channel five documentry!

[Garza]

Hi all

A few words to clarify the points being raised regarding the acting in the documentary. Really, there are two matters to take into consideration, those being TIME and MONEY.

The programme was produced using a very tight budget indeed and the time given by Channel 5 for completion after taking it on was in many people's opinion, unrealistically quick.

Most of the big parts were taken on by professional actors, however we used many friends and acquaintances as extras, just because of the constraints mentioned above. In some cases, where things went wrong, we had to use a non-professional for a role that perhaps demanded more than just the abilities of the 'man from the off-licence' (to quote Monty Python).

For example, the day we filmed the bulk of the Annie Chapman scenes, we discovered that the actress chosen hadn't checked her e-mails for over a week and didn't know we were filming. Cue a mad dash looking for somebody to take her place with only about an hour or two's notice. Fortunately, Diane Leamouth (one of our extras) was on hand and she graciously became Annie. And she looked the part, I have to say, but was NOT an actress. That was the case with several characters.

Trying to find people with the right look was a tough task. We wanted our actors to look like the real people as much as possible and this was sometimes impossible. In the end, I think we did bloody well. Wait till you see John Littlechild or John Kelly, for example.

In any case, I hope that furnishes people with a little insight into the actor situation. I was partly responsible for getting these people in for the early stages of the production and believe you me, it was INCREDIBLY stressful.

JB

Completely understand, CGI is a lot of money, it wasn't going to look like Rovert Downey Jr's Sherlock Holmes .

I thought the woman who played Annie Chapman did VERY well, it tugged on my heart strings seeing her leave the doss house, miserable and sick, head down. The woman who played Liz Long was the worst - she was probably a stage actress, she overexaggerated everything, was horrendus lol.

[Steve S]

Under those circumstances..Bloody Great!.....BTW,what was the source for Jack's knife.....Looked very much like an 18thcent Trade scalper to me......?

[claire]

I was quite content with the acting--I saw it less as 'acting' and more as what it seemed intended as--just reconstruction. To that extent, acting ability is rather less important, and I think we've all seen a full range of reasonably competent actors disport themselves in LVP costume. I didn't see this documentary as being in competition with them--it was trying to do something entirely different. Not having a suspect-driven agenda removes a lot of the imperative to dramatise, I suppose. For me, it feels different because it wasn't really plot/narrative driven, so I suppose it's only natural to start noticing 2D 'acting' or a lack of horse manure and orange peel strewn through the streets. None of which troubled me in the slightest.

And, as to what John Bennett just said about Channel 5--a friend of mine is making a small docu-drama series commissioned by them and reports the same sort of nightmares. It took them over a year to make up their minds and then wanted everything done in 4 months; utterly implausible. So, grr to C5 (not meant to be a pun) and kudos to the team on this.

[John Bennett]

Actors

Hi all

A few words to clarify the points being raised regarding the acting in the documentary. Really, there are two matters to take into consideration, those being TIME and MONEY.

The programme was produced using a very tight budget indeed and the time given by Channel 5 for completion after taking it on was in many people's opinion, unrealistically quick.

Most of the big parts were taken on by professional actors, however we used many friends and acquaintances as extras, just because of the constraints mentioned above. In some cases, where things went wrong, we had to use a non-professional for a role that perhaps demanded more than just the abilities of the 'man from the off-licence' (to quote Monty Python).

For example, the day we filmed the bulk of the Annie Chapman scenes, we discovered that the actress chosen hadn't checked her e-mails for over a week and didn't know we were filming. Cue a mad dash looking for somebody to take her place with only about an hour or two's notice. Fortunately, Diane Leamouth (one of our extras) was on hand and she graciously became Annie. And she looked the part, I have to say, but was NOT an actress. That was the case with several characters.

Trying to find people with the right look was a tough task. We wanted our actors to look like the real people as much as possible and this was sometimes impossible. In the end, I think we did bloody well. Wait till you see John Littlechild or John Kelly, for example.

