative and filmed narrative is fascinating to me. (I am right now planning a seminar on it for the Spring of 2002.)
All the best,
-- John |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 06:03 pm | | Hi John,
I also enjoyed "Nixon" though there are many inaccuracies in that film too.
I agree with your assessment of the fictional character Jack Jones (played by Hagman).
I found more problematical the anachronisms in the film. As one example, the film suggests that Richard Nixon was motivated to enter the 1968 race because LBJ withdrew. However, as we all know, LBJ dropped out of the race following the 1968 New Hampshire primary - a primary Nixon had won on the GOP side.
I for one don't expect an entertainment film to deliver me history. It sounds like you agree.
I would be interested though if you might concede that of all the Hollywood productions of the Ripper case, "From Hell" is the most authentic.
Rich |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 06:33 pm | | Hi Rich,
Yes. All the Ripper films have been pretty bad, I guess. This one seemed only noticeably authentic in terms of the layouts of the murder scenes, as far as I can tell. I do wish a really skilled director would take on the subject. Lynch would be great, I think.
But simple authenticity in this case would not make for a very good movie. For one thing, many of the men and, of course, the women victims in the film would be spending much of their time staggeringly drunk, hung over, vomiting, or simply working. They also would not be exactly photogenic.
Oh, speaking of history, I'm still not sure how Catherine lost her kidney before she was murdered. But hey.. 
No, I didn't expect this film or Stone's films to give me any accuracy. But Stone's film on Nixon is better made, more interesting to look at, a better character study of course, and came with a much more mature and meaningful script than this one, even if the history is similarly twisted.
I also liked All the President's Men, although that too was filled with fiction and inaccuracies. But at least it was interesting and well-made and included some very original camera work and editing work. Compare it to the horrific nightmare of written and visual cliché and sheer stupidity that was every frame of the utterly unwatchable Titanic -- not a moment of originality in the entire marathon -- and you'll see what I mean.
My favorite "historical" film, honestly, is Woody Allen's faux-documentary Zelig, which profoundly challenges all the assumptions of the genre even as it tells a real, human truth, all in less than two hours.
Oh yes, the documentaries of Eroll Morris are wonderful, too.
--John
(Who still cringes with embarrassment when he sees, in his mind's eye, Kate's hand on the steaming car window universally signifying orgasm and who, when Kate was running down the corridor to save Leo with a big old axe in her hands, couldn't help whispering, too loudly, "REDRUM! REDRUM!" in the theater.) |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 07:50 pm | | Hi John,
I have long admired the works of David Lynch (my favorite being his seminal thriller "Blue Velvet"). Yet he frequently is unable to resist resorting to camp when confronting horror. I can imagine now the goofy non-sequitors uttered by police investigating the Ripper murders.
Were I to select a film maker capable of adeptly rendering faithful historical stories, I'd be apt to choose John Sayles. Though he too engages in conjecture, compression, and revision, his films "Matewan" and "Eight Men Out" were solid, entertaining historical pieces.
Rich |
Author: Robert House
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 10:27 pm | | Hi Everybody,
I just saw this movie and I have to say I think it was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The script was awful, but I have to say I hated the comic book also. In addition, the whole royal conspiracy theory seems to me to be so absurd that it is just an insult to any intelligent person. I agree, it would be difficult to make a good Jack the Ripper movie. One additional problem is that to really do justice to the facts, the movie would have to keep the killer relatively anonymous, and mysterious. Who is the main character? From whose point of view is the movie shown?
Rob |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 11:44 pm | | Hi Rich,
Well, Lynch has directed one "historical" film about the period already, of course, although he did not write that one and was hampered a bit by the material. Still, it looked great and the grainy black and white photography he used and the machine sequences and fascinating use of sound editing made the thing interesting to watch and historically evocative without being heavy-handed or obvious.
And the later Lynch (of Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive) would be just the sort of writer-director to capture Rob's idea of a film which resisted solutions or closure and which posed the problems rather than the answers -- even his initial film, Eraserhead, qualifies him for this one.
But yes, he would have to try and keep the camp in check and resist the "Agent Cooper" tendencies and the red rooms.... Still he'd be a natural for the mania and the violence and the horror, too (check out the two old people in the new one).
I do think a film which imaginatively dramatized the Ripper murders without naming the Ripper would be a fascinating little exercise.
But yes, Sayles would be good too, especially for the class stuff and the cultural inscriptions.
There are some others who would be good.
