|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Kristina
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 21, 2003 - 12:04 pm: |       |
Good Afternoon everyone,
I Have just watched the Movie, based on the Jack the Ripper Story, "From Hell". It is recently new being made in 2001 and starring Johnny Depp. This is actually partially based on a Jack the Ripper theory having to do with the Prince and Royal Physician. I was just wondering if anyone has seen it and if so what do you think of the theory, which was not made-up by the movie, but an actual old theory. If you have not seen the Movie, "From Hell" Then I suggest you see it since it was insightful and great. It is what actually got me started in Jack the Ripper research. G'day! |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 257
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 3:02 pm: | |
Hi Kristina,
As you've probably noticed on some of the threads, I have seen the film and I didn't think much of it, I'm afraid.
I'm glad, however, that it made you interested in the case -- then it has had some useful purpose after all.
I think the movie was well done in some respect, for example the scenes from East End, clothes etc. The well-known Ripper researcher Stewart P. Evans was historical consulant for the film and I think we probably owe him for the movie's historical accuracy on these parts. Johhny Depp is a splendid actor and his charisma is enormous; I also think most of the other actors did a good job, and especially I liked the red-headed actress playing Mary Kelly. Even though Depp's performance was a good one, I don't agree or particulary like the portrait of inspector Abberline; as usual when the Americans make a movie, the "hero" must be young and good looking (which destroys the feeling of historical accuracy) and I also think the description of Abberline as a drug addict with psychic gifts was incredibly silly and made the film even less credible.
The Royal conspiracy theme is a complete bogus and just ridiculous, and it's made even more ridicolous in the film. I don't know who opened this Pandora's box to begin with, but it was the late Stephen Knight who introduced this theory to the large public, and who did it in an uncritical and speculative way. Unfortunately it all was a hoax, and the person who was responsible for the story -- Joseph Sickert -- has later confessed to it.
Therefore I'm a bit dissapointed that this incredible fairy-tale has been the most popular one when a film on the Ripper concept is being done -- and I am certainly worried about the fact that it still attracts attention. And when a big Hollywood production is based upon it, I think it seriously gives people the wrong impression about the case. It certainly doesn't give any insight whatsoever -- on the contrary. I know the film is fiction, but I think at least they could have based their story on some of the other theories regarding the case, instead of doing it the predictable way. I for my part have never in my life understood the charm of conspiracy stories; I think they're boring and mostly so unrealistic and ludicrous that it's hard to understand why anyone is taking them seriously -- they seldom has any real-life value; for the most part the reality is far less complicated and glamourous.
That being said, I 'm glad that you've become inspired to dig into the Ripper case. Just make sure that you read all the other aspects of the case as well as the other theories and then make up your own mind -- there's a lot to dig into!
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 17
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 7:23 am: | |
The thing here is that the Hughes Brothers were not in the business of historical accuracy. They are comic book fans and they adapted a graphic novel which they happened to really like.
Similarly Hollywood is not in the business of historical accuracy, they are in the business of putting bums on seats. They know that what the public want from a film of this type is a really good villian that they can boo and hiss. And for the Americans there are very few villains more boo-and-hissable than British officialdom and the class system. The idea of the nobility considering the lower classes dispensable in order to maintain their way of life is eminently hate-worthy. The royal conspiracy theory provides them with this villain and gives it a public face in Sir William Gull.
Unfortunately most of the more credible candidates like Barnett, Cohen or Kosminsky are rather pathetic creatures that you are far more likely to feel sorry for than hate.
Nonetheless I think there is a place for a more realistic Ripper film, maybe somebody on this board should get busy with a screenplay? |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 267
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 8:11 am: | |
Hi Alan,
I am very well aware of the conditions of film-making in Hollywood. I'm not surprised over the result -- just  .
"The thing here is that the Hughes Brothers were not in the business of historical accuracy. They are comic book fans and they adapted a graphic novel which they happened to really like."
Yes, but that just makes it even worse.
