Jack the Ripper is a name remembered by the people of London for his cruel murders of five or more prostitutes in 1888. Various movies have been made based on his story. “Jack the Ripper” and “From Hell” are two among them. The purpose of this paper is to compare the sexual violence in the city as depicted in the two films. Both the films have good qualities and defects. The filmmakers have been careful in providing their versions of the story. However, for various reasons, “From Hell” seems to depict the story giving more accurate details of the ripper murders.
‘Jack the Ripper’ is an unknown serial killer, who in 1888 had murdered many prostitutes in London. The criminal was named so after the police got many anonymous letters in his name, which the officers believe were done by someone else to mislead them. The incidents took place in areas in and around the district of White Chapel. For this reason, he came to be famous as the White Chapel murderer. He is also known by a third name, “Leather Apron.” The wave of terror that he created in London is not one that can be easily forgotten. His crimes became significant, though there were serial killings in London even before 1888. “…he was probably the first to appear in a large metropolis at a time when the general populace had become literate and the press was a force for social change.” (Barbee).
It is believed that about 5-8 prostitutes became the victims of his murders, though the reasons for it are not clear. The case of Jack the ripper has interested many writers and journalists ever since the killings occurred. During the period, newspapers and magazines were filled with various interpretations and attempts of finding out who the ripper was and what his intentions were. Various books were written based on him. Most of these books were adapted into films and television shows, some of them accurate, while some others included their own versions of what happened in London in 1888. In 1959, a movie named “Jack the Ripper,” directed by Robert S. Baker and Monty, was released with the intention of presenting the most notorious murders of the time. In 2001, another film named “From Hell” was released with a similar theme, directed by the Hughes brothers. Though many other films based on the ripper were made before and between these films, the purpose of this paper is to compare and discuss the depictions of sexual violence in the city in “Jack the Ripper” and “From Hell.”
In order to get a better understanding, it is important to examine the situation of women and the extent of sexual violence in late nineteenth-century London society. London was divided according to money, power, and class. The West End consisted of very wealthy people, while the East End, where the murders took place, was overcrowded with poor people. Pollution, together with poor sewage systems, is disturbing public life. The dirty surroundings gave rise to many diseases, which caused a lot of suffering and deaths and people had to work hard to earn a living for themselves. There were many pubs in the place because people often resorted to drinking heavily due to their poverty and depression. Since the place was filled with poor people, social security, especially for women, was not ensured or given importance by the government. Women, in that period, were mistreated in many ways. Women and children suffered physically at the hands of men. Women were not paid well.
There were very few jobs for women. Since most of them had no family and proper housing was not available, they were forced to take up prostitution for a living. Even the victims of Jack the ripper had come from different places and conditions. These women had no other way to overcome their depression other than drink and almost all of them were alcoholics. To be precise, the social conditions of the East End provided a conducive situation for Jack the Ripper to commit the murders. This might be one of the reasons why he chose the East End instead of the West End. He probably knew that his crimes would be ignored by the police. The busy lives of the people in that region also were of advantage to him because they did not have time to support the victims, especially since they were prostitutes. “The White Chapel district, together with the East End, was an embarrassment to the elite London society that occupied West End districts like Mayfair and Kensington, described by one author as ‘a breeding ground for criminals, prostitutes, and layabouts; a centre for depravity, degradation and disease’.” (Eads, etal).
It is very apt to say that Jack the ripper cleverly took advantage of those people’s disadvantages. All the murders were done within a period of ten months, revealing the fact that the murderer was well planned. She had five children and was a divorcee. Mary Ann Nichols(Polly), a middle-aged prostitute was his first victim on August 31, 1888. Her throat was cut across and her abdomen slashed. Her genitals were injured too. The second victim was a 47-year-old woman. Her name was Annie Chapman. Her life story was almost like Polly’s. Her body was found on September 8 in an old house’s backyard. She suffered similar injuries and additional intestine injuries. Some of her body parts like the vagina, uterus, and bladder were missing.
