Is Ripperology murder porn?

[Nothing to see]

This thread is about Jack's victim's photo's being porn.

How many apostrophes did I use?

I lost count.

Porn to turn me on? No. How could anyone find exciting or stimulating what Jack did to these women? Jack did. That's why he continued.

But any reasonable person wouldn't find these photos exciting.

[kensei]

The point is that fiction, to suceed in its primary purpose of being entertaining, requires a certain amount of structure, and real life doesn't happen in three acts with a tidy conclusion. The most obvious issue with a true life Ripper film would be that there is no one character that could be the protagonist and be present throughout the entire film - unless you pick a suspect, the closest you'd get is Abberline, which is why he is so often the focus. This is also why in films the girls always know each other, because otherwise they're just random new characters turning up when it's time to die.

If you want an accurate dramatic film on the Ripper... well, the best yu're ever going to get is a less innaccurate one, because real life tends to be poor drama. What you want is a documentary

B

Some further thoughts on what a good Ripper movie would be like, without being lurid for the sake of lurid. I really do think it could be done. It's true, some dramatic license would be absolutely necessary since there are so many details we don't know. Showing the murders would have to involve imagined conversation between the killer & victims, supplemented by the few bits that were actually overheard by witnesses. It would take some doing to find a voice for Jack that could be almost anyone, while never showing his face. He would be wearing the standard dark overcoat and peaked cap. The early murders would be shown very quickly- the one at the lake in "Zodiac" comes to mind, where once the stabbing begins, even though you see the knife going in it is over so quickly that you are left with only a few seconds of intense imagery burned into your brain, and really no blood and gore at all.

I invision the first scene being Polly Nicholls being turned away from the lodging house, giving the line about her jolly bonnett and then meeting the Ripper. A scene of Martha Tabram could be shown in flashback as police compare her to Polly.

Annie's scene- pretty straightforward, with some emphasis on how poor her health was and how she wasn't long for the world anyway. She was such a sad character.

I invision a long montage-type sequence for the Double Event, with Liz and Kate bumping shoulders in a crowd during the day and having a quick exchange, then flipping back and forth between them on through the night until they each meet their fates. "You would say anything but your prayers" would be a powerful line, and the Schwartz and Diemschutz incidents would be quite powerful. Kate's drunken antics and the ver batim account of her in the jailhouse would make for some comic relief in the midst of it all, and then the quick downward spiral into Mitre Square, a quick flash of Kate's gutted body no more than a three seconds long. Combine it with the Ripper on the run, whipping out his chalk in Goulston Street as cops are everywhere, and that would be one gripping and suspenseful twenty minutes of film. I know many of those details are disputed, but they are genuine details as opposed to total fiction. In the same way, I think the "Dear Boss" letter, its followup postcard, and the note with the Lusk kidney should be presented as if they did come from the killer. Let the naysayers have their say, but those are things that did happen and presenting them in that way would be the easiest way to introduce them to the audience. Perhaps a tag line at the end of the movie could explain the items of evidence that are in dispute.

No victim would appear in the film until it was time for her part. Miller's Court would be the part most remembered, with the crime scene photos reproduced exactly, the worst gore saved for this ultimate moment. The actress playing Mary Jane would have to be very carefully chosen, prettier than the others but not glamorous, no Lysette Anthony or Heather Gramm. How the murder would be depicted I'm totally up in the air about. Too much controversy. Perhaps a police interview scene with Joe Barnett could provide a quick rundown of her life story.

I think that Bailey is right about Abberline being the best suited character to be the star of the film, and why not? He was the lead detective, and he should be played by a known star. Who? I have no idea. Though the 1988 movie had its problems, I think Michael Caine was very well suited for the part at the time he did it, though he should have grown the facial hair, which Johnny Depp did though he was wrong in every other way. Who should do it today? Any suggestions?

Warren, Lusk, Pizer, maybe even Mary Kelly- these are parts that should be played by actors you've seen before but who aren't huge stars. Most other roles should be played by unknowns. And of course, the movie would end without a solution and a "good guys lose" kind of feeling. The audience would leave feeling depressed, but educated as to the true facts with only a little embellishment.

Sorry to take up so much space with this, but I love movies and it's something I've been passionate about ever since I got interested in the Ripper case.

[truebluedub]

I scanned these from Femicide (1992) edited by Radford and Russell.

[Christine]

1. I'm not seeing much of that romanticized Jack in Ripperology. Quite the opposite.

2. I don't see this as being about male oppression of women. I see the ultimate motive as being mental illness and the victims as being vulnerable because of social inequality that goes beyond gender. Women who do such massively evil things are rare, and women who act without a male accomplice even rarer, but they do exist. And male victims of serial killers are pretty common.

[Bailey]

"All we know is that Jack must have been a man."

Why? Not at all biased there are we? The overtly Dworkinist slant aside, that was a good read, with some valid points. Thanks for posting, TBD.

B.

[protohistorian]

"Hey Jude....dont make it bad....."

Ok humor aside...I think Judy that anyone that spends inordinate time looking at crime scene or morgue photos may well be seeking a similar fix. For myself, its always been and will always be the best opportunity to amateur sleuth there is. Its the Sherlock era...and a Holmesian predicament...with a cast of characters like no other. I think someone has to make a visual presentation of this "event" digitally....like Beowolf was a year or so ago. And match the characters to the photos or sketches. Might be a better mystery if its portrayed with less gore than in real life.