I complement those who managed to enjoy it as a fiction film, because I didn't even do that, I really think it was a load of crap and way to ludicrous. But that's just me.
Anyway, the more credible suspects like Cohen or Kosminsky (I for my part refuse to count Barnett among those) may be more pathetic creatures, but more interesting in my view. The most interesting films involving murders or serial killers are really those who deal with a lone, disturbed killer -- at least that's how I feel. I think it is easier to personally relate to crimes perpetrated by such individuals than by royal or government conspiracies. But I really don't find it harder to hate them than any other; their crimes are gruesome just the same and the fact that they are sick in one way or the other doesen't effect me at all.
Yes, I do hope someone has the guts to deliver a script with a more accurate story -- and manage to raise money for the idea as well... (which I think could be a harder task to perform)
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 18
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 8:34 am: | |
I consider Barnett credible not because I believe for one minute that he was killing prostitutes to try to scare Mary Kelly but because I tend to try to find parallels with other serial murder cases.
In this case the parallel would be with Edmund Kemper. Kemper basically went around destroying "representatives" of the thing he really wanted to destroy, in his case his mother, until he finally destroyed the object itself and then, apparently having exorcised his demons, phoned the police and gave himself up.
I find it very possible that Barnett was doing the same thing, that his hatred of what Kelly did for a living led to an unconscious desire to destroy her which his conscious mind would not allow him to do. Instead he was destroying representatives, in terms of other members of her profession, until his psychosis reached a level where he was able to perform the deed itself. Again, having exorcised his demons, this psychosis did not manifest itself again from then on.
I'm not saying I think this did happen, just that as usual I look for logical ways that it could have.
Also, this might make a good film plot!  |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 371
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 10:41 am: | |
Hi Alan,
But would Kemper's killings have remained unsolved to this day had he not given himself up when he did? It's all very well to consider it credible that Barnett did something similar, but is it credible that the police never gave his innocence a second thought, despite failing to pin a single Whitechapel murder on anyone else?
Love,
Caz
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 268
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 10:47 am: | |
Hi Alan,
Yes, you're right. It would make a good film plot indeed.
I don't want this thread to be about Barnett -- he has his own closets here on the board -- but I just want to say that your description of Barnett may very well be correct, but unfortunately we have no proof of that his background, which he obviously must have shared with quite a lot of people, led him to be Jack the Ripper. Those characteristics could fit an enormous lot of people. I find it also questionable that someone would be able to mutilate his girlfriend in such a way, if there was a emotional connection. That is very rare in the field of serial killing, and it don't really add up psycologically. Kill her -- yes -- but hardly that kind of extensive mutilation, which by the way should have taken quite a lot of time. The Kelly murder indicates some form of sickness that Joseph Barnett showed no obvious signs of. But I guess we'll, if we're fortunate, see some strong arguments in favour of the Barnett theory when Leanne and Richard publishes their book on the subject. I doubt it though; so far it has been merely speclations. Barnett fits the profile regarding his background and childhood experience, but he doesen't fit the serial killer profile in other respects.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 20
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 11:03 am: | |
Caz - Not sure how to answer this except - yes.
If Edmund Kemper had not confessed I think it very likely that he would have been arrested and charged with his mother's murder but I think it unlikely that the police would have linked him with the other killings.
I don't believe that the police did "never give his innocence a second thought", they would have had to be amazingly inept not to at least take a look at him. But as far as they were concerned this was another in a series of random motiveless killings.
Once again, I'm not saying I think he did it, because I absolutely don't. But I'm also not ruling him out. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 374
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 1:12 pm: | |
Hi Alan,
By 'second' thought, I meant just that. We know that Barnett was indeed questioned initially, but it never led to his arrest, let alone a charge. And not one policeman mentioned in surviving documentation that he should perhaps have been looked at more closely.
I don't think the police were far wrong to conclude that Kelly's murder was another random motiveless killing.
