BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


couldn't resist From Hell after all....

 
 
Shortfatdyke
05:17 / 28.02.02
right, 8 mins left on the computer at paddington station. went to see the film with cholister last night, spend a *long* time discussing it afterwards. i could write an essay on what was wrong with it (not read the graphic novel, read the stephen knight book), just a few point:

- oh so depraved whitechapel. 1888. *everyone* doing something depraved! drinking! pissing in the street! fucking! you can barely move for it...

- the dodgy dyke. long liz is portrayed as a lesbian (dunno if this is true to life). this makes her, naturally, a sexual predator, happy to try and shag a mate who's afraid and upset. of course! i do it all the time! and the manner of her death is graphic, far worse than the others. punishment? worse than that:

- the disposable dyke. long liz's foreign g/f (where's she from? france? belgium? who cares?) happily tries to get off with marie kelly the moment liz has been killed. and she gets mistaken for marie and murdered, while marie escapes with the child, who suddenly has aquired a posh accent. very east end!

- the rogue freemason. i believe gull did go insane, but he's presented as being a lone loony. no way! the potential cover up/masonic connections all the way to the monarchy need to be exposed, i think. this rather glosses over it.

depp's cockney accent *is* marvellous, although abberline was a yorkshireman. and cholister was convinced his sergeant was madly in love with him. now i think of it......

no more time. anyone else seen it?
 
 
bio k9
06:30 / 28.02.02
Saw the movie when it came out over here (a good while ago) and have no desire to ever see it again. Moores book is the real From Hell, the film is From Hell Lite, the Cliff Notes version. Memory is sketchy but here goes.

- long liz is portrayed as a lesbian (dunno if this is true to life). this makes her, naturally, a sexual predator, happy to try and shag a mate who's afraid and upset. of course! i do it all the time! and the manner of her death is graphic, far worse than the others. punishment?

Well, she was a prostitute. She lived rough, on the streets, drank too much and, I would imagine, had fairly poor personal boundaries. Saying that shes somehow supposed to be representative of all lesbians isn't quite fair to the directors. As for her death, in the book, Gull was under the assumption that she was Mary Kelly when he kiled her.

- the disposable dyke. long liz's foreign g/f (where's she from? france? belgium? who cares?) happily tries to get off with marie kelly the moment liz has been killed. and she gets mistaken for marie and murdered, while marie escapes with the child, who suddenly has aquired a posh accent. very east end!

No one cares who she was or where she was from because shes not really part of the story. She wasn't involved in the blackmailing plot, just in the wrong place at the wrong time.In the book its hinted that she may be the one killed in Marie Kellys place, in the movie its spelled out for everyone. Anyhow, the movie doesn't show her death because of how extensive the mutilations were. The graphic novel would have been rated XXX.

- the rogue freemason. i believe gull did go insane, but he's presented as being a lone loony. no way! the potential cover up/masonic connections all the way to the monarchy need to be exposed, i think. this rather glosses over it.

If only you knew. Go read the GN and forget you ever saw this thing.
 
 
DaveBCooper
06:30 / 28.02.02
Disappointing on so many levels, the most obviously comical bits being Depp and Graham’s accents… Holm was good (though he invariably is), and the ‘fugue state’ bit towards the end was the only point for me when it even began to approach the depth of the original work.

But, as with Watchmen and so much of Moore’s work, it’s so tailored to the comics medium that translating it to film or whatever is a mistake anyway.

DBC
 
 
that
12:41 / 28.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Bio K9:

Well, she was a prostitute. She lived rough, on the streets, drank too much and, I would imagine, had fairly poor personal boundaries. Saying that shes somehow supposed to be representative of all
lesbians isn't quite fair to the directors.


Heelllooooo????

She ***is*** representative of all lesbians. When there are so few lesbian characters in mainstream films, the burden of representation is on the few lesbian characters that there *are*. I think queerness is too often deployed as a shorthand for moral laxity or downright evil (cf. the Baron Harkonnen). So excuse me for thinking that the presentation of Liz as a sexual predator and the extreme and singular brutality of her onscreen death were more than a little bit friggin' dodgy.

quote:Originally posted by Bio K9:

Well, she was a prostitute. She lived rough, on the streets, drank too much and, I would imagine, had fairly poor personal boundaries.


