I had the opportunity to appear this week on Episode 22 of Rippercast, a wonderful podcast for all things related to Jack the Ripper. This week host Jonathan Menges and a panel of Ripperologists took some time to discuss Ripper movies with me. What fun! It was an international Skype call (first time I ever used Skype), with participants spread out from Kansas to England.
The name of the episode is “Blondes, Psychics and Abberline’s Crutch.” I’d link to it, but the Rippercast site is experiencing technical difficulties. It’s also available on iTunes for easy download, which is how I got my copy.
Y’know, when you listen to an actor on one of those DVD commentary tracks, you’ll frequently hear comments like “Oh, they shot the wrong side of my profile” or “My nose is way too big.” (we’re all so vain).
For me, listening to this episode is kind of like that. I’m thinking: “Whoa, I sound like I’m talking over him, cutting him off. I hope they didn’t all think I’m rude.” Or… “Well, that was a missed opportunity. I could have mentioned…” Anyway, just thought I’d provide a little elaboration on some of those missed opportunities.
#1 Jonathan asks me what my favorite Ripper movie is, and I come out of the gate with the apparently controversial 1988 production with Michael Caine. So let me clarify what I meant when I said that it “tells the case the way it really was.”
First, I think that serious students of the case (let’s call them “investigative Ripperologists” for short) and serious students of the movies (that would be me!) can have different perspectives on what makes a good Ripper film… or even what constitutes “verisimilitude” in a film about the Whitechapel murders.
I have seen, well, just about all the movies listed on this site. A significant percentage of them (90%? 80%?) are highly fanciful. So… along comes the 1988 Jack the Ripper, and the film is set in the real world (not in outer space or in some parallel supernaturalized universe or in some sanitized London). It does a very realistic job of recreating the 1888 East End. It names the real victims, gets the modus operandi correct, includes numerous well-known incidents from the investigation into the case. It shows the potential for social unrest. Heck it even gets down to showing the weird Richard Mansfield wrinkle. Most Ripper movies don’t even try to name the real victims, much less use the killer’s authentic modus operandi, much less try to recreate the East End!
“Abberline’s crutch” (part of the title Jonathan gave to this Rippercast episode) does highlight a potential point of contention between the traditional investigative Ripperologist and a student of film—i.e. the portrayal of Abberline, chief investigator on the case. I did a doubletake, sure, when I first saw him portrayed as a drunk. But I’ve seen movies that portray the victims as glamor girls and the Ripper as a supernatural monster who transcends time! So portraying Abberline as having a crutch (in this case, an alcohol addiction) did not register very high on my “egregiously unrealistic” meter… though I guess it certainly registered for Abberline’s family. For me, none of that hurts my enjoyment of the movie, given Michael Caine’s wonderful performance and all. But it is enough to get an investigative Ripperologist fuming!
Nothing wrong with that. We’re just looking for different things. He’s looking for absolute accuracy while I’m giving the film marks not only for being an excellently crafted, well-acted production but also for happening to be the most accurate non-documentary film on the killings that I know of. 100% accurate? No. Most accurate? Yes.
So, if you’re an investigative Ripperologist who’s shocked by what I said about the movie, just remember that I come at the films from a movie angle (i.e., do they make good cinema?). “Most accurate” Ripper movie is good enough for me! “Well acted” Ripper movie is good enough for me. Heck, even “supremely entertaining though preposterous” Ripper movie is good enough for me. (Hey, I like Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde.. and yes, I do know better!).
So, that’s where I’m coming from when I list the 1988 MIchael Caine movie as one of my favorites.
We’re going all photo-bloggy today! This is a chronological sequence of images from the finale of The Lodger (1944), starring Laird Cregar in the title role. They are taken from the stunning new DVD boxed set.
The lodger (now known to be the Ripper) has just threatened the ingenue backstage after her performance in a Whitechapel music hall. She lets out several blood-curdling screams, and the police give chase.
- eluding police
Below, the lodger eludes police in the backstage labyrinth. Note director John Brahm’s expressionistic use of light and shadow:
- - -
cornered
Below, the police corner the lodger. And Brahm takes the camera closer and closer into the the lodger’s wild eyes: - -
Director David Ondaatje has been remaking The Lodger. According to The Bioscope:
This time round, director David Ondaatje is setting the film in modern-day Los Angeles, and making The Avenger (originally played by Ivor Novello) a copycat killer (originally Jack the Ripper, maybe).
The Internet Movie Database confirms that this film is either in production or has been completed (depends on which page you access). Looking over the cast list, the names generally conform to the names in Hitchcock’s version of The Lodger (1926). I wonder if this means that the man taking up lodgings will again be a “wrong man” under suspicion.