And I don't blame anyone today for not ruling Barnett out. I just like to keep reminding them that the police at the time did rule him out, and it is not safe to assume that the reason - and even riskier to believe the only reason - was that he failed to fit any of their individual preconceptions of a monster. The police must have spent many man-hours questioning men who looked every bit as 'normal' as Barnett.
Love,
Caz |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 260
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 4:53 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
We may not be able to prove Barnetts guilt, as this is 2003, but I can assure you that there is a lot of goodies in store, and a whole lot [in no way trying to sound conceited] of good original material.
Ever since the casebook was founded this character. has been discussed , he simply will not go away, and Leanne and myself aim to keep him well in the frame , for many years to come.
We are both sincere in our efforts, and hopefully the book will be succesfull, you can be well assured that we are honest and dedicated people, that are trying desperately hard to contribute, a worthy original book.
Regards Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 270
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 6:35 pm: | |
Hi Brian,
I'm not disputing that for a minute. And I am surely not the one who wants to blame people for their enthusiasm in a project. Unless you have in store some compelling evidence or arguments that can attract my personal logic, you probably won't be able to make me believe in Barnett as a credible suspect anyway. But it's sounds great that there'll be a lot of "goodies" -- I really look forward to your book; even though I don't agree with your theories so far, I nevertheless think it will be exciting to read it when it's finished -- and I mean it in a sincere way.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 21
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 7:02 pm: | |
Glenn
I find it also questionable that someone would be able to mutilate his girlfriend in such a way, if there was a emotional connection. That is very rare in the field of serial killing, and it don't really add up psycologically.
In fact the Crime Classification Manual states that a perpetrator is more likely to perform this kind of over-the-top violence on a person they are closely connected to, particularly in terms of mutilation of the face as psychologically they are trying to stop that person from looking at them. I think that in terms of the mutilation of Kelly's body and face this would be 100% consistent with Barnett being the killer. The problem is that I don't believe that he would have been able to function normally in society afterwards, and this is what leads me to say that I absolutely do not think it was him. |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 273
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 7:45 pm: | |
Alan!
Since we're going of the thread here, I have an answer for you on "Suspects" -- "Barnett, Joseph" -- "Why Barnett" !
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Joe
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 9:06 pm: | |
Enough with the profiling!!!!!!
|
Maryanne
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 7:06 pm: | |
Hi Kristina! I loved the film. I love Johnny Depp - creepy music and I would say the best Ripper film I've seen to date! |
Chris Valenta
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 7:58 pm: | |
Hey Everyone,
I am new to these boards and this thread caught my attention. I read through it all and noticed that no one caught the biggest flaw in From Hell.
When I first saw the movie I didn't like it. Then I bought it and wathced it again, and actually enjoyed it. Now, I just recently watched it again a few nights ago and noticed a big mistake that made me almost hate the movie. That mistake is...In the movie, Jack The Ripper kills 6 Prostitutes. Now, I am fairly new to the Ripper stuff, even though I have read things about him for quite some time, but im almost 100% positive, he only killed 5. I think I remember reading somewhere that 2 other people were murdered and police suspected Jack The Ripper but never had any sort of linking proof. Anyone else have anymore info on this? Or did The movie just throw in another one for more "action"? |
Zahir al-Daoud
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 12:17 pm: | |
I think you have mis-interpreted the film. The first prostitute murdered was not killed by the Ripper but by the Nichols Gang. She was stabbed to death in a sequence that was creepy and very effective.
Myself, while I regard the whole "Masonic Theory" as spectacular rubbish, the actual movie was enjoyable as fiction. The graphic novel is far better, and many times more complex (the author, while putting huge effort into as much accuracy as he could manage, never claims William Gull is the actual murderer but rather uses the case as a way to explore something about human perception). It was interesting how the film got around the single greatest physical problem with the theory of Sir William Gull as the killer--namely, that he was an elderly man without the use of one hand. By portraying someone who had actually tapped into sometime terrible and paranormal--the darkening of his eyes and changing of voice being symptoms--Ian Holm's Gull came across as someone literally possessed. It was very cool.