But what this is, is an addiction. I recognize it with myself, and there are members here that have studied avidly for decades.

I think its more like a great single malt than porn.

Cheers Judy.

If it is porn they are doing wrong! The breast have holes in them or there by the shoulder, it's like Picasso porn, ugggh creeped myself out on that one.

[perrymason]

Its like "Andelusian Dogs" in real life....I agree Dave.
A show at the local gallery, Art in Real Life, by Salvador Dali.

But your point is good...this "crime spree", the photos and the sketches are vulgar and offensive and insensible to most sane people, but it is nonetheless captivating in its own way.

Its not the craning of a neck to see the car crash youre slowing passing....its more like squinting at a glaring spectacle to see something of form inside it.

All the best Dave

[protohistorian]

1. I'm not seeing much of that romanticized Jack in Ripperology. Quite the opposite.

2. I don't see this as being about male oppression of women. I see the ultimate motive as being mental illness and the victims as being vulnerable because of social inequality that goes beyond gender. Women who do such massively evil things are rare, and women who act without a male accomplice even rarer, but they do exist. And male victims of serial killers are pretty common.

Well spoken!

[Khanada]

1. I'm not seeing much of that romanticized Jack in Ripperology. Quite the opposite.

2. I don't see this as being about male oppression of women. I see the ultimate motive as being mental illness and the victims as being vulnerable because of social inequality that goes beyond gender. Women who do such massively evil things are rare, and women who act without a male accomplice even rarer, but they do exist. And male victims of serial killers are pretty common.

I agree completely.

Then we have Mrs Fenwick of 1888... I do hate to cast aspersions about nice, deceased English ladies, but I cannot help but think that her rather graphic little list may just indicate that she might have been into "murder porn"... Not because I doubt her words per se, but because she seems to have taken such a very thorough approach into making her list...

I guess that when I contemplate the definition of "murder porn", I tend to come up with trashy slasher films, and possibly things like Hammer's Hands of the Ripper (although I confess I've never seen that one). These are things that are deliberately intended to be titilating. This isn't to say that you couldn't find an example of that kind of situation within Ripperology as a whole, but that still doesn't make all of Ripperology into nothing but "murder porn". (I'm not even sure that the ramblings of the infamous PC qualify as "titilating", let alone the books that are generally well thought of here at Casebook.)

[RJM]

Deborah Cameron says in the article above: " Those who glorify the criminal should be forced to remember the victims -"

This type of hypocrisy is galling. She mentions "Jack the Ripper" twenty times or more, as well as some other notorious murderers by name, yet she fails to pass on the names of any victims of the Whitechapel murderer or any victims from the killers cited in the article. I can honestly say that I have never lost focus on Martha, Polly, Annie, Liz, Kate, Mary, nor the other women who lost their life during that period, including three nameless torso victims.

I've spent years looking at the photographs, and have even written a book on the subject. I take no pleasure in looking at them but they are a study tool, and the only piece of forensic evidence left in the case after more than 120 years.

John Bennett's post about "murder buzz" being a more accurate phrase is bang on the money. And thanks to you as well Judy, for your passion and wisdom.

Robert

p.s. The Four Bells? At least get your facts straight about the pub name. Jack the Ripper as a name of a pub I agree was tacky and uncalled for. Despite the name change, however, the Ripper ephemera was still part of the pub until just recently. Was that any more degrading than the strippers?

[John Bennett]

I think we, in a nutshell, are looking at 'taboos', things that are intended to be forbidden (but obviously aren't). And the fact that people want to see what they're not meant to see is common.

Remember the Video Nasty hoo-hah in the early 1980s? Certain videos were banned for their violent and sexual content - they were notorious in the press and as a result people wanted to watch them! I can remember friends saying they'd got hold of pirate copies of such-and-such a film and it was almost a badge of honour to have seen them.

That said, most of those films are now freely available, as are those with hard-core sex (another no-no in this country until fairly recently).

Oh, the times they are a changin'! Whether it's for better or worse, I can't say.

[Suzi]

Hi all-

This is beginning to sound like a 'Pssssssst- wanna see some Ripperporn thread'!!!...... As Rob Mc C says- THE photos are purely factual evidence of the terrible crimes, and must of course be viewed as such, and treated as research. (They have of course been the cause of much contention on Casebook and Forums with people discussing aspects various- this does not constitute any form of prurient interest)...AND if anyone's taken a long hard look at the photographs in the interest of fantastic research and results- it's Rob!!

Anyone who takes any form of pleasure from viewing these sad,very real and disturbing images of very real women- has no place on this or any other forum concerning the murders of 1888.

Suz x

Sadly the women portrayed would have had not the slightest idea that they would have become 'famous', or even remembered- least of all from their mortuary photographs.

Hardly 'Hello' is it!

[Nothing to see]

Why would you think there was anything pornographic or even sexually interesting about the black and white photos of women who were murdered 120 years ago?

If you do, well..

[John Bennett]

Why would you think there was anything pornographic or even sexually interesting about the black and white photos of women who were murdered 120 years ago?

Exactly.

[Fisherman]

...except for the fact that a lot of the nitwits who have resorted to killing women have been fervent collectors of this very kind of material. To them, it is a turn-on. To you and me, hopefully not.
But it can always be reasoned that there are not only armchair detectives out there - there are armchair killers too ...

The best,
Fisherman