MovieChat Forums > Lo squartatore di New York (1982) Discussion > SPOILER!!! I think everyone is missing s...

SPOILER!!! I think everyone is missing something

posted 20 years ago by tha1trupriest
51 replies | jump to latest

I have read several posts on this movie and I must say that I haven't seen a single one who isn't misinformed about the identity of the Ripper. Contrary to popular belief, it is NOT the guy with the sick little sister as everyone would seem to believe due to a long explanation sequence....no, this is mainly missed due to its subtlety (in a Fulci film?!?)in comparison to the more overt explanation. The fact of the matter is that the professor is truly the Ripper. The duck voice is simply another tool used by him to misdirect the police (and the audience) so that he can get away with the horrible crimes he has committed.
Think about it: there is a scene which has no other relevance to the script but to reveal this....when the professor is playing chess or checkers or whatever with the computer, he says to it, "You think in fixed patterns. Just like a cop." Why else would he say this? Granted he's arrogant, but does the duck voice not also continually mock the detective's intelligence? Soon after, the final confrontation and explanation are presented, and once again....the very last shot of the film is a freeze on the professor as he walks away from the detective....why else would it end this way? Fulci is telling us that the Ripper has just duped the police and got away scot-free. I must say that due to these smart twists and the subtlety in their presentation (not to mention the most brutal gore to be found in Fulci's entire canon) this is my hands-down favorite of his films....excellent example of the giallo as well...
I'm sure many won't believe me, but watch it again....it's fairly obvious.

[–] bdollarb 19 years ago

Dude, the reason that you've never (ever!) read anyone's realisation that the professor was the killer. Is simply because he wasn't.

Edit - but I do like the theory.

[–] tha1trupriest 19 years ago

sorry but I stick by the belief...it makes it a better movie too. It was a frame-up I tell you! Given his track record I can see why it's easy to believe Fulci wouldn't try something that is not both heavy-handed and glaringly obvious, butit does make sense...nice way of turning the traditional giallo resolution upside down as well

[–] NostalgiaDrag 19 years ago

You can't be serious. You're actually trying to sort out a Fulci movie with logic? Fulci isn't crafty or subtle. He randomly ends movies at the most bizarre moments. He's one of those directors who thinks his work is actually good but doesn't realize how unintentionally hilarious it is. Have you seen Zombi 3? Holy sh!t that movie was bad! And it ends with a pointless close up of this chick's face until it freezes frame. Cue to totally random and hysterically awful 80s music playing as the credits roll.

There was no subtle genius there. Nor was there any subtle genius in the ending for the movie Zombi 2. And again, there was no subtle genius at the end of this movie. You give the man too much credit. I mean, I still like a lot of his movies, they're classics. But they're not crafty or subtle in any way.

In closing, don't look too deep in a fulci film ;)

[–] bootlegcity 19 years ago

For the record Zombie3 was mostly directed by the guy who did zombie creeping flesh - Bruno Mattei as (the story goes) Fulci was ill and he took over. This is why the film is so awful.

[–] mthecw 18 years ago

Zombi II isn't a giallo. Neither is III.

Iguana With A Tongue Of Fire.. would you have suspected it was the brother? Giallos are that way: the one who you think it couldn't be is the one. (Though not always, of course..)

[–] The_King_of_Cool 18 years ago

You give the man too much credit. I mean, I still like a lot of his movies, they're classics. But they're not crafty or subtle in any way.

I'd advise you to watch Don't Torture a Duckling.

[–] hey_treacle 13 years ago

to be fair to Fulci (and you are right he is an explotation director who puts narrative logic very low on his list) He didn't really direct zombi 3. It was Bruno Mattei who came in a took over relatively early on that film and finished it. Bruno makes Fulci look like Kubrick - no *beep* If anyone has ever seen Strike commando or any of his other stuff with Reb Brown they will know what I mean. Fulci hated zombi 3 so much he tried to have his name removed from the project to little avail. It was Bruno who was pleased with the film and thought he had done exactly as Fulci would have.

[–] lennonforever 19 years ago

Wow! I thought that too, thal. Why would Fulci frame freeze on the Dr? And why would an entire scene at the end ,be of the telephone in the detective's office. Yes, I think it is the Dr.

[–] sr_mariano 19 years ago

MORE SPOILERS!!!
C'on guys... there's nothing in the film (real proofs) to support your words. Fulci let the film has 3 suspects (Dr. Davis, Peter, Mickey) but:
1- Peter is as intelligent as the Dr. is and he's arrogant too.
2- at the end he talks with the Duck's voice while trying to kill Fay!
Don't over analyze Fulci: at the end it's just shock, gore, naked girls and Luis Buñuel's Un chien andalou.

Regards.