Meanwhile, I'm off to sleep, perchance to dream (see, it's annoying whenever anyone does it...),
--John |
Author: Robert House
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 08:22 am | | Hi John,
I agree. Lynch could do it if anybody could. In fact I just saw the Elephant Man the other day on TV.. this film evokes a very dark and menacing Victorian London that is not nearly as cliched as the From Hell environment.
I have always thought that the best way to do a Jack the Ripper movie would be to have the killer just sort of appear briefly for the murders and then just disappear. From reading Sugden's book, the thing that impressed me is that the bodies just seemed to appear out of thin air - in most cases, no killer was seen and nothing was heard. By creating this sense of mystery, along with the suspense of knowing that he is out there somewhere, you could have a terrifying film. In fact, London the city itself could be symboliccaly the villain, the menacing entity.
By contrast, sadly and predictably, From Hell was gory, with inane scenes of opium/absinthe use and hallucinations, and it felt it necessary to explain everything.
Oh well, gotta run.
Rob |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 01:13 pm | | John & Rob
Perhaps the most startling and jarring portrayal came in the film "Pandora's Box" (alternately entitled "Lulu"). It is a silent made in the 1920s (I want to say 1926 or '27).
The story depicts a woman who uses sex to control men. In the final scene, she is murdered by a man who she has lured who turns out to be Jack the Ripper.
The film is quite stunning in that conclusion because it is totally unpredictable and shocking - as any such murder would be. Unfortunately, as most films of that era, the picture makes the mysoginistic point that any sexually liberated woman definately will get her comeuppance.
I agree John that David Lynch is skilled enough to pull such a story off. And I agree that The Elephant Man is moving historical fiction. He would have to avoid some of his excesses (notably in films "Wild at Heart" and the television series "Twin Peaks").
Also, he would also have to like the material. Everyone remembers when he attempted to make a movie of a book he didn't like - that atrocity of a film "Dune."
Rich |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 02:37 pm | | | " From Hell " made $7.8 million dollars in its opening weekend and was Number 1 at the US box office. |
Author: Robert House
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 02:44 pm | | Rich,
Agreed, Lynch would have to avoid the type of campy humor that is in Twin Peaks and Wild at Heart. (Even though I like the humor in these movies, I dont think it would be appropriate to the subject.) He is really great at building a suspenseful and creepy atmosphere. It would be great to see someone tackle this subject and do it well, maintaining the victorian gothic atmosphere. I am actually an aspiring filmmaker myself - maybe I will do it.
Rob |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 05:49 pm | | Hi Rich,
Not only do I have my very own copy of Pandora's Box, but I watch it regularly. Not for the Ripper moments, actually, but because my significant other and I are huge Louise Brooks fans (she has original Louise posters -- including a large one in German from the first run of the film -- on her walls, and a collection of photos and books -- and she looks not unlike Louise, in fact).
Between us, we have almost all of Louise's films. Besides that, I've always admired Pabst and what he did to get his films made.
I also have copies of the two plays that the film was based on, and my significant other is just finishing an article on Weimar cinema (especially Nielsen and Brooks) for a major literary journal.
Louise manages to so overpower the screen with her presence that the "message" of the film (about "immoral women") is overcome by her charm and the audience, then and now, want to be just like her, despite her tragic end.
Thanks for the chance to mention a personal favorite, Rich.
--John |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 07:11 pm | | John & Rob,
I think the most effective performances by actors portraying Jack the Ripper were by David Warner in "Time After Time" and Laird Cregar in "The Lodger."
Although these films are not historically accurate and are rather mindless, the actors played the serial killer in the hammy melodramatic way that reflects the chilling mystique of Jack the Ripper (and a false impression I might add) - complete with cape, Gladstone bag, and menacing verbal cadence.
Personally, I agree with Donald Rumbelow's speculation that Jack the Ripper is someone not currently regarded as a "suspect" and contrary to popular mythology was a rather non-descript lower income person.
Of course, portraying the Ripper as such person on film would be more realistic and earn applause from devotees to the case, but it would undoubtedly disappoint audiences who prefer legend to fact.
Rich |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 07:26 pm | | Hi Rich,
One of my favorite moments in Ripper film history:
After being told by Wells that they don't belong in 20th Century America, David Warner as the Ripper sits Wells down on the hotel bed and flips through the channels on the television, showing war footage, wrestling, news about the day's murders, violent films, and all the usual stuff.
He then turns to Wells, summarizes the accomplishments of the age -- the routine violence, the omnipresent and easily available guns, everything, all the while looking at the flickering television screen -- and then "Jack" says..