In any case, I hope that furnishes people with a little insight into the actor situation. I was partly responsible for getting these people in for the early stages of the production and believe you me, it was INCREDIBLY stressful.

JB

[Steve S]

Seen it all now,generally very impressed,facts,settings,etc........But...I'm afraid it's the actors...Far too clean clothes in some cases....spoke like they were reading from an auto-cue...moved like Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins......

[Jane Coram]

That should have been 'good old rant'. I must remember to take more water with it.

Hugs

Janie
xxxxx

[FrancoLoco]

Unfortunately for those of us on this side of the world, it can't be viewed on Five's website. I'm hoping they release it over here in the US on one of the cable networks.

[Jane Coram]

Hi Ally,

I'm not sure if the actors and actresses were professionals or amateurs, but I suspect mainly the latter, and to be fair they were really only on a par with the standard of acting I've seen in most other Ripper documentaries, which is always a bit hammy in my opinion. It was better than quite a few I've seen. Some of the actors and actresses were pretty good; it was just a bit hit and miss. Whether or not more direction would have helped, I don't know, perhaps, but I think they acquitted themselves reasonably well overall, and as I said, I came close to shedding a tear or two when I watched the last few recorded moments of the victims' lives, so they must have been doing something right.

I mentioned the fact that they did look very much like the characters they portrayed, simply because I get so fed up with seeing documentaries and films where they have made no effort at all to get a similarity. It's sheer laziness. They shove a red feather boa around an extra's neck, a gin bottle in their hand, bundle them onto the set and start filming - so it made a nice change to see that they had taken trouble to get it right. They had obviously put a lot of effort into it, which always scores high marks with me.

Anyway, the threads always here once you've seen it to have a got old rant.

Lots of love

Janie

xxxxx

[Ally]

I think as a documentary made by actual enthusiasts of the case, they are ignoring myths and legends in favor of actual facts. Or at least I hope they are. If what's missing is exploitation and sensationalism, all to the good.

[spyglass]

Hi all,
Very enjoyable, just thought it lacked something but cant put my finger on what. I was surprised though that they did not mention the items found at Chapmans feet, or is that all to be mentioned in part two along with other myths and legends with the case.
I do also hope that they dont choose or highlight any particular suspect.

[Stephen Thomas]

And hubby didn't even get fed up when I kept saying: "I know him, I know her, I know him" all the way through.

You're lucky, Caz. I'd have liked to have done that but I watched it on my own

Dead good though wasn't it?

[Ally]

What did impress me was that the actors and actresses, for the most part, did look astonishingly like the people they portrayed, even down to PC Neil having a lovely ginger tache. .....

Alright to be fair, the acting was a bit hammy, and gave me a few chuckles, but in a topic as depressing and unpleasant as serial killings, I actually found it quite welcome.

I think I would have preferred good acting to identical lookalikes. I don't like ham under the best of circumstances but I think I'd find it kind of disrespectful for cartoonish acting in a topic like this and think whoever managed those scenes possibly should have toned it down. Again, not seen it myself, have no valid opinion, just my thoughts on what I've been told/read about the doc.

[Chris]

Oh heck, i missed the first part, well now i know about the documentary so hopefully i can get to watch the 2nd part..........
I wonder if there will be any repeats? Anyone know? Cheers, Shelley.

It's available for the rest of the month here:

http://www.five.tv/shows/jack-the-ripper-the-definitive-story/episodes/episode-1-285

I assume you have to be in the UK, though I don't know for sure.

[Shelley]

Oh heck, i missed the first part, well now i know about the documentary so hopefully i can get to watch the 2nd part..........

I wonder if there will be any repeats? Anyone know? Cheers, Shelley.

[Jane Coram]

Hi CD,

CGI = computer generated images. This can cover anything from flat reconstructions, to super-realistic stuff like Avatar, done with green screen and motion sensors.

Hugs

Janie

xxxx