[–] dockta_doom 19 years ago

The theory makes sense, but I dont think its true. Peter talks with the voice, AND tries to kill Fay. Its pretty obvious that he's the killer.

I think that when the professor was making the coment about patterns, he was subliminaly talking to the killer.

If the professor theory was true, you could also use the arguement that he hates women because he's gay. Still though, I think Peter was the killer.

"I flip fools like them clamshell cellular phones."

[–] The_Pat_Bateman 19 years ago

interesting theory and I am not throwing it on the window like some others. At the end when the guy with the sick daughter (forget his name), was on the phone, it appeared to me that he picked up the phone and the duck voice was talkin TO him? I dont know, it didnt appear as if he was talkin, it appeard he was listening. Also, yea, he froze on the professor at the end! I mean, wow, i think he probably did that so to this day we could have arguments about this. perhaps he wanted it to be interpreted different ways. fulci rules

------
Death comes in the worst way, through Satanic wordplay, heres a knife in yo spine!
-Necro

[–] The_Pat_Bateman 19 years ago

i just watched the scene again, and it still appears, he picks up the phone and the duck voice TALKS to him. i know there are talks about his daughter and him playin duck voices, but come on, his daughter is dying, I see no way she could talk like that to him over the phone, So who was it?!?!

------
Death comes in the worst way, through Satanic wordplay, heres a knife in yo spine!
-Necro

[–] argento1970 19 years ago

I think it WAS the dying daughter. Don't forget what Fay was telling the detective AND the doctor when she was listening to them talk on the phone. They were taking about how unfair the world is and how he was going to do away with her. The next thing you see is the daughter smiling at the duck that was right next to the phone. The last thing you see is her trying to call her father and nobody answering. She starts to cry because she pretty much put two and two together and realized her dad wasn't going to answer, thus dying a lonely death. It's sad, but then again this movie ain't The Sound Of Music.

[–] dockta_doom 19 years ago

Look at the scene where he tries to kill Fay and is shot in the face, he is TALKING TO FAY in the duck voice! It doesnt get much more obvious then that.

"I flip fools like them clamshell cellular phones."

[–] SilentBob06 19 years ago

The explain why they showed a close up of the doctor in a freeze frame? I think it points to the killer being the professor? The phonecall scene between the couple is vague, no one is talking yet we're led to believe it was him? Even thoguh right before he died he used the voice, the call may have tipped him over the edge, or been one of her hallucinations, remember she did apparently suffer from them. The professor played on that, and got away with it. You have to admit, it is vague. Why continue with a red herring if the killer's already been revealed? reminds me of Al Pacino in the slasher CRUISIN', vauge ending with doubts over pacino, even though the killer had already been revealed.

[–] shadesofblackandpurple 18 years ago

I've actually read that this is a screw up...that on many releases, the scene of the professor at the end is in the wrong spot in the film.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PostmortemG 19 years ago

I must agree, this is easily my favorite Fulci movie next to House By The Cemetery [ But I've yet to see Don't Torture A Duckling ]. The proposed theory that the gay guy was the killer may not be totally legitimate, but it shows strong attention to detail by the original poster. ^_^ The beauty of the situation is that we're actually arguing over the deeper meanings of a so-called trash film! Fulci does indeed rule. I think this movie sits next to Cannibal Holocaust and Day Of The Woman/I Spit On Your Grave as one of the most searing and repulsive displays of the human condition ever filmed. The New York Ripper was initially for me only incredibly shocking garbage; now it's become one of my favorite films ever.

"Cain and Abel will go to Heaven... if they can make it through Hell!" -Los Hijos Del Topo

[–] Martialhorror 19 years ago

But

1) As it showed, Peter attacked her with the duck voice. I personally think there was some bad writing throughout the script, despite having a good plot. WHen it turns out the gigolo was innocent, that means the killer was either following him or happened to be in the same place twice. Still hard to believe. I began to suspect he was innocent when he called the girl "Bitch", and didnt talk in his duck voice. But the attempted twist with him felt stretched. Now, the ending was messy as well. Why? For one, Fay(?) had this evil, cunning look in her eye. Not the pained look of her realizing her boyfriend was the killer. Then as said, it appeared Peter was listening, not speaking. I cant stand when movies try to avoid common sense to have a huge twist.

2) THe professor as the killer WOULD make sense if Peter wasn't quacking. I did think the Professor was the killer after he made that comment while playing CHess. It's possible somehow the Professor hypnotised Peter into doing it. The Prof. was dumb in a few ways.

-Saying the first suspect killed himself. Is my memory failing me or did he have a bag wrapped around his head.....okay.........obviously it was murder.

-Was too qucik to figure out Peters reasoning.

