Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

where do you stand?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sorry for deviating off topic but I felt RivkahChaya’s notes on Mansfield required some comment.

    The London stage production used an interesting effect, by which, part of the Jekyll-to-Hyde transformation took place in full view of the audience. It was done by putting make-up on the actor (Richard Mansfield) in make-up that was visible only under certain light, and having the stage lit without that light, then changing the light as the transformation took place.

    Onstage, after the light trick, Mansfield would fall down, grab a wig and false teeth and hurriedly pull them on, get back up, and run off stage, and that was the end of the scene (maybe the act, I'm not sure). He'd get make-up touch-ups, wig straightened, hairy, long-nailed gloves, and soforth, before the next scene. It had to be pretty darned cool.
    Make-up and lighting changes were central to Mansfield’s transformations but, I’m afraid, I don’t recognise the Hyde-specific wig or the running off stage for make-up touch-ups and hairy, long-nailed gloves before returning for the next scene as Hyde. There was no need for any of this as the only on-stage Jekyll to Hyde transformation brought the play to an end.

    The first on-stage transformation comes towards the end of Act 3 where Hyde taunts Lanyon before drinking the potion: “from the glass which he puts down with a loud cry. He reels, staggers and clutches the table, calls out in Jekyll’s voice ‘Lanyon! Lanyon!’ Then he straightens himself and walks erect to centre-stage as Jekyll.” This concludes Act 3.

    The second and final on-stage transformation comes in Act 4 where, during a soliloquy while looking out of a window at the rear of the stage, mainly with his back to the audience, after some shivering convulsions and clasping of his face in his hands, Jekyll falls into a chair and realises: “he has slowly turned into Hyde and now sees himself in the glass and rises with a shriek.” Hyde then lurches to centre-stage, drinks poison and falls to the floor, dead. As Lanyon, Poole, Newcome and Agnes enter, the curtain falls, bringing the play to an end.

    In addition to make-up and lighting effects, Mansfield achieved his transformation through dramatic alterations in stature, bearing, facial and vocal expression. He was aided in this by a single wig, worn for both Jekyll and Hyde. This full-bodied wig was heavily greased so that it could be smoothly swept back and to the side for Jekyll, or tousled and pulled forward as Hyde; the grease ensuring it would retain the desired style. Both styles can clearly be seen in the famous double-exposure publicity photograph of Mansfield in the dual role.

    (The specific quotes in the above come from stage direction in the original Lyceum script of Mansfield’s Jekyll and Hyde performance.)

    The idea of the Ripper being a Toff, or dressing like a Toff, is probably inspired more by the contemporary theatrical drama, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, playing around London at the time.
    It does present a visual treat, top hat, cane, little black bag & cape swirling through the midnight fog. Who can resist such a romantic figure.
    Interestingly, in terms of Jon’s point, for the early performances of Jekyll and Hyde at the Lyceum, Mansfield wore the same low-crown, wide-brimmed hat as both Jekyll and Hyde. By the 18th August, however, he had taken to wearing a silk chapeau as Jekyll; thus appropriately clothing his doctor in what would come to be seen as classic Ripper garb.

    Once again, I’m sorry for this distraction.

    Best wishes
    alex
    But for me, in my impenetrable mantle, the safety was complete. Think of it – I did not even exist!
    (HJFSotC – SCoDJaMH – RLS, 1886)

    https://www.amazon.com/author/alexchisholm
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/-/e/B006JFY5TC

    Comment


    • Originally posted by lynn cates View Post

      Certainly looks that way to me. We have a chap who talks loudly outside someone's window--not too calculating.
      Hi Lynn

      Are you referring to Mrs Lilley or someone else?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
        Hello Mike.

        "I think the killer of Polly and Annie falls under the category of Impulse driven"

        Certainly looks that way to me. We have a chap who talks loudly outside someone's window--not too calculating.

        Cheers.
        LC
        Steady on, Lynn - we apparently have TWO chaps talking - and one of them may not have been very happy about that.

        If it was just the one chap performing some sort of monologue, then we neet to turn our minds to some sort of mentally challenged person.

