Perhaps a bit of both. Certainly the film works well as a whodunit, although it skates close in the early scenes a couple of tones to giving away Jack the Ripper’s identity. But the real meat of the graphic novel, the long monologues by Gull and especially the stuff about Freemasons and “Juwes” (how true is what Moore claims?) is dealt with only superficially. But perhaps there are only so many depths you can reach in a two hour film.
Beyond the simple script the film is well shot, well made and well cast with a pre-Jack Sparrow Johnny Depp convincing as a cockney copper, bizarre though the decision to have Abberline chase the dragon may be; the original version of the character is very different. Heather Graham impressed as Mary, Ian Holm is superb as Gull, Robbie Coltrane is the perfect sidekick and the late Ian Tichardson is a good laugh as Abbeline’s stupid Freemason boss. It’s a perfectly decent film in many ways, although inevitably it dwells on the horrible murders of women. But I think inevitably it looks shallow, perhaps unfairly given what can fit into two hours, than the source material.
I highly recommend two Ripper/Whitechapel productions; the first is the "Jack The Ripper" mini-series from 1988. A first-rate production, coupled with fine performances from the entire cast (though Michael Caine as Abberline and Lewis Collins as Godley are standouts) and a nice re-creation of Victorian-era London combine to make this, a good series. While it follows the usual William Gull theory, and there are some major errors throughout the series, these are small quibbles in what is an otherwise superbly made, supremely entertaining and at times chilling series-going experience. Great music score, too.
ReplyDeleteThe second is "Ripper Street", a RDJ Sherlock Holmes inspiration following good character and moments; rather than the hunt for the Ripper itself, this series covers relatively fresh territory: the aftermath of the Ripper murders, as a group of police inspectors try to restore the reputation of the force, by solving other dastadly crimes happening. It is avaliable on Amazon Prime.
One day, it’d be great to see a movie/miniseries reflect the historical truth as close as possible. And yes, that includes no bloody Royal conspiracy (Though the lack of a killer reveal might be frustrating for viewers as it in real life)!
I'm already intending to blog the 1988 series at some point. Yes, it goes with Steven Knight's now very unfashionable Gull/freemasonry/Prince Albert Victor theory, but that was how Ripperology was back then. These days, of course, we all like to borrow a razor from that nice Mr Occam... I think it was probably Charles Lechmere.
ReplyDeleteRipper Street noted- sounds intriguing!
Considering every sensible person knows that the royal conspiracy is pure fiction, I suppose it would be somewhat hypocritical of some historians/members of the public to make a fuss now by calling the theory "a slur" on Sir William Gull's character. There is no problem with various articles "setting the record straight" by listing Sir William's medical accomplishments though it's amazing how such a powerful figure in the reign of Queen Victoria now has a broken and insignificant grave, even 90 years before he was accused of being JTR. However, I myself am able to put fact and fiction of a historical figure in two different places.
ReplyDeleteIt is the same with Ramesses II; though scholars generally do not recognize the biblical portrayal of the Exodus as an actual historical event, various historical pharaohs have been proposed as the corresponding ruler at the time the story takes place, with Ramesses II as the most popular candidate for Pharaoh of the Exodus. However, even with depictions like "The Ten Commandments" (1956) and "The Prince of Egypt" (1998), I am able to separate the "biblical" Ramesses from the "historical" Ramesses. Of course, unlike Gull who was an accomplished Doctor, there is debate as to whether Ramesses was a model leader or a master of propaganda; I suppose the truth was (as it has been lost to time), as it usually is, sat somewhere in the middle.
It's also worth pointing out that Sir William Gull had the first of a series of strokes in 1887, the last of which would kill him in January 1890. Given his health in late 1888, it's literally impossible for him to have been the killer!
ReplyDeleteAs for the Biblical narrative on Exodus, and all of Israelite history... barring the supernatural, I'm minded to see it as no more reliable than any other contemporary source from Egypt, Assyria, Babylon etc, but no less so either. But it seems to be contentious exactly which pharaoh was the one in question- I think Shoshenk I is often claimed? Rameses II seems instinctively unlikely, what with his successful wars against the Hittites. But then again, I'm very far from an expert, my general knowledge tends to the broad but shallow!