Indeed, this film and graphic novel have so well-used the inherent drama of the Masonic Conspiracy Theory I hope never to see it used so again. As history, after all, it is bunk. But as a story--its juicy and interesting stuff! |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 112
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 7:02 pm: | |
Hi Chris
You didn't like the film..... so you bought it?
You should post more often. Plainly you are just perverse enough to fit in well around here!
 |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 373
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 8:52 am: | |
Hi, Chris:
The jury is still out on how many victims the Ripper killed, although the usual official count is the "canonical five" as you say, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly. However, a couple of other "flaws" in "From Hell" if you will are that Kelly survives at the end of the movie (whoops) and the kidney removed from Catherine Eddowes arrives before she is killed (double whoops). 
All the best
Chris |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 538
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 11:24 am: | |
Hi Chris,
"...and the kidney removed from Catherine Eddowes arrives before she is killed (double whoops)."
Blimey, I don't remember that one! Almost makes it worthwile to watch the rubbish all over again...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 374
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 11:32 am: | |
Hi, Glenn:
I am glad I have enabled you to see that "From Hell" does have redeeming features, if only to add to our collection of Ripperological bloopers. 
All my best
Chris |
Kris Law
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 9:29 am: | |
Hello all,
Another flub could be that it take Abberline about ten and half hours to run to Mary Kelly's room at the end of the movie to save her.
I wouldn't however call Mary Kelly living at the end a "mistake" because as far as anyone knows, she might have. it's unlikely at best, certainly, but not out of the question. |
Mary
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 12:31 pm: | |
"The Royal conspiracy theme is a complete bogus and just ridiculous, and it's made even more ridicolous in the film. I don't know who opened this Pandora's box to begin with, but it was the late Stephen Knight who introduced this theory to the large public, and who did it in an uncritical and speculative way. Unfortunately it all was a hoax, and the person who was responsible for the story -- Joseph Sickert -- has later confessed to it."
This quote is from an earlier post on this thread. It is very interesting to me. But why would Joseph Sickert create a hoax about the royal family being involved in a conspiracy in regards to the Ripper murders? Who is Joseph Sickert? Did he create the hoax to cast doubt on Walters' possible involvement? Where can I learn more about this particular info? Fascinating reading here!
Thanks!
|
M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 6:18 pm: | |
"FROM HELL" the movie was a great piece of movie fiction like "Hannibal" both gory. As a made up horror movie using a real life crime, I give it thumbs up. However little of it has to do with the "REAL" Jack the Ripper crimes. Sorry.
The part I liked the best in the movie "FROM HELL" was the heart beating grapes in the dream. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1362
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 10:55 am: | |
Hi Mary,
I think that was a quote from one of my posts. Glad you found it interesting.
The best thing for you to do, is to read the late Stephen Knight's own book "The Final Solution", where he puts forward this incredible theory of his.
But I will also urge you to read other writers' comments on it; I believe Donald Rumbelow made an excellent hack-saw critical and well-researched review of it in his own book "The Complete Jack the Ripper" and likewise Beadle in "Jack the Ripper -- Anathomy of a Myth". Then you can make up your own mind about it. But anyone who is more familiar with the facts of the case know that most of ingredients in the Royal Conspiracy consists of deliberate lies, factual errors, sloppy research and loose interpretations -- and a complete fairy-tale.
Joseph Sickert was interviewed by Knight for his book, but later on Sickert withdrew everything and confessed that it all was a hoax (why he did it is unclear) -- at least the part about Jack the Ripper (Sickert continued to claim that he was the sole air to the Royal throne, though). Unfortunately neither that or the obvious factual errors in the theory stopped Stephen Knight in his efforts; instead he continued like nothing ever happened. And today we still live with the consequenses of it and it goes beyond me why Hollywood and the general public still nearly thirty years after the book's publication finds it interesting.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
