Blogger Layouts

Sunday, 30 September 2012

Distinguish between facts and fictions that are portrayed in the movie and which aspect of the plot that is accurate to the historical fact in the Jack the Ripper murders and which aspect of the plot that is based on the filmmaker’s own imagination.



               Jack the Ripper has been a legend until today as the case and the culprit had not been solved over the years. The influential of the murder can be seen as a movie has been made to portray the incident that happened on 19th century. However, From Hell has been criticized by many people as it is believed that some of the movie plots are based on the historical facts and some of them are based on the filmmaker’s imagination.


              First, the plot in the movie that is based on historical facts of Jack the Ripper is the way how some victims were murdered and the bodies’ position. The second victims in the movie who is believed as Mary Ann Nichols was killed by two cuts on her throat and her lower part abdomen was ripped open as in 22:28. The third victim who was Annie Chapman also was killed with the same way as the historical facts and the same as Mary Ann Nichols. The fourth victims who is Elizabeth Stride was killed by one clear-cut incision and this movie shows that Jack the Ripper did not finish his work as someone was coming and it is based on the historical facts in 01:20:18. The last victim who is Mary Kelly also had been murdered the same way as the historical facts because her heart was missing and this movie shows that Jack the Ripper has taken out her heart in 01:40:13.

             Second, the aspect of plot that is the same as the historical facts is in 01:19:35 where someone walked on the street and saw Elizabeth Stride with two men and one of the men shouted at the witness “What are you looking at?” The next plot is an officer described Mary Kelly’s body as “She’s in pieces” in 01:41:49.


              The other plot that is based on the historical facts is From Hell letter where the letter came with small box that contained a preserved kidney. The writer claimed that he fried and ate half of the kidney in 01:12:00. The next plot that is based on historical facts is in 1:24:58 when Sir Charles Warren ordered Inspector Fred Abberline to wash away some writings on the wall about Jews that might write by the murder. The order by Sir Charles Warren was because he afraid that the writings on the wall could cause a riot among the citizen.


             The last plot that is based on historical facts is the place and the time where the victims’ bodies had been found and the example is in 01:23:40 where Kate Eddowes’s body had been found in Mitre Square.

             However, there are some plots in the movie that is made by the filmmaker’s imagination and the first is the way how Martha Tabram had been killed. The historical facts shows that Martha Tabram had been killed by 39 stab wounds and in the movie claimed that her throat had been cut as well as the other victims in 14:39. In addition, another different plot with the historical facts is all the five victims were friends and they knew each other. It is contrary with the facts which is they had no connection at all except there were all prostitutes.


           Furthermore, grapes that had been found near some victims’ bodies also one of the imaginations of the filmmaker as historical facts never exist so. Moreover, this movie also shows that Inspector Fred Abberline and Mary Kelly had an affair between them and the last victim was not Marry Kelly but her new roommate who was Ada in 01:44:05.

             Other than that, in the movie shows that Inspector Abberline was addicted to Opium and died just after Mary Kelly’s death. However, based on historical facts, Inspector Abberline had no records in taking any drug and he did not died after the murder of Marry Kelly because he died at the age of 86 in his house.


             In conclusion, there are some plots in this movie that do not based on the historical facts and this can confuse people who are interested with this crime.

2 comments:

  1. too long but easy for me to understand your explanation, nice ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. u've provide a good explanation by giving the evidence to proof it. nice work. :)

    ReplyDelete