One point worth noting: one of the athentic Ripper victims’ names actually makes it into the list of characters: Annie Chapman. I wonder how this will play out, though, given that we’re in contemporary Los Angeles (cf. Jack’s Back) and dealing with a copycat—not in London, dealing with a literary version of the Ripper (called “The Avenger”).
The theatrical distributor appears to have a thin resume, while the home entertainment distributor is Sony Pictures Home Entertainment. I wonder if this means that the focus will be on home video rather than theatrical distribution.
Whatever the case, I will be seeing this film… and reporting on it.
This list is limited to Jack the Ripper television and film. There are no Faux Rippers, False Sightings, or Copycats here. I’ll give a separate listing later for the best of those.
Alphabetical listing:
“Comes the Inquisitor” (1995)
Brilliant episode of Babylon 5, and one of the Ripper’s finest hours on screen. Of course, this is science fiction, so folks who hate that genre will probably not enjoy this episode.
Deadly Advice (1993)
Wickedly funny black comedy, complete with murderous advice from Jack the Ripper… among other infamous killers.
From Hell (2001)
Okay, this is not on the list because of the story. (I kind of have “issues” with turning Inspector Abberline–a real person–into a hop-head who dies young). It’s on the list because it is the most realistic depiction of the crimes and crime scenes on film. Production Designer Martin Childs did a tremendous amount of research into the actual scenes where the bodies were found. He used photographs from 1888, among other things, to help him design the set of Whitechapel. This film also provides a realistic, gritty, look for Whitechapel. It’s not as bad as Whitechapel actually was, but the Hughes Brothers know that audiences don’t really want to watch anything that horrific on screen.
Jack the Ripper (1959)
Clever script, with plenty of red herrings. Does not deal with the actual killings (has none of the real victims mentioned or shown). But it’s got an entertaining plot, nonetheless. And it’s also the first Ripper movie to show the riotous conditions in Whitechapel during the Ripper slayings.
Jack the Ripper (1988 )
This movie was made-for-TV during the Ripper centenary. Michael Caine plays Inspector Abberline (as an alcoholic, who happens to be brilliant). This movie does a fabulous job of re-creating the atmosphere in London during the autumn of 1888. It has one flaw, though, in my opinion: it goes on for 3 1/2 hours just showing what is known, then in the last 1/2 hour, it reveals who it thinks the killer was. Sorry, but any film that is trying to go for the “real thing” should leave the case as unsolved as it remains today. (I guess that answers the question: “So what do you think of Patricia Cornwell?”). A Jack the Ripper must-see.
The Lodger (1926)
This film is of interest, obviously, because it launched Alfred Hitchcock’s career. It was, in fact, the first film by Hitchcock to make it off the shelf and into the theaters. And when it did, it caused a sensation. The young Hitchcock was quickly hailed as Britain’s finest filmmaker. Hitchcock was already using lots of trick shots and doing complex maneuvers with the camera. The image of the Lodger appearing at the door is one of the great moments in early British cinema… as is the moment when we see the shadow from the window making a cross over his face. The film has great atmosphere and technique, and it hints at great things to come in this young man’s future. A Jack the Ripper must-see.
The Lodger (1944)
This is the best screen version of the novel. (Yes, it is better than the Hitchcock version, which is very good in its own right). And it has a legendary performance by Laird Cregar as Jack the Ripper. This is just classic era Hollywood doing its finest in making a suspense film. A Jack the Ripper must-see.
Lulu (1962)
This film is unknown to American audiences. But it’s a brilliant Austrian interpretation of the Lulu story (by Frank Wedekind). Incredible black and white cinematography and shot composition. This is just a beautifully filmed, and well acted film. Excellent direction, excellent set design, excellent costuming and casting. Too bad it’s so hard to find. I had to fly across a continent to watch it in a film archive!
Murder by Decree (1979)
Sherlock Holmes meets the Stephen Knight theory. Don’t know what the Stephen Knight theory is? It’s the Masonic Conspiracy theory… same one that they use in From Hell. Personally, I think the theory is preposterous, but that doesn’t mean you can’t make good films based on it. And this one has the added advantage of forgetting about Abberline entirely and just focusing on Sherlock Holmes’ investigation into the murders. Wonderful performances by Christopher Plummer as Holmes and James Mason as Watson. Though I would disagree, many regard this as the best Ripper film.
Pandora’s Box (1929)
Fabulous silent version of the Lulu story, with a legendary performance by Louise Brooks as Lulu. This is a Jack the Ripper must-see.