        And why would we do that ...?

        All the best,
        Fisherman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
          Phil
          Maybrick, being a middle middle class tradesman.
          Maybrick was a northerner and would have been totally out of his comfort zone in the East End.
          Hi Lechy,

          Maybrick isn't a bona fide ripper suspect, but you couldn't be more wrong about him. Firstly, he came from a working class family (his father was an engraver) and began his own working life as a shipping clerk. He worked his way up from there, but that didn't bestow class, and he would always have been considered lower middle, or at best a nouveau riche.

          Secondly, he had lived and worked in the East End close to Whitechapel as a young man, and while there had met his long-term mistress, Sarah Robertson, who was every bit his comfort zone. In later years his business took him to America, and he was a frequent visitor to London, so he was no stranger to travel and he was also a regular user of prostitutes in addition to his drug habit. The East End would have been like a second, or third home to him.

          This is presumably why the diary author thought this 'northerner' could be turned into the Whitechapel Murderer.

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          Last edited by caz; 02-28-2013, 11:38 AM.
          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


          Comment


          • Originally posted by caz View Post
            ... while there had met his long-term mistress, Sarah Robertson, who was every bit his comfort zone.
            Caz
            X
            What - the East End of her ...?

            The best,
            Fisherman

            Comment


            • foreign man

              Hello Lucky. Thanks.

              I refer to Mrs. Long's purported sighting of Annie and the "foreign looking man."

              Cheers.
              LC

              Comment


              • conversation

                Hello Christer. Thanks.

                Yes, I daresay Annie regretted the conversation.

                Cheers.
                LC

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                  ...the key here is it must be someone who could NOT have continued killing after the second murder. Because the killer of Polly and Annie would have killed more if still at large.
                  I suppose I shouldn't be surprised any more when I see this arse backwards reasoning.

                  And I will be the one accused of writing 'rot' for pointing out the bleedin' obvious: the killing did continue after Polly and Annie, which is perfectly in line with their killer being someone who was still at large to kill more.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
                    Hello Christer. Thanks.

                    Yes, I daresay Annie regretted the conversation.

                    Cheers.
                    LC
                    "Outside someone´s window", Lynn ...? You thinking of any specific person here?

                    The best,
                    Fisherman

                    Comment


                    • I suppose I shouldn't be surprised any more when I see this arse backwards reasoning.

                      And I will be the one accused of writing 'rot' for pointing out the bleedin' obvious: the killing did continue after Polly and Annie, which is perfectly in line with their killer being someone who was still at large to kill more.


                      Well, I won't say you're talking rot, just reciting the old conventional wisdom, as is your wont.

                      I don't rule out a single killer of the five, more victims or less. But I think now it's only one option.

                      I don't see it as remotely impossible that one hand killed Polly and Annie, but did not kill Stride or Eddowes or kelly and may have struck again with Mackenzie. What would have prevented him in between is something i cannot say, but I think there are indications in that direction.

                      Equally Eddowes might be by the same hand as Polly and Annie (but I find it harder these days to see Liz and Mary as his handiwork).

                      My mind is open to all potentialities and possibilities.

                      Phil

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
                        Hello Mike.

                        "I think the killer of Polly and Annie falls under the category of Impulse driven"

                        Certainly looks that way to me. We have a chap who talks loudly outside someone's window--not too calculating.

                        Cheers.
                        LC
                        Is it any wonder he was talking loudly? After all, it must be very trying to get a sheep to understand English.

                        Comment


                        • A thought that has occured to me recently is time variation...Let's take C5 as a basis...2 before 0200 and 3 after 0330..IF he was just wandering looking for victims,there's a gap...Take Liz out and variation is more.........Just musing......

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Observer View Post
                            Is it any wonder he was talking loudly? After all, it must be very trying to get a sheep to understand English.
                            ... English with a Swiss accent.

                            Good point, Observer :-)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by RavenDarkendale View Post
                              @ Ben

                              Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you.

                              I never said anything except "fairly well off." This would fit the maps. As for 'toffs" not being comfortable in the East End they went, didn't they to enjoy a lifestyle they didn't dare to do in their own locale.