But why was *she alone* loaded with all those negative characteristics when the presumably straight(ish) other women were also prostitutes, lived rough, etc, and managed to retain some degree of moral rectitude (and that is not even getting started on your implicit assumptions about 'prostitutes' and those that 'live rough'). I am not saying that queer characters should be (exclusively) bland or 'nice', I am simply saying that they should be accorded similar standards to their fellows in a film such as that.
Otherwise, it feels to me like a blatant case of metaphorical queer-bashing.

And I do think that the woman from Brussels' apparent unstraightness was deployed to render her more easily 'disposable'. Or maybe I am just paranoid.

I really am not getting at you, Bio K9, contrary to what you will probably think, given our brief history on here. Just that the presentation of Liz was so utterly blatantly homophobic that I can't help but get all shrieky about it.

I thought Depp's accent was really good, and I liked his character. Heather Graham's *was* laughably Dick Van Dyke though, and the kiddie's accent jarred considerably. The mystique surrounding the ripper pissed me off too - it ain't cool to kill people, and he was presented as a semi-supernatural being, even when he was 'unmasked'. I understand why, and I would guess that the press kinda presented him as such at the time (knowing nowt about the history tho', and I should mention I've not read the graphic novel either), but even so... and yes, bit of a cop out, blaming the murders on the one renegade mason...
 
 
CameronStewart
13:24 / 28.02.02
To SFD:

Read the comic read the comic read the comic read the comic read the comic read the comic read the comic read the comic read the comic read the comic read the comic read the comic read the comic read the comic read the comic read the comic read the comic read the comic read the comic read the comic read the comic read the comic.

That goes for anyone else who hasn't read it.
 
 
The Natural Way
13:40 / 28.02.02
Thanks, Chol, for posting the stuff I couldn't be arsed to post re lesbian representation. "The director's intention" is neither here nor there.

And, yes: read the comic, SFD.
 
 
that
13:43 / 28.02.02
You're more than welcome, Runce.

And I should read the comic too...
 
 
bio k9
17:01 / 28.02.02
Why was *she alone* loaded with all those negative characteristics when the presumably straight(ish) other women were also prostitutes, lived rough, etc, and managed to retain some degree of moral rectitude

I seem to remember Marie Kelly trying to fuck Abberline in the street. Its been months since I saw it so maybe I' mistaken.

and that is not even getting started on your implicit assumptions about 'prostitutes' and those that 'live rough'.

My assumptions about the five prostitutes that lived on the streets, were aloholics, and were trying to blackmail the royal family way back in 1888, is that they had a slightly looser moral code than people that aren't in ther situation.

The mystique surrounding the ripper pissed me off too - it ain't cool to kill people, and he was presented as a semi-supernatural being, even when he was 'unmasked'. I understand why, and I would guess that the press kinda presented him as such at the time.

You woln't understand why he was presented that way until you read the comic.
 
 
that
18:48 / 28.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Bio K9:

I seem to remember Marie Kelly trying to fuck Abberline in the street. Its been months since I saw it so maybe I' mistaken.


But you might have noticed that *she* didn't try to take advantage of his delicate emotional state, and that *she* didn't have to pay for sex to get laid...that *she* didn't force herself on Abberline and then get nasty when he rejected her advances, that *she* was not a sexual predator, she was just "still a woman". Etc. etc..

quote:Originally posted by Bio K9:

My assumptions about the five prostitutes that lived on the streets, were aloholics, and were trying to blackmail the royal family way back in 1888, is that they had a slightly looser moral code than people that aren't in ther situation.


My point was that Liz was given a "looser moral code" than any of her fellows. But I felt it was important to point out that the assumptions about the moral fibre of these women on the basis of their work and their, as you say *situation*, was unfair, imho... People that work as prostitutes do not necessarily lack moral fibre. People that live on the streets do not necessarily lack moral fibre. Alcoholics (and I believe that you will find that it was not made particularly clear that *all* the women were alcoholics, by any means) do not necessarily have 'looser morals' than the teetotal. Blackmailing the Royal family does not necessarily indicate that one lacks moral fibre. In their *situation*, I may very well have done the same. And I am not even going to get started on the apparent 'morals' of the Royal family in this case...

quote:Originally posted by Bio K9:

You woln't understand why he was presented that way until you read the comic.