Room to Let (1949)
Clever re-working of The Lodger, with a fine performance by Valentine Dyall as the menacing Dr. Fell. Too bad the full 68-minute version is not readily available. Steer clear of the 55-minute version if you can. It’s badly mutilated for television viewing.
Study in Terror (1965)
This is the first “Sherlock Holmes Meets Jack the Ripper” to get onto the screen, and it is very good. Plus, John Neville (the Well-Manicured Man in The X-Files) plays Holmes. This is one of my personal favorite Ripper movies.
Time after Time (1979)
This is a fun science fiction Ripper fantasy, complete with time travel. There are better Ripper movies, but there aren’t many good ones that are as entertaining as this. Malcolm MacDowell and David Warner are great as H.G. Wells and Jack the Ripper, respectively.
“Yours Truly, Jack the Ripper” (1961)
This is a brilliant television adaptation of the Robert Bloch short story. Made for Boris Karloff’s Thriller, it is nicely directed by Ray Milland, with an excellent score by Jerry Goldsmith. This is first-class Ripper stuff (one of my personal favorites). Too bad it’s almost impossible to find. It is unfortunately not one of the Thriller episodes available on VHS or DVD. And, so far as I know, it never plays on television. Basically, you have to know a collector to find this one.**
**Note: This was unavailable at the time this post was written. It is now at now at least marginally available in what appears to be a non-commercial DVD collection of the entire Thriller series.
The Star newspaper wrote on the day after the first canonical Ripper murder (and the third appalling murder in Whitechapel):
Nothing so appalling, so devilish, so inhuman—or, rather, non-human—as the three Whitechapel crimes has ever happened outside the pages of Poe or DeQuincey.
If only the Star knew what was yet to come—increasingly brutal mutilations committed against victims found on the streets of London, after which the killer would slip off into the night without a trace.
How could he possibly be human?
At the end of September, 1888, police found two victims in one night. The second one was more severely mutilated than any previous victim. And not long after that, the first Ripper ghost story got published. Actually, it was the first piece of any type of fiction written about the Ripper. An excerpt:
The men were almost dead with fear. What was yon cloud? Why did it not move? The tempest seemed to gather round it, the lightning struck at it a dozen times. It slowly lifts and utters a hollow, dreadful laugh. Is it ghost or fiend? It seems diminishing in size. Horror! It assumes the shape of a man! What is it that it holds aloft? Again the lightning struck at it, and its ghastly head was seen.
Another crash of thunder, and a naked arm appears, holding a blood-stained dagger. Oh, what is it that it strikes with such a demon fury? Why that final, dreadful cry? From The Curse Upon Mitre Square by J.F. Brewer, October 1888
Think about it. The first guy to write a fictional story went straight for the supernatural. And why not? Nobody knew who the Ripper was, what he looked like, why he left no trace. You could tell just about any story about him that you wanted!
Last night, I asked why the films inspired by Ed Gein always have a thoroughly human killer, while movies inspired by the Ripper can do anything they want with him.
Well, I think the answer is pretty obvious.
Gein committed his deeds in private. Nobody knew about them until a fresh body was found in his shed. Once that body was found, everybody knew. There was no mystery about who the killer was. The only question was how many other “disappearances” in the area might have been murders.
The Ripper, on the other hand, left plenty of public evidence about his crimes. The women were found on the street—either killed there or dumped. The crimes created panic in the East End. When the crimes remained unsolved, the chief of Scotland Yard had to resign, the Home Secretary nearly lost his office, and the panic threatened to turn riotous and possibly even bring down the British government. There was nothing private about the Ripper’s doings. But the case was never solved. (Maybe we’ll talk about Patricia Cornwell someday).
When you’ve got a mystery killer, he can be anybody or anyTHING. He can be a ghost, or an immaterial entity that travels the galaxy feeding off fear, or an occultist who has prolonged his natural life by performing strange blood rituals. Those are just a few variations, and they have all been done. In the past 7 years, in fact, there have been two Ripper movies dealing with the subject of reincarnation: Ripper Man and Hell’s Gate.
Jack is great fodder for science fiction and the supernatural. After all, nobody alive really knows what happened. Nobody alive was there.
I’m a writer. And several years ago, I was doing some research for a book chapter on Psycho. Anyway, some college students had asked me a question about the similarities between a Faulkner story and Psycho. There was no question that the similarities were there, and there was also no question that both Faulkner and Hitchcock had worked in Hollywood in the 1940s. So I got curious and decided to explore that angle.
