MovieChat Forums > Jack the Ripper (1988) Discussion > Great Fiction....But No Solution

Great Fiction....But No Solution

posted 12 years ago by m_bruneio
7 replies | jump to latest

I've studied the Ripper slayings for over 30 years, and while this mini-series is well-acted, extremely well-produced, etc., it offers absolutely no credible solution to the identity of the killer. Michael Caine is superb, as well as his sidekick, Ray McAnally. You really understand these detectives and their drive to stop the killings. The subplots involving the romance angle are unnecessary (even though Jane Seymour is gorgeous!) and the psychic angle is just too laughable to be even seriously considered.

Worst of all, the writer(s) have performed the most egregious case of character assassination against the late George Lusk that I have ever seen in a semi-docu-drama film! They turn Lusk from a businessman active in his community and genuinely concerned for the welfare of his neighborhood into a surly sociopathic anarchist, using the murders for his own political ends!

I love this movie as fiction; it's the perfect film to while away a few idle hours on a rainy day. But if you're looking for a solid account of the facts, you'd do better to read Philip Sugden's "Complete History of Jack The Ripper."

[–] Prismark10 12 years ago

Despite the publicity for accuracy at the time it was shown, I think many of its failings were highlighted by others at the time.

Its that man again!!

[–] !!!deleted!!! (40461903) 12 years ago

If you want to talk about character assassination, what about Sir William Gull? The Queen's Doctor being driven around Whitechapel (in a Royal carriage no less), murdering prostitutes left right and centre? All after having a stroke...and with the aid of John "delusions of grandeur" Netley?

I really enjoyed this mini series as a 12 year-old kid (I taped it off TV and watched it over and over again), and it's still fun to watch today...but I just can't take the ending seriously at all.

I'm sure it's the kind of ending the BBC would have liked (anything to have a go at the Royals, albeit indirectly here), but it's utter fiction.

[–] jbaddock 12 years ago

Actually, it went out on ITV.

[–] mcfaddensflats 10 years ago

The murders were the squalid work of a single psychopath who probably lived in the area. He was not some mob handed nob backed up by a coach and horses, freemasons and such. It wasn't some hair brained, crazy attempt to cover up a royal indiscretion - if it was it was the most staggeringly idiotic way to go about disposing of a few obscure bottom of the barrel prostitutes in the worst part of London.

The killer was a man who fitted in perfectly with his surroundings in the east end, he attracted no suspicion of being "different" in manner or appearance to regular Johns of the lowest street prostitutes. He was like the other sexual psychopaths who have committed such murders - but a rare example in that he escaped detection, or at least could not have a strong case made against him in court by the police at the time - who nevertheless possibly felt they knew who was the culprit.

[–] cshep79406 9 years ago

I agree that this was a wonderful movie, but the "solution" was just ridiculous. There's not a lick of evidence to support these suppositions. For heaven's sake, Dr. Gull was over 70 and had suffered a stroke!

[–] Rueiro 9 years ago

I agree with you. We have to watch this film as a work of fiction only. A great mystery movie to kill three hours on a winter Saturday night. After reading Philip Sudgeon's excellent book on the Ripper a couple of years ago, and watching this film again the other day after many years, I can not longer believe the story they tell here. But when I first saw it on Spanish TV in the autumn of 1990 I totally believed that Gull was the Ripper and the case was finally closed at last. Where did the creators of this film got that idea from, totally beats me. It is as ridiculous as the "Royal theory" presented by Stephen Knight's book in 1976 and which inspired the 1978 film "Murder by Decree" (one I enjoy much as well, but just as a piece of stylish and very imaginative fiction).
There have been so many theories about the Ripper's identity, each new one trying to outsmart all of the previous ones and become THE definitive one, and there are still so many more to come... to me, it is better if we'll never get to know the identity of the killer, because if we ever get to know it we might be very disappointed with the result. It probably was a simple John Doe with a low IQ and a great deal of luck on his side and nothing interesting or glamorous about him. As to the reason why the murders stopped all of a sudden, he may have broken down after the Mary Kelly's murder and done himself in, or he just decided that the scenery had now become too hot and dangerous for him and so he moved out of London.
It is better if we'll never know. It makes the mystery more endurable and appealing. The most famous serial killer of all time, and no one really knows who was he.

[–] arkay 8 years ago

According to Wikipedia it was an old theory that had been formed in the 1970s, so they didn't just make it up for the movie.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_William_Gull,_1st_Baronet