                              The murderer did not need anything other than audacity to commit these murders. Take Bundy for an example. He was very good at convincing girls that he was harmless, or their friend, or injured. He killed and dumped bodies all over the USA, staying in some areas even after reports that could implicate him, such as descriptions of his volkswagon. He didn't even bother to change cars.

                              Serial killers have been stopped with bodies in the car and cheerfully bluffed their way through. Caught in out of the way areas, near where bodies were dumped, they manage to convince police that they have good reason to be there. Dahlmer was so convincing the police returned a victim that had escaped to him. The serial killer knows no bounds.
                              Again, Raven, a very good post.

                              I have never understood the argument that because the more feeble and squeamish among the thousands of "fairly well off", or "ever so slightly better off", or "respectably dressed" men, who lived or worked in or around the area might have avoided the murder streets at night like the plague, our vicious, knife-happy serial killer had to be from the other side of the tracks - dirt poor, shabby and virtually nailed to those streets by his circumstances (sounds painful).

                              The argument typically goes that everyone avoided the meanest streets if they didn't absolutely have to be there from economic necessity, so even a man armed with a lethally sharp knife and a warped sense of his entitlement to use it would have done the same, unless he was already stuck there day and night among the lowest of the low. So where does that leave the likes of Hutchinson, if he took himself all the way over to Romford to look for work, and was therefore as capable of leaving the meanest streets to the meanest people as anyone from the more "respectable" set?

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X
                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by alex View Post
                                Sorry for deviating off topic but I felt RivkahChaya’s notes on Mansfield required some comment.
                                Thanks. I've never seen the play, and I know that the lighting effect is borrowed from the stage production only because I have an older book on special effects, as well as a DVD with commentary by a film historian, who both go into detail about it. But please read the whole post, because knowing that mistake has made me do some research, that's given me some new thoughts about some very early influences of JTR on popular culture.

                                When I was in high school, I read a play version, which I was under the impression was the same one that was produced in London, but apparently not.

                                The 1931 film version was based on the play, but what I apparently did not realize until I just now did some looking up, was that Thomas Sullivan, the author of the play, continued to revise it through the two decades that Richard Mansfield played the role, adding the love interest some time after 1888, and capitulating eventually to the fact that the twist ending of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde being the same person wasn't a secret.

                                So, if you pick up a new copy of the play by Thomas Sullivan, you won't be reading the script that Mansfield was performing in 1888. It will be the script he was performing during the last few years that he did the role, which ended with his death in 1907. The movie scripts (the 1931 movie, and also the 1941 MGM film, the 1920 Famous Players-Lasky film with John Barrymore, & two earlier, now lost US films; the also lost, and unauthorized, FW Murnau adaption, which has some elements of The Picture of Dorian Gray) all are based on the last version of the stage play, and not so much on the Stevenson novella itself.

                                [SPOILER] if I must: I only bring this up, because while the play closed for a while during the fall of 1888, in deference to real life, now that I have learned more about the history of the script, it almost appears as though Thomas Sullivan, the author of the play, reworked the Hyde character into less of what he was in the novella, and more of a "Jack the Ripper" character.

                                The 1920, 1931, & 1941 versions are all pretty easy to find, so anyone who hasn't seen them ought to give them a look.

                                Me, I'm now off to try to track down a copy of the script pre-Ripper, because it seems that early in the play's history, it was not about a very respectable and temperate man, who, when he transforms under the influence of his potion, goes into the poorer section of town, and torments women, finally fixating on a prostitute, who he feels he owns, to the point that he has a right to kill her to keep her to himself. But that was what it eventually became. If you have read the original novella, it doesn't concern the sexual appetite of Hyde, as he doesn't seem to have one-- he is little and shriveled, and the description is really of a person in poor health, not someone "lusty," which is what he becomes by the 1907 script, even if his face is ugly. It's worth noting that in the film versions, he's a man in a top hat and cape walking into East End bars. The play opened in Boston in 1887, so there have to be some old scripts floating around.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X