From Hell?

[Mary_Jane_Kelly]

i agree baily, jonny cannot do a convincing cockey accent at all (nor can he sing as proven in sweeny todd hahaha).

i think it would make a good JTR movie if they focused on one of the victims and take it from her perspective. like MJK and her rocky relationship with joe barnett. i dont think there has ever been a movie based entierley on the victims perspective, its usually the coppers or a mixture of everyones.


and if anyone is interested i am currently in the process of writing a play about MJK, and when i have finished i will post snippets of it and you can see what u think.


---MJK---

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Speaking of MJK, no disrespect to the dead or to the girl in question, but I find her case 'overrated' and overplayed (especially in the movies et cerera). I find Chapman's and Eddowes' murders to be a lot more interesting.

[RonnieKray]

Anyone with even the most basic understanding of drama writing would tell you that there is not a decent film in the Ripper story if told exactly as it happened.


B.

Seeing as I am a published author of two books. I cannot agree with your opinion!

[Mary_Jane_Kelly]

Seeing as I am a published author of two books. I cannot agree with your opinion!

ever heard of woody allen? he starred and directed in many films, does'nt mean they were good. same applies to authors.


i am a qualified in performing arts, so i do have a little knowlege in this field.


---MJK---

[Mary_Jane_Kelly]

Speaking of MJK, no disrespect to the dead or to the girl in question, but I find her case 'overrated' and overplayed (especially in the movies et cerera). I find Chapman's and Eddowes' murders to be a lot more interesting.

chapman & eddows? why??

---MJK---

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Because I consider Chapman's murder to be Jack's 'finest' work, and Eddowes is the first and only victim with his trademark ripping that happened outside of Whitechapel. But also looking at them as individual cases, completely separate from Jack the Ripper, they're the most bizarre and creepy murders in history in my opinion. Not that Kelly's isn't horrific, hell, I think that's one of the most gruesome murders ever, but I just don't find her case all that fascinating. It's too focused on I guess, I dunno.

[Khanada]

I love the graphic novel, for all that I find the Royal Conspiracy nonsense to be a load of ... well ... nonsense.

The person who posted earlier that they weren't expecting to be educated, just entertained, hit the nail square on the head. Exactly. And this from someone who freely admits that she had to be browbeaten into reading it because (1) it was a comic book, and (2) as the S.O. was trying to get me to read it, he said "Stephen Knight" and I wigged.

I also happen to like the movie, though not as well as the graphic novel. The graphic novel is the size of a fat phone book -- there's no way to shove all that into two hours. That said, I can pick some nits over the movie. The girls were still dressed a little too fancy, to me. I thought it made the area look too neat and clean. Some of the casting left much to be desired... I like Johnny Depp a lot -- but as Abberline? He's not who I'd have picked. Heather Graham? Uh, did someone miss the descriptions of Mary Jane as "stout"? I think they did. On the other hand, they make up some points purely for casting Robbie Coltrane. (The larger problem with Abberline isn't Johnny Depp, anyway -- it's the fact that he's written as an amalgamation of supercop, Lees, Batman, and Sherlock Holmes.)

I also like Murder By Decree very much, flaws and all. The amusement factor of James Mason being in it, and also having been in The London Nobody Knows is just really good icing.

Both require a certain suspension of disbelief -- they're not documentaries, so no use expecting them to be. Sit back with snack of choice, let mind wander.

[Stewart P Evans]

Reality Check

Time for a reality check. A movie is a movie, is a movie. Since when did Hollywood present the real facts adhering strictly to historical reality?

Hollywood movies are made for entertainment of the audience, drama, thrills, shocks, you name it. Anything but true historical interpretation. And when the movie is based on the rights purchased to a graphic novel then it is hardly going to reflect reality. So although hung on the sensational name tag 'Jack the Ripper' one should hardly expect to be going to see a cutting edge documentary based on real investigative research.

True I was one of the 'historical advisers' to this movie, but such advice hardly included influence to the degree of altering the script in any significant way. I may have had Tower Bridge removed from the proposed sets but the storyline was largely beyond my remit. Any script influence I may have had would have been limited to legal considerations.

So the attitude to adopt is 'hey ho here we go again', another piece of fiction to enjoy (if that's your bag). As a trip to Prague and the chance to work the cast, Johnny Depp, Ian Holm, Heather Graham, Robbie Coltrane, etc. was involved I wasn't complaining. It was, what it was, another Hollywood version of a real-life case that drew heavily, in my opinion, on its predecessors, notably Michael Caine's 1988 Jack the Ripper.