"I hate PG-13 horror flicks"- THIS IS MY SIG GENIUSES!

[–] Devilstator 18 years ago

Its a good theory, and I did think along those lines for a bit, but I do believe its probably Peter Bunch, the one with his little daughter in hospital.

[–] DudeRox_McNinja 18 years ago

The nurse mentions to the professor and Lt Williams that one of the "Parents"
lives somewhere in South Africa or whatever, not saying "mother". The Professor is clearly gay as he did purchase the gay magazine. Note the look Peter and the professor are giving eachother when they meet at Fays\Peters place. Also, when the daughter is calling up her father in the end, we see the telephone in the professors office is ringing. And of course the freezeframe ending on him. My opinion of this is that the professor and Peter were a couple, had the baby adopted and then with the disease turned her to the hospital. This also adds up with all the women getting killed. As who did the murders, both of them perhaps, as it seems that Peter doesnt know who the Greek guy is when he is in the house trying to murder Fay, which he should if they were cooperating. This leads to the Professor being a part of the murders.
Groovy!

[–] PostmortemG 18 years ago

You can't rationalize wacky, sadistic Italian cinema. This discussion is only becoming more muddled.

"Cain and Abel will go to Heaven... if they can make it through Hell!" -Los Hijos Del Topo

[–] selfmade1 18 years ago

I agree the professor was the killer or at least involved. Him saying the guy wit 2 fingers missing killed himself points to this 2, since he probably killed him. I was think the prof was the killer all along, then gave up on it. But when they froze on him at the end, it was kinda obvious to me at least

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] scuba steve 18 years ago

I think it has been said before in another thread that the image of the professor at the end is misplaced. The AB US disk has that reel in the wrong place. I'm sure that shot is supposed to occur earlier in the film, though i don't remember where. Can anyone with another release (Dutch or Japanese etc) of the film confirm or refute this? If this is correct then it's hard to imagine that he is the killer, though the final image of him strongly infers that he is, but it has to be ignored if it is indeed in the wrong place.
Am I right in thinking that he is wearing different clothes in the final shot?

[–] mthecw 18 years ago

Peter is in fact the killer. The knife proves that. However, was the professor not involved? I think he was.. That Peter was merely his "hand", so to speak.

The phone conversation Peter had.. By the way his daughter was crying when she couldn't reach him it seemed as though the phone call earlier wasn't him talking to her, despite what Jane (I think that's her name..) says.

Though I've also thought of what you said when I first watched the film.. So I'm kind of split.

[–] Bonehead-XL 18 years ago

I was thinking the professor was the killer throughout the whole movie. The knife and Peter using the voice is really all that throws me. Of course, as others have pointed out, Fulci's films don't always make sense. He could have intended the professor to be the killer anyway, even if it isn't logical.

I enjoyed this one. Good gore effects and I like the score, though some of the blatant cruelty towards women kind of turns me off. I'd put it on the same level as "Zombi 2." Better then "City of the Living Dead," but weak compared to "The Beyond."

[–] steven_w_george 18 years ago

One of the things that makes this film so great is that there are indeed indications of other involvement.

Lets look at the evidence and examine the facts

Peter:
-We hear him do the quack voice with the knife at the end
-We can presume he is indeed the man who wields the knife
-When the duck is ‘talking’ to him on the phone we can assume this is INSIDE his head
--Or we can deduce that this is the Professor telling him what to do
--Or even Fay

Professor
-There are lots of funny shots of him looking at Peter all through the movie
-The professor constantly praises the high intelligence and good breeding of the killer which indicates self praise
-The chess comment
-He smiles as the police drive off and then the camera has an unusual freeze frame on him suggesting something sinister
-The phone ringing in the proffesor’s office at the end indicated the duck voice was coming from this location

Could it be that the Proffessor killed everyone and manipulated Peter into attacking Fay at the end thus shifting the blame. Peter is killed long before we ever get an explanation from his lips (unlike say peter neal in tenebrae). It seems to me that the professor has the story wrapped up rather too neatly.

In conclusion I would not follow this up if it seemed to be pure crap but there is evidence of involvement from the professor. However major or minor you judge that to be.

[–] DeanBitterman 18 years ago

I would like to see the original Italian version with accurate subtitles to follow this up. The new concept has sparked interest in another rewatch even though I saw the film in the past two months.

[–] david-r-clarke 18 years ago

You are basing your theory that the professor is the killer largely on the freeze frame on him at the end, but this is in fact a continuity error, the sequence should actually happen some 40 minutes into the film, shortly after the professor talks the the police inspector it's intention was to cause a red herring, it was never meant to be the final frame of the film, as has been realised in some subsequent releases of the film. Check out the restored edition offered at Absurd-online, for example. In that respect, your theory does not hold up