MURDER BY DECREE – dir. Bob Clark. Starring Christopher Plummer, James Mason, Frank Finley, Susan Clark, Sir John Gielgud, etc.
FROM HELL – dirs. Albert and Allen Hughes. Starring Johnny Depp, Heather Graham, Ian Holm, Robbie Coltrane, etc.
Recently, I revisited two films dealing with the same subject matter: the Whitechapel murders of the late 19th century. Actually, I practically viewed these back to back. More like one week after the other. And believe me, there was no intent on my part to assess a comparison while viewing the two. In fact, the notion of writing an article on either flick did not occur to me until after I sat through Bob Clark’s MURDER BY DECREE the other night.
FROM HELL, the Hughes brother’s adaptation of Alan Moore’s and Eddie Campbell’s amazing graphic novel of the same name was caught on Showtime late last week. Both my girlfriend and I had seen it before and since it was on, we decided to give it another go. MURDER BY DECREE came about because my girlfriend likes Sherlock Holmes movies. Recently, I had her watch THE SEVEN PERCENT SOLUTION and she enjoyed that. I was, like, “so what did you think of this flick starring Alan Arkin as Sigmund Freud and Robert Duvall of all people as Watson?” She was impressed. Especially with Duvall’s take on the famous Doctor. I then said “well, you gotta’ check out this other Sherlock Holmes flick starring Christopher Plummer and directed by the guy who made PORKY’S!”
As MURDER BY DECREE unspooled (or, rather, finished buffering since we watched it on Netflix), it completely came back to me how similar this was to FROM HELL. Not only do they deal with the Jack The Ripper killings, both are either directly inspired by or based on a source inspired by Stephen Knight’s non-fiction Jack The Ripper: The Final Solution. This was the work that posited the whole theory of how the Ripper murders were actually cover-ups for a specific dalliance occurred by Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale. Significant in that a child was born out of this situation. Now… if you haven’t seen either movie yet and are adverse to spoilers you’ll need to stop reading now. Because both film’s denouements are informed by the theories discussed in Knight’s book.
Now I am not a Ripperologist. Or whatever it’s called. But it is my understanding that Stephen Knight’s ideas have since been rendered invalid. I think this had something to do with suspect medical evidence and a discredited informant who claimed to be the illegitimate son of one of the major players in this drama. In any case, Wikipedia has a pretty decent synopsis of this and the resulting critical response so I suggest you check that out when you get a chance. The key thing, however, is that both DECREE and FROM HELL utilize the details, the motivations and the suspects involved in the conspiracy discussed in Knight’s book. Both films have as their main culprit a surgeon and loyal member of the Freemason’s. Both have in their culprit a misguided motivation to protect the monarchy (by killing those aware of the existence of Prince Albert’s illegitimate son). Both culprits are fond of grapes and use grapes to lure their prey. And a clue referencing “the juwes are the men who will not be blamed” appear prominently in both films.
MURDER BY DECREE is a mystery. As is the film FROM HELL. But the graphic novel from which it was adapted is anything but. In fact, FROM HELL works more like a remake of DECREE than an actual adaptation as the similarities rest on subject matter and character names alone. Which is why FROM HELL is so disappointing to me. Now, I do not think a good adaptation of a book has to be absolutely faithful. In some cases a too faithful rendering could result in flawed cinema because what works on the page may not work as well on the screen. However, there is an intrinsic point to adapting the written word. To retain an important theme communicated through that work, for example. Otherwise, it renders everything in the adaptation pointless. In other words, if you so dismiss the essential spirit of that source then using that source’s title and/or characters become unnecessary in the end. You might as well call it something else and rename your characters. And this definitely sums up my feelings for FROM HELL.