The next two victims were killed on the same day. Elizabeth Stride, a 45-year-old woman and Catherine Eddowes, a middle-aged woman were murdered on the same day. Elizabeth’s and Catherine’s throats suffered cuts similar to that of the other three. However, Elizabeth’s body did not have any other disfigurement. Catherine’s injuries were a mixture of all the other three murder injuries. The fifth woman, Mary Jane Kelly was the one on whom the murderer showed extreme madness. She is believed to be his last victim. Mary’s body was injured beyond recognition. The ripper made it a point to mutilate all his victim’s bodies except Elizabeth’s, a probable reason for which has been suggested as an interruption by someone else on the street. “This near-decapitation of his victims would soon become the trademark of the Ripper.” (Eads, etal).
Jack the ripper and his murders wreaked havoc in the region. People were frightened as to who his next target would be. The daily articles and reports, with vivid descriptions about how the victims’ bodies were when found, shook the people terribly. Several anonymous letters were sent to the police, many of which, the police claim were not evidently from the criminal. One letter, which is believed to be sent by him, contained a box inside which, the police found a small part of a kidney. The police had a long list of suspects, but not enough proof. Many of their accusations were later found to be wrong. Many different kinds of interpretations were made by the police, journalists, and other experts in the field. Books presented these crimes from the writers’ own perspectives, confusing the public and later students of the subject even more than the criminal himself.
Since the beginning of the twentieth century, this subject has been interesting the movie makers thoroughly, because of its significance in the minds of the people even after centuries. Among the many films made, the one released in 1959, named “Jack the Ripper” tried to present the crimes the way they have been recorded. The directors of the film are Robert S. Baker and Monty. The film features Inspector O’Neill, who is put on the investigation of the murder series. He is joined by an American detective, Sam Lowry. The plot is filled with suspense as the audience is initially led to the conclusion that Dr. Tranter must be Jack the Ripper, because of his eccentric character and a strong dislike for Sam Lowry. The ripper in the film is found to be Sir David Roger, who is in search of a particular prostitute, Mary Clarke, who is the reason for Roger’s son’s suicide. In his search for the woman, he kills all the other women.
“From Hell” is another movie released in the year 2001, directed by the Hughes brothers. The story is adopted from a work, written by Alan Moore along with Eddie Campbell. The film features Inspector Abberline, who investigates the murders of prostitutes. Abberline is an opium addict, on the use of which, he dreams every murder before they happen. As each woman gets killed, the police get all the more confused and distressed with their failure in finding the unknown killer and with the mess he does on the bodies. As Abberline goes deeper into the case, he falls in love with the fifth woman, Mary Kelly, and makes efforts to save her. In the end, it is found that an old mason is a ripper in the story. The fifth murder takes place, and the victim is believed to be Mary, but the body is unrecognizable. The movie does not make clear if the fifth victim is Mary or some other woman. The film ends with the Inspector’s suicide, at the time which he has a final dream of Mary living safely in her hometown.
A detailed study of the story of Jack the ripper will prove that both the films have been accurate in presenting certain facts and incidents, while the story writers’ or directors’ imagination too have been added to it, according to the requirements of commercial movies. To begin with the setting in them, the 1959 movie provides a very clear picture of the poverty in White Chapel. Though the beginning parts do not indicate the sufferings of the people there, the scene in which the inspector and the private detective meet Mary Clarke’s father, people are shown standing in a queue on the street, to get food and water. Also, the fear that spread among the public is evident as the private detective is attacked by a few men in the bar. Another example for this is the scene when a man sees the body of the new chamber dance girl on the street. When he sees blood, he runs away, frightened, shouting out that “The ripper has done it again.”
“From Hell” is considered one of the best and most accurate films made on the story of Jack the ripper. In this film, White Chapel and its inhabitants and their everyday life are depicted from another angle of truth. The public is given importance, though their fear is not emphasized in it. The prostitutes and their hard life is carefully picturized. For example, the poor housing facilities in the region can be seen from people sleeping on benches tied to each other. The pitiable prostitutes, are given simple coins for their work, which the local gangsters grab from them. The fact that they are in debt to the gangsters show how pathetic their conditions would have been. Studies show that the poverty and endless diseases made the depressed people alcoholics. The prostitutes are also shown as heavy drinkers. Though they remained used and abused by men, they were hardly given any importance. As these women walked on the streets, people commented and disturbed them. The fact that women did not get enough jobs and wages is picturized by putting many women together in a van and taking them to the work places. “The work certainly paid off, as From Hell can certainly claim to have the most authentic sets ever designed for a Ripper movie.” (From Hell: Fact or Fiction).