"You don't belong here..."
"I'm home."
--John |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 07:51 pm | | John,
That is one of my favorite moments in that film too. It is foreshadowed by another fine scene when Wells and the Ripper are playing chess.
If you recall, Wells grandly predicts that in the future there will be no war, poverty, crime etc. The Ripper disagrees saying that man never changes - that we hunt and are hunted "thats the way it is, and the way it shall always be."
Rich |
Author: J. Alexander Panic
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 01:04 am | | I'm getting pretty sick of people justifying the sheer suckiness of the film version of "From Hell" by making comments along the lines of, "it's based on a *gasp* COMIC BOOK!" I can say, without a doubt, that anyone making those remarks are ignorant toward the comic book world, other than what they've been exposed to through "Batman" or "Spider-Man". Plenty of graphic novels can hold their weight against the best literature of the 20th century. The "From Hell" comic that the film is supposedly based on is one of them. The plot is far more complex, yet less contrived. The characters are far more fleshed out, yet they're only sketches. The film is flat and empty. The graphic novel is intriguing and full of imagination. There is no comparison. Instead of pointing out, time and time again, that this movie is based on a "comic book" (as if good writing is only good writing if it doesn't come in the comic form), we should start asking why the film isn't nearly as good as the comic it stole its name from.
Love,
me
http://www.juicycerebellum.com
"Where EVERYONE is normal, because NOBODY is sane!" |
Author: molly donlon
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 10:54 am | | i kept wanting to cry out, but my husband kept his hand firmly clapped over my mouth saying in my ear, "they don't care. no one in this theater is interested in the truth." he threatened to chloroform me. i had to laugh. i realized he was right, not even the advisors on the film cared if there was a grain of truth. there was an abundance of grapes in whitechapel!! lord !! abberline, a clairvoyant drug addicted little tramp look alike, and what was up with the queen? then we had mary kelly, who somehow, miraculously turned into mrs muir, independently wealthy in gull-cottage-by-the-sea. perhaps the ghost of abberline helped her write a murder mystery about the ripping of whores in whitechapel that appealed to the book publisher who always wanted to be a police inspector in scotland yard and just never had the time. and correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't llewellyn the same guy who played the blind bouncer at the whorehouse that armand assante visited in the michael caine movie? and then there were the girls........
for the longest time, i thought liz was catherine and catherine was liz... and wasn't that igor who played netley? bugs bugs everywhere. i loved dr gulls old lady hairdo.. it reminded me of al sharpton!! ha ha!! and then there was johnny depp--i'm not totally blaming him. i had recently seen "blow" and "chocolat" and perhaps "from hell" was just one johnny depp movie too many!!!! oh well -- i felt compelled to vent in a small way. i'm glad i went to the $5.50 matinee rather than the $8.25 prime time showing. love, moll |
Author: Michael
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 10:36 pm | | | Is the quote "One day men will look back and say that I gave birth to the 20th century," a real quote? I mean, did Jack the Ripper really say that or send it in a letter? If so, how was it documented? Please help? |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 09:51 am | | Hi, Michael:
Nice to see you here. We welcome your contribution to these boards.
The simple answer to your question is No, that quote has no historical part of the case. Persons who are familiar with the Alan Moore comic series on which the movie is loosely based can tell you if it appeared in Moore's From Hell. If not, I should say that the quote is the product of a scriptwriter's imagination!
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 02:47 pm | | Hi all,
"From Hell" was never intended to be a documentary.
Rich |
Author: Brad Lockard
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 03:19 pm | | Hello everybody,
I think Rich's point here is the key to this whole discussion. Just as the aforementioned "JFK" did a few years back, "From Hell" piqued my interest in a subject I previously knew very little about, and neither did so on the false pretense of serving as a documentary (though some would argue that point about JFK).
Since "From Hell" is based on an admitted work of fiction, it seems rather pointless to debate the inaccuracies as related to the actual case. Most of us can recognize that the Ripper case simply begs to be sensationalized, and that's how we end up with graphic novels and movies like "From Hell."
I knew nothing of the Royal Conspiracy Theory before I saw this film, but figured out what the "plot twist" was going be very early on, and simply enjoyed the movie for what it was. Because it was visually compelling and projected a very sinister tone, I left the theater with an interest in finding out the real facts of the Ripper case.
So it seems "From Hell" makes its own kind of contribution, without trying to be something it's not.
Thanks for listening to the thoughts of a newcomer.