Well, there wasn’t any connection. The similarities were coincidental—sort of a convergence between cultural trends and the necessities of storytelling. However, in the course of my investigations, I did some reading from a book about the psychology of murder, published in 1959—shortly before Hitchcock made his movie. I wanted to know what that book had to say about Ed Gein, since Bloch loosely based Norman Bates upon Gein.
The book had an entire chapter on Gein. But I didn’t stop there. I read about nearly every infamous murderer catalogued in that book. Along the way, of course, I came upon Jack the Ripper. When I read about the injuries he inflicted on his victims, I wondered: “Why didn’t I know about this? Why did I only know that he cut their throats but never knew that he also disembowelled them?”
The answer was obvious: nearly my entire source of information about the Ripper was from television and movies (most of which I’d seen on television). Pop culture, for the most part, had sanitized and softened the Ripper. So I became curious about how the culture interprets Jack the Ripper–not just now, but ever since the Autumn of 1888.
Maybe I’ll blog about various trends in the coming days. But for now, I’ll just settle on the victims. Okay, I’m assuming that anybody reading this has some kind of interest in Jack the Ripper and/or Ripper movies. So tell me: what do you know about the victims? You probably know their occupation, right? I think nearly everybody knows that. Do you know the average age of the victims or their names? Unless you’re a hardcore Ripperologist (or serious fan of the Johnny Depp From Hell movie), probably not.
I gave a questionnaire to a film club a few years ago, and most people thought that the victims were young and beautiful. So did I before I began to study the case. I do have a theory on why many people think that. Many of us have gotten our impressions of the case from pop culture. And, of course, pop culture knows that beautiful young women sell product a whole lot better than decrepit middle-aged alcoholic prostitutes do. Hence, the first “distorted” presentation of the victims in cinema.
Now, I’m not complaining about the distortion. I just find it interesting… just as I find it interesting that the Ripper can be used in supernatural horror movies, science fiction, and virtually anything else that writers can dream up. Every character inspired by Ed Gein–whether it’s Norman Bates, Leatherface, or Buffalo Bill–is a character planted at least marginally in the real world. Okay, Texas Chainsaw is kind of a surreal world, but there’s nothing supernatural about it.
Why does the Ripper get to be immortal (or whatever) and Gein-based characters do not? Well, I have a theory about that too.
Since the first part of the Hitler movie ran last night on ABC, I got into a conversation on the nature of evil today. What’s odd is that I’m not the one who raised the obvious question: Was Hitler more evil than Jack the Ripper? Or did Hitler just have more power to wreak havoc?
Here are excerpts from the blog I wrote on that movie elsewhere last night:
staring into the eyes of a monster
I was expecting it to be just sort of another one of those historical movies. But it wasn’t. It looked deep into the eyes of the monster. And what it showed there was absolutely terrifying. It still has me shaken.
My husband and I watch a lot of scary movies–from the silent era to the present. We’ve seen the Universal horrors, the Hammer horrors, the cheapies, the high budgets, Night of the Living Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, a variety of slashers, Italian giallo films, even Cannibal Holocaust. And a whole lot of Jack the Ripper films. The really intense ones can give you some immediate and visceral chills. But most of them are cathartic. Most of the time, you identify with a potential victim in a battle against a monster/killer. And once the film is over (and the potential victim usually has won), you go home and feel just fine.
This wasn’t cathartic. Yes, they do give you a character to identify with, but you suspect that he will ultimately be crushed under the wheels of Hitler’s rise.
The main character in this movie is Hitler. Viewers are usually led to identify with the main character–no matter how vile that character is–by placing us close to the main character’s point of view. Though this film does place us close to Hitler’s POV, it never tries to get us to identify with him. When he is holding a pistol to his head after the disastrous putsch, you just wish he’d pull the trigger. When soldiers start firing on Hitler’s armed mob, you wish they’d land a shot to Hitler’s head. When Hitler’s on trial for treason and starts speechifying, you are more horrified at his rhetoric than caught up in the excitement of the main character turning disaster into triumph. You watch all the lost opportunities to stop the Nazi horror, and just feel helpless that the juggernaut continues to roll on.
This dynamic is very unusual in filmmaking, and very hard to pull off because of the audience’s natural identification with main characters. I think the filmmakers pull it partly because we know the future that these events will lead to. We know about the war, the death camps, the genocide. But most of the credit belongs to the the brilliant performance by actor Robert Carlyle, who plays Hitler in this film. Without him, the filmmakers probably could not have pulled it off.