The next issue is that of the murders in the city as presented in the films. The same five murders have been picturized in both “Jack the Ripper” and “From Hell”. However, according to the critics, neither of these films gives accurate accounts of what actually happened in London in 1888. In “Jack the Ripper,” all the five murders are shown, but they lack clarity. In the beginning, a woman coming out of the bar is attacked by the ripper. What is shown is the ripper stabbing the woman. Like the original incident, the ripper does not cut her throat. He is seen walking away after he stabs her with his knife. Similarly, in all the other murders, nothing is shown to hint about the ripper disfiguring them or removing any parts from their bodies.
In one murder, the shadow of the murderer is shown as he kills his victim. He stabs the woman thrice and leaves the place. Later on, however, Dr. Roger says that her body parts have been injured and removed. The murder of Mary Clarke too is not perfect. It is known that the murderer was the most ruthless on his fifth victim. The body of the dead was unrecognizable, due to the extent of mutilation inflicted on it. In the movie, the doctor kills her with his knife, but soon after runs out of the house, when he sees Lowry coming. Later on, the doctor kills an innocent man while he tries to escape from the detective. Jack the ripper is by no means known to have killed anyone other than the prostitutes. Only five murders have been specifically charged under his name, though some believe he might have killed many others too.
The murder sites too are not exactly as where it all happened. In the movie, all except Mary are killed on the streets. In reality, his second murder was done in the backyard of an old house. The third and fourth murders were done on the same night. The movie depicts all the murders as occurring on different nights. A man is known to have seen the third murder, when someone shouted something bad to him and he ran away. It is still unknown if the third murder was actually done by Jack the ripper or some local gang because, the way she was killed is different from the other murders. The murder of Mary Clarke is almost similar to the original report. It was done inside her house, which was his first indoor murder. A serious flaw in the movie is the sixth murder, killing an innocent man, which he does for his safety. Since history does not show any such killing, the image of Jack the ripper gets totally changed with this murder. The fact that he killed only prostitutes, is one reason, his crimes have become so famous. The killing of an ordinary man brings him down to the level of a regular criminal or murderer, who can be categorized as the villain in the movie. At the end, the audience considers him as just a criminal instead of his earlier image which differed from an ordinary defaulter. Limiting the crimes to just the prostitutes gives the feeling that he had some special purpose for killing them. By killing a man, this changes and he becomes a mere villain.
“From Hell” depicts the murders mostly as they have been reported in 1888. In the film, Martha Tabram is picturized as being cut at the throat and vagina removed, but in reality, her throat was not cut. Polly Nichols’s body parts are removed by the ripper in the movie, but actually her body does not suffer any such injuries. Elizabeth Stride’s murder depiction has been very close to the original story. As stated before, a man sees two men assaulting her on the street, but as one of them shouts bad words to him, he is forced to move on. The film gives exact explanation for the murderer leaving Elizabeth’s body intact. As facts suggest, a man interrupted the ripper just before he began to mutilate her body, which made him move on to his murder of Catherine Eddowes. The film shows both the murders as happening on the same night. The fifth murder, probably the final one, is that of Mary Kelly. The murderer is reported to have mutilated her extremely just as the film depicts. The perfect picturization in the film really shocks the audience, because it seems almost like the original event. The places where these incidents occur have been carefully picturized to look similar to the original sites. Each place has been cleverly chosen to suite the original murder sites. What seems not fitting is the use of grape stalks in the murders. The real incidents do not mention anything about grape stalks, except in the case of Elizabeth Strides. A few days after her body was found, a grape stalk was retrieved from near the yard by the actual investigator of the crime. Anyway, no evidence has been found to relate it to the murder.