Brad |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 07:20 pm | | Brad,
I agree with you completely. If you scroll back at a previous post, I made the same comparison of "From Hell" with "JFK." Both are dramatic fictionalizations of actual events.
I think many Ripper afficianados are seeking a historically accurate depiction of the Ripper case. Yet, to do so would necessarily lack the components required for good drama (specifically a resolution!).
Jack the Ripper is lore akin to the Loch Ness Monster. That is what fascinates and tantalizes the general public.
Indeed, Brad, everyone I know drawn to explore the facts regarding the case were lured by Ripper mythology. Indeed, the creation of the name "Jack the Ripper" was the invention of someone pretending to be the murderer.
Had the killer of prostitutes in the East End in 1888 remained "The Whitechapel Murderer" or "Leather Apron" as he was known in contemporary times, I doubt the case would have near the interest it has today.
Rich |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 07:55 pm | | Hi Rich,
Yes, although I could do without the suddenly growing numbers of people who think Frederick Abberline was a drug addict.
And I do wish the movie hadn't been so mundane and predictable and banal and that the script wasn't so childish and undeveloped and that the lighting wasn't so hackneyed and that the music wasn't so forgettable and that the production as a whole had had at least a single moment of subtlety or provocation or even a moment of humanity.
But I guess we have to take what we can get.
--John |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 08:47 pm | | Hi John -
Your comment regarding Abberline-the-Druggie reminds me of the question I've probably received most in the past few weeks: "Does it bother you when Hollywood takes liberties with the known facts of the Ripper case to make a better story?" My answer has always been "No," and most people are surprised to hear it.
Sure, it gets tiresome to hear the same silly questions day after day... "Was there a big Freemasonic coverup?".... "Was the Ripper really Sir William Gull?"... But who among us "Ripperologists" didn't start out asking those same silly questions? As Richard says, we were all drawn to the case initially by the mythology of the case, not the facts. I personally didn't get involved in the study until (gasp) the Diary came out in the early 90s. It takes something extraordinary and entertaining to grab most people's attention... our hope is that they will then do what we did, and take the initiative to go out into the world and find the true facts of the case. If the Casebook's stats are anything to go by, this is exactly what many people are doing... our daily average usually lingers between 8,000 and 10,000 visitors... in the past week we've been getting 120,000 - 130,000 visitors and more daily.
That's just under a million new putative Ripperologists in the past week alone on this site .... and I couldn't be more thrilled. New blood brings new ideas, new backgrounds and new perspectives - and it keeps the study fresh. It may very well be someone within this inchoate generation of enthusiasts who makes the next "big" discovery... all because a silly film boasting "hackneyed lighting" and a "childish script" caught their attention back in the autumn of 2001.
Its the From Hells and the Time After Times and the Final Solutions that keep the case alive in the public mind. If it weren't for their marketable, mythological versions of the Ripper, there would be no Ultimate Sourcebook, no Complete History, and (shudder to say) no Casebook- no one would care enough to read them. |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 09:06 pm | | Hi Stephen,
No question. I never expected any historical accuracy and I was not disappointed on that respect. I am glad the film, as awful as it was, was made and that it encouraged a great many people to learn more about the case. That can only be a good thing.
My remark about Abberline was more personal. Amidst the fiction and the speculation and the cheesy melodrama, I am a little sorry that a real person had to be once again portrayed in such an unfortunate way (Like Chris mentioned before about the Caine film). Just in terms of his reputation. Of course, we can quickly set the record straight when we're given a chance. But there are a lot of people out there who won't come asking or do further research and who will remember Abberline this way. That's just a little sad.
But yes, Stephen, I agree completely with what you say, and had no problem at all with the fanciful Royal conspiracy theory stuff and the historical rewriting.
That being said, a badly made film is still a badly made film, and I do wish at least one Ripper movie would be made that would hold up as a quality film. Speaking purely aesthetically, of course.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Robert House
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 09:15 pm | | In response to some recent comments,
First off, I read the From Hell comic book and in my opinion it was horrible literature however you want to look at it. In fact it was so badly written, that I had trouble finishing it. I have also read other "serious" works of comic book literature aside from Batman and Superman which were much better. I have nothing against comic books in general, just against bad literature in specific.
Re: "Since "From Hell" is based on an admitted work of fiction, it seems rather pointless to debate the inaccuracies as related to the actual case." Actually, the comic book "From Hell" is a fictionalized account of the Jack the Ripper murders which is based on a Stephen Knight's book which is the source of the whole Royal Conspiracy theory. It is more accurate to say that it is based on a theory which is itself absurd. I think it is therefore valid to debate the innacuracies in this movie because it's about time that the Royal Conspiracy theory was put to rest permanently. We might as well have Jack the Ripper be from another planet or be Lewis Carrol.