I am prepared to believe that. But it is also based on, oh yes, a real true story, so I think that the mythic quality to, and romanticization of "Jack the Ripper" in whatever guise and in whatever format cashes in, in a problematic way, on the actions of the historical figure. And I think that should be examined.
 
 
Shortfatdyke
09:05 / 01.03.02
i would say that the sherlock holmes jack the ripper film, with christopher plummer, is far far better than this. bearing in mind they're both based on the same theory, the holmes one is far more political and far less iffy in its representation of the victims than this new film.

flicked through the gn last night, not really my media, but i *am* assuming it's miles better than the film.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:50 / 01.03.02
Given some of your objections to the film (which I won't be going to see, the trailer appalled me too much - "Oi've gort to cahhtch 'im", "Oi wish you could see the little village I grew up in" - AAARRGGH!), I definitely think you might be pleasantly surprised by the graphic novel, if 'pleasant' is the right word. One of the things that most impressed me is the afterword that comes with it ('The Dance of the Gullcatchers', is it called?), wherein Alan Moore confronts his own role in writing about the murders, tying it in with both the myth/culture/obsession that's built up about the elusive Ripper figure, and the way patriachal society treats women - I think it's quite a harsh look at what it means to be a male author writing in bloody detail about a series of murders of women, specifically prostitutes. There's definitely the suggestion that he's complicit in it somehow - witness the image of Moore drinking in the Ten Bells pub whilst a stripper performs (they don't have them anymore since Brick Lane got all trendy). It's very depressing, but it's also very good.

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Flyboy ]
 
 
that
09:50 / 01.03.02
Ah, that *does* sound interesting...
 
 
sleazenation
09:50 / 01.03.02
Yes, Moore wrote a similar coda about the ten bells for the anthology "its dark in london". Well worth checking out
 
 
rizla mission
11:29 / 01.03.02
Yeah, I read that recently. Disturbing stuff.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
16:09 / 01.03.02
The comic is nothing to do with the film. There's no point in reading the former to make sense of the latter - there is a significant point in reading the former to put the latter alarmingly in the shade. I stand by my earlier point that the Hughes brothers had the rights to the comic bought becasue of a) the 'comics adaptations are cool right now' thing and b) that FROM HELL is a delicious title for any film. No other reasons. The plot ideas? They could have just followed the Knight book and saved themselves the cash from buying the rights.

The Ripper is presented as a supervillain because that's the way Hollywood presents all serial killers. It's the way Morrison tried to present the Joker in 'Arkham Asylum'. Jack The Ripper is the most dwelt upon and the most mythologised of all serial killers, and with the least reason. Which is one of the main points made in the comic, and one of the main reasons why it should be read by any Ripperologist, professional or amateur.

'Dance Of The Gull Catchers', the coda to the series, was less a meditation on the comic and its own role in the mythology of the Ripper, and more an explanation of the ideas behind the comic that the lucid and fasciniating appendicies couldn't quite bring across. They are fully a third of the reason for reading the comic.

Divide the two. One is well presented and horribly flawed genre crap. The other is the only extant work of comics literature.
 
 
bio k9
17:03 / 01.03.02
Ok. This thread bothered my at work all day yesterday.

Ive just looked back over it and heres the thing: I started reading From Hell when I first saw it in an issue of Taboo I bought at the local swapmeet when I was 14. I then followed its sporatic publication for the next eleven or so years. Your opinions and criticisms are leveled at the film which I am, for some reason, trying to defend because of my love for the comic. Which is an entirely different thing. Leaving the theatre, my only opinion of the film was "that fucking sucked." Theres so much in the comic that didn't make it into the movie. I remember sitting in the theatre, filling in all the missing scenes in my head. That issue of Taboo I bought had the second chapter of From Hell, a journey through Londons sacred architectural places that completely blew my mind the first time I read it. The movie had a shot of Cleopatras needle and that was it.

I don't think your view of the movie or its representation of the characters would change if you read the comic but I do think that if you read the GN and listened to Moores Moon and Serpent Grand Egyptian Theatre of Marvels CD you would have a much clearer view of what Moore was getting at with the work. And maybe a much clearer view of the movie I saw in my head while I was watching the one on the screen.
 
 
that
18:29 / 01.03.02
fair 'nuff...
 
 
mr insensitive
09:19 / 02.03.02
From Hell it sure was. It bit from start to finish. The only reason Depp was there is because the Hughes Brothers got all the best chronic. Right?

