Just watched this film last night...pretty good. Just one question...I've read a few books about Pierrepoint but have never read that he actually did end up hanging a friend that he used to drink with. Anyone know if this is true or if it was fictionalized for the purposes of the film???
Cheers.
Sorry guys...just looked it up in Wikipedia...looks like he did. Must have been awful to string up a mate.
shareWhat I can't understand is how/why he never even knew Tish's first name. I mean, you can hardly imagine their introduction as being something like:
TISH: Hello, how do you do, my name's Tish.
PIERREPOINT: How do you do, my name's Albert but you can call me Tosh.
Though my own drinking days do not go back so far as the days of the movie, even in my time I knew very, many, drinking "acquaintances" only by their nicknames and definitely not by their proper names. I suppose it all depended on the types of bar one frequented and the type of customer therein. Why, even Jeff Bernard only knew a lot of people by their self-appointed nicknames. LOL! [Jeff been in?]
Cheers,
Henry
[deleted]
As others have mentioned, the film expands Pierrepoint and James Henry Corbitt's relationship for dramatic effect. In his autobiography Pierrepoint distinctly mentions that he only knew who he was when he entered the cell and even then he was not particularly taken aback. An explanation of Tish and Tosh for you is simple, in Manchester and the surrounding area if you know someone but not well enough to know their name you say 'hello tish' and the other person responds with 'hello tosh'. It is nothing more than regional slang. hope this helps.
shareAs Pierrepoint was a Publican he got to know Tish as a customer in the Pub,I don't believe they were close friends.I haven't seen the Movie so I cant comment on that.
shareIt was mentioned in Pierrepoints biography.
It had been made more dramatic for the film.
I think the part where he made a fuss about the cold meal and if he didn't get a hot one there would be no job, was at a different execution.
[deleted]
If they had been as close as the movie makes it seem, couldn't Pierrepoint have said "I know this man, and I can't carry out this execution, get someone else"? There had to have been other executioners available (Britain isn't that big) within a day or so, or even let the assistant carry it out.
Professionalism is good and well, but some things you shouldn't have to do. But if Corbitt was only an occasional customer, and not someone Pierrepoint had long conversations with and had hugged at least once, it probably wasn't as big a deal.
I thought it was strange he went ahead with the hanging of someone he was acquainted with when I first watched the scene. But thought later, with Pierrepoint's pride in his professionalism could it have been that he wanted to because he believed that he would do the best and quickest job?
shareJames Henry Corbett was just someone who frequented Pierrepoint's pub. He did not even know who he was until the time came to officially "inspect" him to work out the "drop". The relationship has been "blown up" to give the film its anti-capital punishment slant. Pierrepoint certainly makes no mention of getting drunk after this execution, in fact he would not drink afterwards, as it was this, which lead to his father's dismissal as an executioner. It is also a pity that so much dramatic licence has been taken with this film, as it is certainly out of sequence. Pierrepoint qualified as an executioner in 1932, yet the 1st execution we see, of Anthony David Farrow, did not take place until 1949, and Pierrepoint was assisted by Harry Kirk on that occasion. Pierrepoint resigned over a matter of expenses not paid after a reprieve forced him to stay overnight in a hotel. Syd Dernley's book "The Hangman's Tale" gives a good unbiased slant.
shareI to was puzzled as to why he went ahead with hanging his drinking friend, then i remembered how he was passionate about the fact that once hung they were innocent, he took great pride in his responsibility so I can only imagine he chose to honour his friend by making sure his hanging was done right and respectfully than backing out.
no way of knowing, but thats how i read it
i wasn't puzzled why he did the job, i was puzzled why it went from Tish in the bar to Tish hanging...how much time elapsed?
shareHe probably thought that he could give him the quickest and most humane execution.
shareI think the answer is partly that, half a century ago, a dedicated, very proud professional like Pierrepoint would not be swayed by the circumstances and would just get on with the job in hand. Rather than backing out, the task would be completed as efficiently as possible. Also, he was very aware that any delay could have only addded to the condemned's anguish.
My query is, that it is strange that the knowledge of Tish's crime, which occured within a few miles of the pub, would have filtered back to Pierrepoint and his wife through the normal gossip of customers and other acquaintances (after all the 'lady' must have had some family or other connection in or near the town).
There's another way of looking at it of course, aside from the fact that Pierrepoint was only his casual drinking friend at best rather than a friend.
The whole reason behind Assistant Executioners attending full training at the beginning of their engagement, rather than say after a couple of years as an "apprentice", was so that they were officially clear to take over from the Executioner if needs be. If Pierrepoint refused before the morning, the assistant would be expected to take over. Similarly, if Pierrepoint made it as far as the drop but couldn't go any further, the assistant would have been expected to go forward and finish the job himself.
It's exactly like the first execution sequence in "Pierrepoint", only that of course was a work of fiction.