Haven't seen the Movie yet but his autobiography (Executioner Pierrepoint) was interesting.If you go to this link you can download a Radio Interview recorded in 1976. http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/content/articles/2006/04/27/pierrepoint_lasthangman_feature.shtml
shareNow you see, this interview is quite interesting.
The general perception of Pierrepoint is that of a man who underwent a great reversal of opinion - from being a deliverer of capital punishment to becoming a supporter of abolition (as stated by him in his autobiography.)
After reading his autobiography I quite happily went away and wrote a play about him and his career as a hangman, using this apparent moral 'journey' as a spine on which to hang the narrative.
It wasn't until after the play finished its first run that I began to get little glimpses and insights into how Albert Pierrepoint unfolded in the years after his resignation and leading up to his death.
This interview is a good example of a man who, ultimately, appears to be somewhat in moral and emotional conflict with himself. As a writer, I can only guess as to why this might be, but I do think it is important, when trying to gain an understanding of him as a man, that it shouldn't be forgotten that his denouncement of capital punishment in the autobiography isn't the end of his moral journey on the subject.
In fact, as I later found out, there are many accounts of quite how far Pierrepoint leaned back to his old pro capital punishment beliefs in the 70s and 80s.
To get a truly rounded view of him I would say it's a good idea to read outside of his autobiography - after all 'Executioner:Pierrepoint' is a document intended to shape how he would like himself to be remembered in history. For some interesting accounts try reading 'Pierrepoint: A Family Of Executioners' by Steve Fielding, Muriel Jakubait's book on her sister's hanging and also Syd Dernley's autobiography and account of being Pierrepoint's assistant.
As a coda, that last publication highlights the inaccuracy in the film 'Pierrepoint' that I find probably the most unforgivable. Dernley recounts how, on going to Albert's pub for a meeting, Anne Pierrepoint was very careful not to get involved in her husband's business and swiftly left the two ment to their meeting without saying a word. In fact, every account of Anne I have ever read has portrayed her as a lady who kept passively silent about her husband's career. Why then in the film is she portrayed as being a money-grabber, spurring Albert on for financial gain when there is absolutely no recorded evidence of this being the case...?
Completely agree with the above.
It is because of this interview, the vast bulk of his autobiography, and Syd Dernley's book that I have trouble believing this common view that Pierrepoint changed his mind for definite. That's why I always think it's inaccurate to put him down either for or against Capital Punishment - It isn't clear; As I said in another imdb thread, the only guy who knows his true opinion is dead.
It's interesting when you say about Pierrepoint's autobiography. Reading it now, it is clear to see the many contradictions that litter it.
I agree, I do not think his stance on abolition or otherwise is by any means clear cut. As I think I mentioned, I have my opinion as to what I think was going on and why he appears to veer back and forth between pro and anti so dramatically but, it IS only my opinion and not something I feel appropriate discussing on a public message board.
For me, perhaps the most interesting question isn't DID he support capital punishment in his twilight years but DOES IT MATTER if he supported it or not? When I think about the families of those who hanged by Albert's hand, I find something vaguely troubling about his grand announcement that it was all for nothing. Hurtful enough, you would think, but for this to then be undercut by another u-turn of opinion...
If there is any comfort to be derived at all, then I guess the fact that the stories of the people who have been touched by capital punishment (to whatever degree and in whatever way) are still being discussed on boards such as this by people from around the globe, then it means it certainly WASN'T all for nothing.
With any luck, the awareness of capital punishment that a film such as this raises (no matter how flawed as a film it may be, in my humble opinion) can only serve to ensure that the damn law never rears its ugly head in this country ever again.
PS: PhantomHelmsman, have you read the book by Muriel Jakubait about her sister, Ruth Ellis? There is a fascinating chapter in it concerning Albert Pierrepoint. I won't ruin it for you here but it is well worth seeking out.
I don't think Anne Pierrepoint was portrayed as a money grabber in the film. (Juliet Stevenson was excellent in the role.)
I don't know whether thius was fact or speculation, but in the film she persuaded her husband to resign after he wasn't paid for a cancelled execution. But the real reasons she wanted him to resign were firstly the execution of James Corbett, a regular customer at his pub, affected him very badly, and secondly she was very upset when she heard on the radio that crowds booed him when he went to Holloway Prison to hang Ruth Ellis.
It's just artistic licence from the film: the truth is that Pierrepoint did not know Corbett as anything other than a drinking buddy. He didn't even know his name.
shareI have to admit it has been a while since I saw the film but I do distinctly remember a scene (I think they were sat at the dinner table) where Anne alludes to the amount of money her husband is making and the general implication throughout the film is that she encourages him to continue as it is generating a large amount of income. (Indeed, I think you will agree that the very fact she persuades him to resign because he hasn't been paid for an execution supports this!)Also, as far as I know, Pierrepoint's decision to resign over his non-payment was his own. There is nothing to indicate that his wife was involved in the decision.
I too think Juliet Stevenson is brilliant in the role but I think the character isn't accurately written according to the amount of evidence that suggests Anne shied away from discussing the nature of her husband's job at all times. In fact, Pierrepoint himself recalls that the only time it was ever mentioned between them was when he returned from his trip to hang Josef Kramer and the other Belsen criminals - which is hardly surprising as, given the amount of press coverage, it would be fairly difficult for Anne to ignore what was going on.
In my humble opinion, I think more conflict and tension could have been created in the film between Albert and Anne if the writers had stuck more closely to what we know of them in real life. A lot of dramatic mileage could have been derived from Anne being confronted every day with the publicity surrounding her husband but feeling unable to discuss it with him.
Phantomhelmsman is correct in saying the relationship between Corbitt and Pierrepoint has been magnified for dramatic effect in the film - there are several sources that indicate the pair new each other only in a vaguely informal manner as Corbitt was a semi-regular at Albert's pub.