Alan Moore’s novel is absolutely galvanizing. It’s a patchwork quilt. It’s a very dark, very social-political, Victorian-era Robert Altman movie. I’m not joking about that. Moore’s FROM HELL is an ensemble piece with Sir William Gull as it’s central character. There is no mystery as to the identity of the Ripper. Gull is the main protagonist and we follow him as he finds his calling and indulges in the atrocities that will (in his view) usher in the 20th Century. The peripheral characters involve Scotland Yard inspector Abberline, an unhappily married man of middle age; Mary Kelley, a prostitute among a group of prostitutes harboring the secret whereabouts of the illegitimate child; Robert Lees, a fraudulent, opportunistic psychic; John Netley, Gull’s carriage driver and reluctant accomplice; William Sickert, the renown painter and close friend of Prince Albert… and a whole cornucopia of almost every major European figure of the era and beyond (Oscar Wilde, John “The Elephant Man” Merrick, a young Aleister Crowley and a baby Hitler to name a few). It’s also a great mind fuck of a tale. Fact is incorporated effortlessly with fiction. It explains how the Whitechapel murders were not only informed by current events but might have influenced them. And Moore reaches deep into his knowledge of Qabalah and the occult. For example, geographic accuracy is used to hair raising effect in one sequence as a character reveals how five major London landmarks were designed by freemasons, and how by drawing the lines between each location where each building sits, a pentagram is formed. Sir William goes from viewing his acts as a loyal service to that of a shaman who reaches new planes of consciousness with each ritualistic killing.
It sounds out of control wacked, man. But the reader is free to interpret if Sir William has gone bonkers or if he was truly on to something if not in a really misguided way. The kind of madness that begets a kind of arrogance giving way to the suppression of classes, mass murdering, the progression of society, fascism, you name it. Let me put it this way, Moore’s/Campbell’s FROM HELL is cut from the same cloth as Thomas Pynchon and almost anything by Robert Anton Wilson.
I don’t think FROM HELL the movie is “bad,” per se. It certainly not a good adaptation of it’s source but it’s not an awful flick. But it’s not, well, great? Rather, what’s less than “good” but not exactly “bad?” I guess what I’m trying to say is, FROM HELL the movie is just okay. It’s beautifully shot. And the performances work for the most part. But nothing really stands out for me other than it’s a “Jack The Ripper” movie. And not only does it follow the beats of MURDER BY DECREE almost faithfully, but the same territory was covered by a television mini-series starring Michael Caine in the late ‘80s. And if I recall, I think I liked that better. So it doesn’t even feel new or fresh to me. All the thematic elements of the novel are not in the film. And for some reason, and much to my annoyance, they took two characters from the novel – the married Abberline and the fraudulent psychic – and combined them into one character for the film: Johnny Depp’s widowed, really psychic detective. It’s silly and pointless. William Gull is not revealed to be the culprit until the end. And there isn’t much of an impact there since the film doesn’t present us with suspects that leave an impression. So all we’re left with is a budding romance between Depp’s Abberline and Heather Graham’s Mary Kelley. And I couldn’t even get into that because Graham’s accent attempt was too distracting. In the novel, an unrequited connection is developed between Abberline and Kelley but neither character knows who the other actually is (Abberline presents himself under false pretenses while Kelley uses another name to protect herself from possible harm). So there is something really poignant about that relationship. Especially since it can never be. What the film gives us instead is Depp’s Abberline dying of an overdose. But not before he knows Kelley is safe. Whereas in the novel, Abberline assumes she is dead and, ergo, never finds out she’s still alive.
(There is also a sub theme regarding the objectification/possession of women in Moore’s/Campbell’s tome. And this point is aided by Abberline’s eventual dismissal of the Mary Kelley character. Kelley sees him as a friend, someone to confide in. In his loneliness, Abberline sees something more. After an awkward attempt at finally propositioning her, Kelley rebuffs Abberline leaving him – and his ego - bitterly wounded)
The late Bob Clark’s MURDER BY DECREE in some ways is more faithful to the spirit of the novel FROM HELL than it’s official adaptation. For example, the movie FROM HELL seems to skirt the issues of male domination, the effect of a class structure on a social society, and the consequences of one’s actions in abetting complicity in such a society. Again, FROM HELL is beautifully shot and edited – has a look that is more or less an update on a Hammer Films product. Visually, very gothic with lurid reds, oranges and greys. Lower rung characters are appropriately grimy. And the performances are serviceable to the script. And while Johnny Depp affects his accent admirably, it does feel as if he is sleep walking through his role. Yes, the character is a drug addict. Ergo the character is supposed to be somnambulant. But there are no highs (no pun intended) or lows with the character. So his sacrifice at the end doesn’t really resonate all that much.