You either enjoyed it, or you didn't. But no one was forced to watch it.

[brummie]

I think a movie on JTR would be best served if they, as far as possible, film it without trying to prove who did it.

It would be great seeing it from the police, press and public perspective.....without all that cloak and top hat stuff going on.

They do not need to add or change things.

The Michael Caine TV film attempted this quite well, but the problem they had was I guess is that TV production companys & TV audiences like a nice clean end to a production which means a solution to the mystery. Historical facts don't provide this so they choose a theory as being the answer. Unfortunatly for the Caine production they also chose to go down the least likely Netley/Gull conspiracy route, I suppose it just makes for a good storyline, but otherwise not a bad effort. I would reccomend the recent Whitechapel TV series although not directly about JTR it managed to avoid the trap of actualy naming a culprit.

[RonnieKray]

Many real stories are dramatised for the big screen - it does not turn them into a documentary. Ghandi - the movie for example. They didn't turn him into a homosexual or a suit wearer just to beef up the plot.

It won Oscars galore!

[Stewart P Evans]

Ghandi

Many real stories are dramatised for the big screen - it does not turn them into a documentary. Ghandi - the movie for example. They didn't turn him into a homosexual or a suit wearer just to beef up the plot.
It won Oscars galore!

Ghandi was not based on a graphic novel! Nor was it, I would assume, totally factual, I am sure dramatic licence was used.

[RonnieKray]

I never said Ghandi was based on a graphic novel!

Are you really sure dramatic licience was used in the Ghandi movie as you claim to be? Tell us where it deviated. I don't think you are sure at all. Your comments ''assume'' and ''I am sure...'' are a contradiction.

I made the comment that a JRT film should be based on truth not on a novel.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

My major problem with real historical events being portrayed on film with very little connection to the truth whatsoever, is that they further cements myths and inaccuracies.
People say that one should treat them for what they are - fiction and entertainment - but as far as I am concerned it is not that simple. As a historian I have time and time again seen how all these errors and ficitional embroidments can become real truths and actually destroy a whole subject.

When I've done lectures in connection with my Ripper book in Sweden it is astounding how people appears to have been totally convinced of that movies like From Hell are true historical accounts and based on accuracy, and how they completely are taken aback when they are presented to the harsh reality that the whole story is humbug andn nonsense and that the only elements in movies like Murder by Decree and From Hell that actually corresponds with the truth are the names of the characters involved while the story itself is a complete fairytale.
One should remember that in Birtain and the US there may be a clique of people who have some fair knowledge of the case and who can differ fiction from facts. However, this is not always the case outside Britain and US. Therefore From Hell and similar films in the genre creates a lot of severe damage.

When filming historical events you will always for the benefit of artistic or entertainment values find them including parts that are not totally accurate. That can never be avoided - after all, they have to work as watchable movies as well.
But in the case of the Ripper - where so much mythology has been created and cemented - I maintain the opinion that it is very dangerous to create a fictional story. In my view, when you're doing a movie about historical people, who've actaully existed, you should keep things as true as possible to the truth. If not, you're disrespecting those people and the circumstances they experienced.
It's better not to film it at all than to create total fiction out of a real existing historical event just for the sake of entertainment.

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

Are you really sure dramatic licience was used in the Ghandi movie as you claim to be? Tell us where it deviated.

Dramatic license needn't mean a deviation from the truth, however it's clear that Richard Attenborough held Gandhi as a personal hero - I'm sure he said as much at the time the movie came out - therefore one can expect at least a little hero-worship on the director's part. The bottom line is that no "historical" movie can ever be 100% factual - not least because words are literally put into the actors' mouths by writers, whose screenplays have to be interesting and (so the cynic might say) worthy of reward.

[RonnieKray]

No one is claiming 100% accuracy. But making up things like one of the victims was a lesbian and making out the leading detective is a drug addict and committed suicide and that they all ate grapes and drank a poisonous liquid before they died.

All I am saying is that there is an incredible story that could be told....based on the truth of real events and real people.

Richard Attenbrough spent 20 years dedicated to making the film - mostly research and for all intents and purposes he did a grand job.....did he need to turn Ghandi into a homosexual or a suit wearer to make the film more appealing?

Of course not!