Carlyle plays Hitler as a man of intense anger and hatred. You suspect that he is psychotic. You know that he’s evil. And Carlyle’s portrayal is terrifying. Hitler becomes the bogey-man. The darkest depths of the human soul. The monster. And all this without ever going beyond what we’ve seen of Hitler on old newsreels. If you didn’t know it were true, you’d think it was over-the-top. But you stare into the eyes of the monster and know that they’ve got it right.
In Hitler’s early years, the “bad” things that happen to him are no worse than the normal trials involved in growing up. He doesn’t get along with his father. He doesn’t get into art school. Sure, his mother dies. But by that time, he is in his late teens, not early childhood. The film shows no trauma that could ever explain what Hitler became. He’s more a product of nature than nurture–the demon child, the bad seed, the boy born bad. If he had not grown up to be a genocidal dictator, he would most likely have become a serial killer (his childhood behvarior fits nicely into the serial killer profile). And if not a serial killer, some other type of menace to society, or (if we had been so lucky) an inmate of a mental hospital.
All I have to say is that if you like scary movies, this one is really scary. And even scarier… it’s true.
regarding blondes, psychics and abberline’s
crutch (part 1)
I had the opportunity to appear this week on Episode 22 of Rippercast, a wonderful podcast for all things related to Jack the Ripper. This week host Jonathan Menges and a panel of Ripperologists took some time to discuss Ripper movies with me. What fun! It was an international Skype call (first time I ever used Skype), with participants spread out from Kansas to England.
The name of the episode is “Blondes, Psychics and Abberline’s Crutch.” I’d link to it, but the Rippercast site is experiencing technical difficulties. It’s also available on iTunes for easy download, which is how I got my copy.
Y’know, when you listen to an actor on one of those DVD commentary tracks, you’ll frequently hear comments like “Oh, they shot the wrong side of my profile” or “My nose is way too big.” (we’re all so vain).
For me, listening to this episode is kind of like that. I’m thinking: “Whoa, I sound like I’m talking over him, cutting him off. I hope they didn’t all think I’m rude.” Or… “Well, that was a missed opportunity. I could have mentioned…” Anyway, just thought I’d provide a little elaboration on some of those missed opportunities.
#1 Jonathan asks me what my favorite Ripper movie is, and I come out of the gate with the apparently controversial 1988 production with Michael Caine. So let me clarify what I meant when I said that it “tells the case the way it really was.”
First, I think that serious students of the case (let’s call them “investigative Ripperologists” for short) and serious students of the movies (that would be me!) can have different perspectives on what makes a good Ripper film… or even what constitutes “verisimilitude” in a film about the Whitechapel murders.
I have seen, well, just about all the movies listed on this site. A significant percentage of them (90%? 80%?) are highly fanciful. So… along comes the 1988 Jack the Ripper, and the film is set in the real world (not in outer space or in some parallel supernaturalized universe or in some sanitized London). It does a very realistic job of recreating the 1888 East End. It names the real victims, gets the modus operandi correct, includes numerous well-known incidents from the investigation into the case. It shows the potential for social unrest. Heck it even gets down to showing the weird Richard Mansfield wrinkle. Most Ripper movies don’t even try to name the real victims, much less use the killer’s authentic modus operandi, much less try to recreate the East End!
“Abberline’s crutch” (part of the title Jonathan gave to this Rippercast episode) does highlight a potential point of contention between the traditional investigative Ripperologist and a student of film—i.e. the portrayal of Abberline, chief investigator on the case. I did a doubletake, sure, when I first saw him portrayed as a drunk. But I’ve seen movies that portray the victims as glamor girls and the Ripper as a supernatural monster who transcends time! So portraying Abberline as having a crutch (in this case, an alcohol addiction) did not register very high on my “egregiously unrealistic” meter… though I guess it certainly registered for Abberline’s family. For me, none of that hurts my enjoyment of the movie, given Michael Caine’s wonderful performance and all. But it is enough to get an investigative Ripperologist fuming!
Nothing wrong with that. We’re just looking for different things. He’s looking for absolute accuracy while I’m giving the film marks not only for being an excellently crafted, well-acted production but also for happening to be the most accurate non-documentary film on the killings that I know of. 100% accurate? No. Most accurate? Yes.
So, if you’re an investigative Ripperologist who’s shocked by what I said about the movie, just remember that I come at the films from a movie angle (i.e., do they make good cinema?). “Most accurate” Ripper movie is good enough for me! “Well acted” Ripper movie is good enough for me. Heck, even “supremely entertaining though preposterous” Ripper movie is good enough for me. (Hey, I like Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde.. and yes, I do know better!).
So, that’s where I’m coming from when I list the 1988 MIchael Caine movie as one of my favorites.