True, From Hell is not meant to be a documentary. But compare it with the movie Titanic, which is simply a love story that uses the Titanic's sinking as a backdrop. That is different than From Hell. An analogy would be if the movie Titanic had a plot where instead of hitting an iceberg, the Titanic was actually sunk by a bomb which was put on board the ship by the Queen of England. I mean, at least Titanic got most of the historical facts accurately, while adding characters and localized plot situations. Also, it is ridiculous to compare Jack the Ripper with the Loch Ness monster.... the Loch Ness monster was fake, a hoax, not real.
"From Hell" unfortunately will be most people's only exposure to the Jack the Ripper case, so the general populace will be inclined to think this Royal Conspiracy theory is in fact the true history, and that Abberline was a drug addict, etc. The Hughes brothers basically just exploited the subject to make a banal, gory, and pointless movie. I see no value in it whatsoever.
Rob |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 09:35 pm | | Hi Rob,
As bad as From Hell was, it was a thousand times less painful than Titanic, nearly every frame of which dripped with stupidity and film cliché.
By the way, isn't there a part in the comic book where Gull transports himself into the future? I wonder why the movie left that out.
Goodnight sweet Prince, I'm king of the world.
Ugh. My kingdom for a screenplay with some intelligence. Even the screwball comedies of the forties were a good deal smarter than these movies, and they were trying to be dumb.
Hollywood seems to have forgotten about writing. Now we must go to Europe or to independents (like Lynch or the Coen Bros.) for scripts that treat us like we're adults.
All right. I'm not going to rant. I think Stephen is right about churning up publicity and as long as it's bringing people around here, that's fine with me.
I'm going to sleep. Now where did I put those cool coins for my eyes?
--John
PS: A random sampling of my students tells me that the film has not only stirred up interest in the Ripper, it's caused a whole new raving fascination with Absinthe (last seen after Coppola's Dracula gave some to Nina -- a movie that also had a sleep walking actor [Keanu, meet Johnnie], but at least had a memorable performace by Tom Waits as Renfeild). Well, you know what they say. It makes the heart grow fonder. Absinthe, that is. |
Author: Robert House
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 10:05 pm | | John.
I feel bad ranting also. I have to admit I liked Titanic. Usually, my film tastes are more for the refined films-- I am a big fan of Hitchcock, especially the early films - Blackmail, the 39 Steps. It is unfortunate that The Lodger was a silent film, because Hitchcock had not really matured as an artist until about 1929, the sound era. He could have done the subject well, better than the Lodger in my opinion. My objections to From Hell are primarily for aesthetic reasons, not for the misrepresentation of facts. The script was terrible, I agree. Incidentally, Absinthe is quite in fashion. It was prominent in Moulin Rouge, another hideously awful film in case you havent seen it. Don't bother.
Rob |
Author: Kathleen A. Carbone
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 08:04 am | | | From Hell? Should have been called "From Purgatory" That's where you'll feel you are for two hours during this plodding preposterous drivel. Even the remarkable Ian Holm could not save this from its historical inaccuracies. The sad part is that many Americans in particular, will accept this as fact. |
Author: Brad Lockard
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 09:45 am | | I really don't see why the historical inaccuracies are such a big deal. The film is a work of fiction, based on a work of fiction, with some correct historical information smattered through it. Though the graphic novel may have taken its basis from a published theory, that doesn't necessarily lend credence to that theory.
There's a whole genre of historical writing called "historical fiction", in which writers take actual events and put a sort of "what if?" spin on them.
I don't see that "From Hell" is any different. If someone had used the aforementioned bomb premise for Titanic, what's wrong with that, as long as everybody knows going in that that's what they're getting?
I'm no Ripper historian myself, but it seems that anyone with any degree of background in the case and the literature would know, at least after reading the graphic novel, that "From Hell" is based on a published theory which is more or less dismissed by many of you who are in the know on the subject.
So, going into this movie knowing the entire thing is based on a work of historical fiction which is based on a published theory you disagree with, I can't understand why you'd leave disappointed. It would seem that your expectations would be so low already, and that you would be prepared for many inaccuracies since the entire project is based on what many of you have called an inaccurate theory to start with, that you knew what you'd be getting before you ever went.
Just two more cents from me.
Brad |
|
|
|
|