Four out of the five women were at least middle-aged in reality, but the 1959 movie shows almost all of them as young and beautiful, unlike the real story. Mary Kelly is the youngest and the most beautiful among them. In the movie, however, Mary seems to be the oldest and she does not look the most beautiful of the women. In fact, the chamber dance girl is younger and prettier than her. The 2001 movie has been careful in its casting of the women. Some of them even look like the original victims of the 1888 murders. Mary Kelly seems to be the youngest and the most beautiful when compared to all the others. An obvious flaw in the 2001 movie is the use of horse-driven carriages by the ripper, when he goes for a murder. “There is also little chance that the killer had used a carriage, as they would have been quite loud on the cobble-stoned streets and witnesses would have noticed it.” (From Hell: Fact or Fiction).
The fact that the incidents took place in the nineteenth century seems to have been forgotten, at a time when the streets are cobble-stoned. Also, the movie, “From Hell,” portrays an assistant who helps the ripper in his murders. No evidence has been received in the actual episode about such an assistant. His appearance and apprehension, however, adds to the terror created by the murders. The ripper is believed to have spoken with his victims for sometime before he actually took to killing them. The 1959 movie shows this style when he keeps on asking everyone if she is Mary. He asks, “Mary Clarke! Are you Mary Clarke? Where can I find Mary Clarke?”(dialogue from the 1959 movie, “Jack the Ripper”). Everyone who did not answer or answered no, was killed by him. This is missing in the 2001 film. Often, the ripper just gets hold of the women and stabs them without even talking. He is believed to have caught them by their throats, and choked them, so that they are unable to cry out loud. Both the films show at least one woman crying out to be helped, which is not possible because, had they shouted, someone might have surely heard them. Since nobody did, it is almost evident that something was done to them in order to ensure that they do not shout.
Coming to the story of the movies, both the movies have developed a new story based on certain available facts about Jack the ripper. The stories also include the imaginations of the script-writers and directors of these films. The movie, “Jack the Ripper” is based on the general facts about the ripper. The suspect list which the police had in 1888, included people from various fields. Some suggest that the ripper could be a surgeon, since only someone with a perfect knowledge of human anatomy can remove the body parts so quickly and professionally. Though a wild guess, the list even includes simple house-wives. This movie is made, assuming that the ripper is a surgeon. A story has been developed which has a suspense element in it, because until the end of the film, the audience is misled into thinking of Dr. Tranter as the ripper. This is because he behaves oddly towards everyone, including the inspector and detective. It is only at the end that the audience comes to know that Dr. Roger is the real culprit.
The story of his son’s suicide and his revenge towards Mary Clarke in particular are all imaginations of the film makers, for the purpose of sprucing up the plot and to add the essentials for a commercial film. The seriousness of the situation is well brought out in the movie. The fear, which the public had, is depicted in a most impactful manner in the film. As the third woman is found dead on the street, people go wild at the doctors and the police. They try to block Dr. Tranter from leaving his office as means of their protest. What must be noted is that they were not bothered about the death of these prostitutes. They were frightened only about the safety of their lives and their families. In this scene in which they block the doctor on the street in front of his office gates, they also watch with interest as two of these women fight on the street. The story does not imply any political connection to these murders as believed by some people. The conditions in the East End, brought about by the killings are effectively presented in the movie. The ripper and his revenge are purely personal. “Though there is no political conspiracy involved in this film, there are political implications to the action taking place here.” ( Fifties & Sixties).
As far as the 2001 movie is concerned, the story is an adaptation of the novel, “From Hell.” Inspector Abberline is the official who investigates the murders of the women. He is shown as an addict of opium and he uses it in so many scenes that it becomes a usual thing in the film. The character using opium is taken for granted. However, there is no record that the original inspector Abberline was an opium addict. There has been nothing in the history to support this. He is also picturized as having dreams about future murders, with clear visuals of the faces of the women who will fall victim to the killings. The real inspector is not known to be psychic. He had never claimed of having any such dream. In reality, a man who claims to have had such dreams is found to have existed. He tried to convince the police about his dreams and their implications, but none took him seriously. He says that he even once felt the presence of Jack the ripper when he was travelling in a city bus and got down to catch him, but failed. Inspector Abberline in “From Hell” seems to have similarities to both the original inspector and this man. It further appears that the movie makers wanted to include everything they could gather about the ripper cases into a story format.
The story brings out a freemasonry connection with the ripper. An old mason is found to be the ripper in the film. Freemasonry indeed existed and such a controversy had come up after the murders. This relation between the freemasonry and the ripper has been adopted from the Stephen Knight novel, “Final Solution.” Inspector Abberline dies at the end of the movie; rather he commits suicide. This is again an added feature of the story. In reality, the inspector lived for many more years, to retire and lead a peaceful life. Similarly, the relation of Annie Crook with Prince Albert Victor has no evidence proving it. There has been no record of lobotomy either. This too has come from the Knight novel.
The 1959 movie, being one of the earliest, has its own limitations in presentation and depiction. Though the movie lacks clarity altogether, the makers of this film has been careful in creating a sort of terror which is similar to the one that existed in 1888 at the time of the original killings. There are not many scenes of killings but there is instance in the movie when the woman who is going to be killed is shown and the next scene shows her dead. No visual of his mutilations is presented. The disfigurements on the bodies are known to the audience only at the time of autopsy or a dialogue between Dr. Roger and the inspector. The movie does not show any sexual assault as such either, though it clearly shows how the chamber dance girls were treated and how they lived to make a living. The original doctors suggest that the ripper probably used many types of knifes, because not all the knife injuries on each body are of the same kind. However, the movie only shows a long knife, which he uses on every woman. Even the most horrible murders have been presented in a mild way, with no obscenity or gruesome details. Though the real essence of the movie is the ripper crimes, the method that he adopted to kill women and the number of murders that he does, the film gives a milder version of them all. The ripper seems to be very like the original when he comes walking or hides somewhere on the streets waiting to attack his victim. He is alone in his crimes with no assistant or helper. Similarly, no assistant has been found to have worked for the ripper.
The movie “From Hell” has more to be discussed, mainly because of the difference in the period in which the movie was released. The movie, of course gives a better picture of the 1888 murders and Jack the ripper. It succeeds in creating the horror effect even better than its older version. The film shows many minute details which the earlier version has missed. The methods he used to kill are shown though not clearly. After each murder, the audience gets an idea of what he has done to the body even before the autopsy is done. The scenes in which the bodies are studied shows even the doctors going away from the bodies due to their pitiable conditions. An example is, a scene in which the police order to remove the clothes from the body, and the doctor replies, that he is no more going to see the mess. Some of them show the doctors going sick looking at them. The ripper and his cruelty are thus rightly presented. The audience gets to imagine the fear of the people of that time, just by seeing the murders. After the fifth murder, the ripper takes out the victim’s heart and puts it in a kettle, and boils it on the fire. The water turns red and rises out of the closed kettle. The ripper mutilating the body is not shown, yet the effect produced is perfect just by boiling the heart in the kettle. “While it is obvious that the settings are extremely gory, the camera barely gives us a clear look at details, making the murders gruesome in a more psychological way as our imagination is allowed to fill in those horrible details.” (From Hell (2001)).
The ripper brings a suitcase, in which he keeps different kinds of instruments used for surgery. This is supported by the original studies about him. It is believed that he used many kinds of surgical instruments to remove body parts of his victims. However, the man who helps the ripper is an extra character, who is used to show the extent of cruelty done on the victims, because he repents the deeds by the end of the movie. Generally, it is believed that the ripper talks to his victims before he kills them, as if he is a customer, so that they allow him to take them to a lonely place, where he kills them. In the movie, this technique is not followed always, except in the case of Elizabeth Strides, in which she goes to the ripper.
Another added substance in the movie is the use of grapes and the appearance of grape stalks near the crime scenes. Everyone, except Mary, is killed holding grape stalks in their hands. Originally, a grape stalk was found only in one case, in which it was found days after the crime, near the site. At the end, the ripper himself undergoes lobotomy, after which he is seen in a closed room. It is not also proved if Elizabeth was actually a lesbian, though the film depicts her so. Studies show that homosexuals increased drastically in the society at this time and Elizabeth’s character acts as an example for this. She attempts to make one of the new girls in their gang, her girl friend, which the girl resists. This is also a kind of sexual violence depicted in the movie. The ripper’s letters are another added feature in the movie. With the fame of the murders in 1888, many anonymous letters were sent to the police probably to tease them or to confuse them. The film too shows the inspector, as receiving the letters in the name of Jack the ripper. Along with a letter, part of a kidney is sent, with a note that it was taken from one of his victims.
The 1959 film is made in a regular and common manner due to the limitations in technology at that time. No scene makes use of technology to show the savagery in the murders. The lifts, between which the ripper gets killed, are one of the nineteenth century style. The details of the murders are not shown either because of the limitations of that time, or with the intention of avoiding gory scenes. The film depicts the ripper holding a common surgical bag containing his knife. He is depicted as a villain who kills people for personal revenge. It doesn’t seem he is interested only in prostitutes. Everything used in the film is ordinary and the heroes are common men who have no particular stylish manner. Precisely speaking, the violence in the movie lacks clarity, in spite of the explanations provided at the time autopsy. The audience is made to think about how a man can remove parts of another person’s body with just a few stabbings with a knife.
“From Hell” displays the advantages of having better technology at the time of its making. The movie is well presented, with near to original murder methods. It also presents a different ripper who travels in a horse-driven cart. Every scene, in which he appears, is given a stylish atmosphere. He uses certain styles throughout the film like giving grapes to the women and keeping an assistant in all his crimes. Each time he enters the cart or invites a woman into his cart, the steps are pulled down automatically. The close-up scenes of the steps provide a stylish atmosphere which makes the ripper no ordinary villain or murderer. Everything that he does is done with a style. The suitcase that he carries, the shining surgical instruments that it contains and his well-planned murders create the feeling that he is someone extraordinarily terrorizing. The inspector is different, being an addict of opium which is poison. His dreams create a feeling that he is capable enough of dealing with the ripper. His stylish manners are part of the film makers’ idea to present a strong hero who can equal his villain.
Both the movies have qualities and defects in many ways. The difference in the periods in which both were made, puts limitations on making a thorough comparison. The idea of avoiding gory details from the movie is a good thought, while the success in depicting almost original visuals in the 2001 movie is to be appreciated. Both the films successfully identify the rippers in them and show how they are punished for their crimes. In the first movie, the ripper dies between two lifts, while in the other movie, the ripper undergoes lobotomy. However, this has been done to make the films complete, unlike the original story of Jack the ripper. The film “From Hell” seems to have succeeded better in correctly presenting the criminal and his crimes, while the film “Jack the Ripper” is a very good picturization of the conditions and fear his murders created in the society. The 1959 movie is surely a very good one for the times in which it was made and released.
In reality, however, the ripper still remains unknown, because no evidence was ever left by him. The police have a long suspect list of about 150 people, but all of them were found to be inconclusive. No one was found or proven guilty, and so the police failed in punishing anyone for these famous murders. “His technique and actions gave rise to countless copycat killers not only in London but in America as well.” (Eads, etal). The students studying the case of Jack the ripper have always done more research and studies in their attempts to identify the real criminal. The terror that his murders created shook the people of White Chapel terribly. The murders finally opened the eyes of their neighbours. The people in the West End finally understood the need to help the people in the East End with their plights. However, the society also underwent further division as a result of these murders. The West End people believed the criminal to be a low-class man from the East End while the inhabitants of White Chapel believed the criminal to be some foreigner, probably from the West End.
Works Cited
Barbee, Larry. S. Significance and Importance. Case Book. 2009. Web.
Eads, Jessica, et al. Jack the Ripper & the White chapel Murders: White chapel 1888: Background and Context. Web.
Eads, Jessica, et al. Jack the Ripper & the White chapel Murders: The Murders. Web.
Eads, Jessica, et al. Jack the Ripper & the White chapel Murders: The Ramifications of the White chapel Murders. Web.
From Hell: Fact or Fiction: Sets and Scenery. Case Book. 2009. Web.
From Hell: Fact or Fiction: The Murder: Did They Really Happen This Way. Case Book. 2009. Web.
Fifties & Sixties: Jack the Ripper (1959): Types: Political Rippers. Holly Wood Ripper. 2008. Web.
From Hell (2001). DVD Review. 2007. Web.