Have any of you seen Bound? That's a piece of shit too, apart from the lesbo scenes. They're good. You know they had a test screening and the audience actually said these scenes should be cut? Hell I'd have liked to have been in that audience...

PROMINENT MALE ACTOR: "Hell I know I was in that movie! I was on the set for weeks!"

ALBERT HUGHES: "Well fuck man, the movie started, Jennifer Tilly ate out Gina Gershon for two hours, and then it ended! I don't recall seeing your hairy ass at all man!"

PROMINENT MALE ACTOR: "Wait a minute...Was Mr Insensitive at that test screening?"
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
14:16 / 02.03.02
So the general consensus would be that it's not even worth seeing the movie as an introduction before reading the comics?

(And I think I may spin one of Cholister's points out into a seperate topic...)
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
14:20 / 02.03.02
Suddenly I cannot delete my posts, even though I'm logged in, oh well...

[ 02-03-2002: Message edited by: Loz' Sweet Exile ]
 
 
Shortfatdyke
14:44 / 02.03.02
<threadrot begins> bound? oh, that's the film with the sex scenes in that had me and my 'lesbo' friends pissing ourselves laughing.... <threadrot ends>
 
 
CameronStewart
20:25 / 02.03.02
Mr. Insensitive:

Bound was made by the Wachowski Bros. (The Matrix), not the Hughes Bros.
 
 
rizla mission
21:55 / 02.03.02
quote:Originally posted by Jack The Bodiless:
The other is the only extant work of comics literature.


I'm sure many here would take you to task on 'only'.
 
 
DaveBCooper
14:36 / 04.03.02
Mr Insensitive, don't you think you should give credit when you swipe stuff from the Master ? Hmmm ? Just in case someone thinks it was your spanking new, original, joke?

DBC
 
 
Knight's Move
12:08 / 05.03.02
Thank's DBC, if you hadn't mentioned it I was going to have to.
Oh and the other well known Hughes Bros. stuff would be Menace to Society and Dead Presidents, apparently, given their background, From Hell was an attempt to make a 'ghetto' version of the GN. Victorian London aesthetically but 'gangstaar' flick underneath. Apparently. I just know it was one of the worst things ever. I got to see it free and I pity those of you who payed. I was so angry I got lost ten minutes from my house.
It wasn't just the absurd miscasting, the terrible mess of the adaptation, the horrific addition of incompetent suspense/action scenes, the laughable pantomine villain, and all the rest, that could almost be forgiven, but it was yet another film in which Hollywood rewrites British history for effect when sticking to the real stuff would have been far better. I wondered why they bothered (unlike say the capturing of the Enigma device) as there didn't seem to be any gain. And then it hit me. American cop solves Ripper case. Kind of like the Hellblazer movie thread, eh? Alan Moore did not write history, many would argue, but at least everything he wrote had some justification (however slim) in real life. This film conflated some people, added events (someone really would have commented on a bomb at Spec. Branch HQ but do you see any official reports?), and altered people almost beyond recognition. I do hope they apologised to the heirs of Abberline for changing a hard working, 'decent' British copper into a drug addled, possibly lunatic, adulterer (yes Abberline's wife was still alive so stop the sympathy now) who dies of a drug overdose brought on by broken heart at 30ish, oh and who was actually American.

Clothes ripping...skin changing colour...uncontrollable urge to, to...
SMASH. GRRRRR. Ahem.
 
 
The Natural Way
10:57 / 06.03.02
You can't film 'From Hell' because the footnotes, etc. are as much a part of the *narrative* as the main body of the text. 'From Hell' is, amoungst other things, a critique of the Sherlock Holmesy, detective-style method of analysis, particularly in relation to history and human experience (which Moore prefers to understand as an empirically unknowable, non-Euclidean *structure*). The 'Dance of the Gull Catchers' deconstructs the lot - facts, 'hard' and 'soft'. The footnotes are like the tattered, ragged edges of the fractal shape/5D being Moore sets out to describe.

I'm not sure this is making much sense.

[ 06-03-2002: Message edited by: You and Runce ]
 
  
Add Your Reply