DECREE, however, is surprisingly humane. While I do not think it is a better film than Herbert Ross’ earlier released SEVEN PERCENT SOLUTION, it’s a much more interesting movie than the Hughes’ FROM HELL. For one thing it takes as it’s central protagonist an iconic figure. Next to James Bond, Holmes is probably the most famous pulp character ever. And it subverts the notion that Sherlock will always get his man and leave the mission unscathed to solve another day. Chris Plummer plays Holmes as an empathetic -- a flame carrier for social justice. Now it’s a dicey interpretation because the literary character was cold and calculating at the expense of friends and potential loved ones. Conan Doyle’s creation was somewhat anti-social and, well, kind of Asperger’s-like. And this is the foundation most actors used to approach the role. It’s also interesting to note that Johnny Depp’s investigator is a drug addict but Plummer’s Sherlock Holmes is not (while Conan Doyle’s creation is). But Plummer makes it work. And it’s possible that the ending’s impact is all the more effective because of it.
(Although I admit it would have been interesting to see a traditional take from Plummer. To see how a case like this could test Holmes’ arrogance and disinclination for empathy. And see how or if this could draw some unforeseen humanity out of the character)
Although associated with PORKY’S and the cult classic A CHRISTMAS STORY, Bob Clark was no stranger to the thriller genre having made an earlier impression with another cult favorite BLACK CHRISTMAS. He was also responsible for one of my favorite horror movies of all time DEATHDREAM. But MURDER BY DECREE is significantly ambitious. A gothic, period thriller set in Victorian London. It has a very classy cast. It also effectively weaves in themes of class oppression and political dissatisfaction. You have the radical underground movement fighting against the oppressive rule of the monarchy. You also have the duty bound class system, blindly sticking to the old ways by oppressing everyone else. And both sides are playing Holmes against one another, a revelation that comes to Holmes much too late. It is a horrifying realization on his part. While the Ripper murders are connected to the echelons of power in the same way as in FROM HELL there is a stronger sense of opportunism on display here. The Radicals see Holmes’ involvement as an opportunity to capitalize on their movement and expose the leadership for what they are. The ruling class, however, seek to allow Holmes to lead them to the baby hidden away by the prostitute Mary Kelley. Not so much as to protect the Monarchy. But more so to cover their own asses as Freemasons. So Holmes is used by both sides.
I do have some caveats with DECREE. I like James Mason a lot but his take on Watson starts off a little too much like Nigel Bruce from the Basil Rathbone films. He also seems a little old for the part (I always saw Watson as Holmes’ contemporary). But Mason comes into his own in the role and shows us how Watson is more aware and on top of things than we may have been led to believe. And it also feels like Clark panders too much to the visual clichés associated with Holmes: the deer stalker cap, London fog, that whole thing. But on the whole I thought it was surprisingly smart and not historically inaccurate.
There is a lot to compare between DECREE and FROM HELL. Both films have their protagonists hitting up against the Freemasons. Both culprits are Royal surgeons (DECREE changes the name of Sir William Gull, however). Both culprits have their accomplices. Again: the grapes. Both crimes involve the cover up of an illegitimate child. And in both cases, the culprit can best be viewed as a Frankenstein monster of class – the culprit is misguided in his loyality, motivated by duty to a secret order and the Monarchy at large. But the culprit in DECREE is a cipher whereas the “Ripper” in FROM HELL is a more significant character. Thus the social commentary in DECREE takes a foreground while the politics take a background in FROM HELL.
I urge you to watch both on a double bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment