13/05/2025
'Jack the Ripper' (1988) Written Review
And now for something completely different. There seems to be a bit of a Jack the Ripper craze again, what with the press regurgitating the Kosminski shawl story (see a previous post I made about that). With that I mind, I've just finished watching or rather rewatching the 2 part 1988 Jack the Ripper miniseries. Think I first saw it when I was ten or so (trust me, I watched far more graphic historical things as a kid!) I remembered a fair bit of it, but there was definitely stuff I've forgotten and, naturally, ten year old me (despite having a reputation as a history nerd even back then) was, understandably, not too knowledgeable on the actual case. I am a bit of an amateur when it comes to Ripperology but I know enough to be able to review this series.
Background:
- For those not familiar with the facts, I'll go over it as briefly as I can. In the Autumn of 1888, Whitechapel, part of London, was rocked by a series of murders committed by an unknown killer/killers, who would become known as Jack the Ripper. There are believed to be five victims of the Ripper (the canonical five) who were Mary Ann 'Polly' Nicols (killed 31st August 1888), Annie Chapman (8th September), Elizabeth Stride (30th September), Catherine Eddowes (same day) and Mary Jane Kelly (9th November). However, there may have been several others before and after going as late as 1891 although only Martha Tabram (7th August) is considered a real possibility. Even the canonical 5 are not 100% agreed upon (mainly Stride and Kelly). The victims were pr******tes that had been driven onto the streets one way or another, leaving them at the mercy of a brutal killer who, as the crimes went on, became more and more sadistic in how he mutilated his victims. The investigation was hampered by a lack of evidence, political and personal disagreements (most notably between the Home Secretary and Sir Charles Warren, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police), a media frenzy (again, also influenced by Press hatred of Warren) and often just sheer bad luck where multiple times the killer seemingly managed to evade justice by mere minutes. The killer was never caught and to this day 'Jack the Ripper' remains, arguably, the most famous cold case in history and has spawned numerous books, series and movies.
Briefly, this was a miniseries made back in 1988 for the 100th anniversary. Originally, it was a low budget ITV made series starring Barry Foster as Inspector Abberline. Part way through filming though, the Americans turned up with lots of money and so poor Foster was out and the entire thing was redone from the ground up with new actors, although 20 minutes of this original version exists and is on the Blu Ray as an extra. It's basically the same as the final redone product just on a British TV budget and different actors. The main draw for the retooled series was Michael Caine in the main role as Abberline with Jane Seymour (the actress rather than the 3rd wife of Henry VIII) as a fictional love interest. There are a few other decent British actors in here as well in various roles (Hugh Fraser as Charles Warren, Ronald Hines as the Home Secretary etc.) Anyway, enough with background, here is the review.
Characters and Story vs History
- One of the complaints I always is get is “Lol, why do you care bro? It ain't a documentary bro!” Well, thankfully, the makers of this quite clearly tell us in the opening credits that is is based on their hard research and they believe this to be true (although after the end credits there is a bit where they slightly downplay that!) Apparently they marketed this series as the one that would finally solve the case although, again, I think they backed down on that slightly... and with good reason!
- To briefly sum up the plot: The series mainly follows Inspector Frederick Abberline of Scotland Yard and Sergeant George Godley as they try to find Jack the Ripper. Most of the plot meanders around a few theories mainly focussing on the actor Richard Mansfield, who was playing Jekyll and Hyde, the “Royal Conspiracy” around Prince Albert Victor (and my God if I had a penny for every time he is mentioned and another character responds with “What, the Queen's grandson?” I could buy a house!) Dr Llewellyn (who attended the murder of the first victim and has never been suspected of being the Ripper!) and Dr William Gull. I'll get onto what happens at the end later.
- I don't know where to begin since it is all a bit muddled! The best way to describe this series is like if somebody mushed together a Sherlock Holmes story with a Hammer Horror film with the violence turned down by 90%. It can't decide if it wants to be a whodunnit mystery, a horror inspired flick or an actual account of the historic murders. Most of the plots were at least (loosely) based on speculation from the actual times or afterwards... except the sodding love story! I don't know who sat down and thought “This Jack the Ripper series is not exciting, we need love!” but they did. They have a whole thing with Jane Seymours character (Emma I think?) who is one of the few fictitious characters in the series, who occasionally pops in to flirt with Abberline (who was happily married in real life... and not a drunk either like the series portrays!) I cringed every time we got to those parts and was wondering “Hey, when is that Jack the Ripper guy showing up?” There is the Lusk nonsense as well, I'd better explain that in more detail.
- So during the killings, local businessmen got together and formed the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee headed by a man called George Lusk, a builder by trade. This committee was formed to try and help the authorities catch the killer. Here though? They turn Lusk into a literal Marxist revolutionary (in one scene they have him shouting long live Karl Marx, who died five years earlier...) Why this was done is anyone's guess! They also keep calling it the Vigilante Committee in episode 1! They spend a LOT of time on this fictional Marxist coup/plot thing, meanwhile the 'Leather Apron' scare gets a brief scene of Lusk (who was not involved in that!) throwing a brick through John Pizers (the Leather Apron suspect) window, then Pizer is briefly in prison, then let out... that is it!
- Funny thing, I also recently saw the History Channel series (Jack the Ripper: Written in Blood) that was meant to be about the Star newspapers coverage of the murders (spoiler: not to keen on it, had its fair share of inaccuracies). Here we also get the Star but whereas that series went over the top with it, this kind of downplays their involvement although also getting facts wrong as well. For example, letters allegedly from the killer were sent to the Central News Agency (most notably the letter that spawned the 'Jack the Ripper' name), these were passed onto the Police who held them back until after the 'double event' of the 30th after which (and following the 'Saucy Jack' postcard in what appears to be the same handwriting) they had the letters published. The series implies the press publish them before the Police, and even before the double event. What they fail to mention is that there was strong suspicion that the letters were faked by a journalist and, in the 1930's, Fred Best, a journalist at none other paper than the Star, claimed he had written those two (although this is disputed). Would have been nice to acknowledge that the press may or may not have fabricated the letters to get the 'Jack the Ripper' name out there. There was also the 'From Hell' letter that was sent with half a human kidney (possibly from Eddowes) to George Lusk. It may have been a prank by a medical student, but it may have also been from the killer.
- What about the victims? In the series, we start with Polly Nichols being brought to the morgue... and that is it for her! Other than the fact she was a pr******te no mention is made of what led her there (breakdown of her marriage, falling to drink etc.) Annie Chapman as well is just a co**se that gets found. The series makes out that the last 3 victims all know each other, which is highly unlikely! In fact, Kelly historically was asking her partner, Joseph Barnett (who does not exist in this series) to read the newspapers with news about the murders to her. If she knew any of the other victims, she would have told him. Of the three remaining, Stride and Eddowes barely have lines (and Stride was Swedish, albeit having lived in England for some time). Kelly is probably the only one that gets some backstory but even then her scenes are mainly just her sitting in the pub where she keeps meeting with Sergeant Godley (again, pretty sure he would have mentioned knowing multiple victims! Granted, there were a few officers/constables who much later on in their memoirs claimed to have met some of the victims, but still). The victims just feel incidental to the plot which, again, is a weakness if you are going for a whodunnit or a faithful retelling of the story.
- The series sort of follows the timeline in the same way your average Tudor drama does. Sure, you might have Henry VIII marrying six wives, beheading two of them etc. but everything else in between barely resembles it. For example, Kelly in the series is shown to be in the Pub, gets warned by Godley to watch out for carriages, she is helping a girl called Milly (another fictional character) to go on the streets. She then goes home, starts singing and the Ripper... turns up, walks in and then kills her. Historically, we know she took a client back to her room at about 11:45 pm and was then singing for some time and had stopped by about 1:30 am. If George Hutchinson is to be believed, she then left to try and pick up another client at about 2 am so she could get some money for her rent the next day. Hutchinson was broke but afterwards she met a fairly well dressed man who Hutchinson gave a fairly detailed description of (personal note: I think he might have been exaggerating his story) he followed the couple back to Millers Court where Kelly took her client to her room and is heard saying “alright my dear, you'll be comfortable”. Hutchinson stayed around for a while (think it was 45 minutes but I don't have it to hand) and eventually he left. At 3, one eyewitness walks by and notices Kellys room is quiet and dark. At about 4, two neighbours heard a faint cry of murder but thought nothing of it but it was somewhere in this time frame (c.2-4) she was killed (not counting two eyewitnesses who put seeing her much later). Apologies for the very truncated account, but thought I'd give one example. There are some historical bits that are done fairly close, like the wiping of the writing in Goulston Street on Warrens orders, probably the most controversial part of the case.
- Personally, I don't think any of the killers people put forward these days are the Ripper. We know he must have been a local or someone with extensive local knowledge. Some believed he had anatomical knowledge although, after the Kelly killing, there were disagreements on that. Eyewitnesses that saw him broadly reported him to be late twenties to mid thirties ish, moustache etc. Based on the eyewitness Israel Schwarz, who possibly witnessed the attack on Elizabeth Stride, I do think the killer was probably an Englishman since he saw Schwarz (described in contemporary reports as a Hungarian Jew) and shouted “Lipski” at him, which caused Schwarz to run (another man nearby either chasing him or being frightened depending on accounts/interpretation). Lipski was referring to a Jew who had been hanged the previous year for murdering his wife and was apparently a common slur at the time. It could be the murder was Jewish and bluffing, but personally I feel like it was more likely to be a local to shout that.
- The series though ends with Dr Gull being the killer! If you are not aware, in the 60's the “Royal conspiracy” started to get pushed and really took off in the 70's that the killings were all part of some elaborate cover up involving Prince Albert Victor and Dr William Gull, the Queen's physician. In reality, it's pretty much a load of rubbish (although, to be fair to the series, they tone it down and point out that the Prince was in Balmoral at the time of at least one of the killings) but they still have the over 70 year old Gull murdering the women in his carriage (save Kelly). Again, it is ludicrous not least because a carriage (one with the Royal coat of arms no less!) clattering around would have been noticed. It is based on the false premise that there was not much blood at the crime scenes, but this was only the case in the first killing and it was believed that Nichols blood had soaked into her clothes. The killings were definitely done on site. Ironic that the man Abberline actually suspected of being responsible (George Chapman) is never mentioned, nor are any of the other “favourites” of his contemporaries (Montague Druitt, Aaron Kosminski etc.)
- The series also makes out that Abberline is basically (with his sergeant) the only people leading the investigation. In reality, he was but one of many involved. His name only really became more prominent many decades. Donald Swanson (not the parks and recs one!), Major Henry Smith of the City Police (side note: the fact that there is a separate City Police and that one of the murders happened in their area is basically not mentioned save for a line about the City Police sending out plain-clothes officers) no mention, all Abberline!
Authenticity vs History:
- Broadly decent I would say, although there are still a fair number of inaccuracies. As far as I am aware, the clothing looks fairly accurate although there were a few times when the clothing of the victims looked a bit higher class than what they would probably have worn considering they were flat broke and struggling to find enough money for lodgings.
- There is a funny thing with photographs in this. At one point, Marxist Lusk marches on Scotland Yard (never happened) at nighttime with some photographers at hand. Problem is, night photography in that era was very difficult (not impossible, but difficult). I have not done much research into this, but apparently a man called Paul Martin was the first to seriously attempt night photography in London in 1895, seven years after the Ripper. A pedantic point, but one that bugs me!
- Due to the higher budget, there was a LOT of location filming which looks pretty decent. The murder sites however fluctuate in terms of accuracy. Millers Court was probably the one that looked the closest, although in the photograph taken outside that day it looks like the wall was painted white whilst it is red brick in the series. Mitre Square where Eddowes was killed sort of looks like it did but the rest are a bit of a half hearted attempt. Funny thing, they must have filmed those ones on a specially built set since there is a building in the background with “J Jones” on the wall that keeps appearing behind a few of the killings!
- I do have to mention the Jekyll and Hyde play with the over the top effects that would not have happened in that era. He ends up looking like Jason Vorhees in Friday the 13th!
How it Stands as a Drama:
- Acting wise, it's a bit mixed this one. I don't want to be mean to Michael Caine, who is one of our foremost actors, and whilst he is good in some scenes... boy the parts where he is angry are so hammy! I was laughing at the end when he gets into a shouting match with Gulls son in law. “HE WAS THE GUINEA PIG!” “WAS HE MAD?!” “YEEEEEESSS”. Oh and the scene where Robert Lees (the mystic) nearly gets run over by a carriage is so funny. Now, granted, normally you don't want to be laughing in a series about Jack the Ripper but I can only go with what is on screen! Of course, as mentioned, there are fairly decent actors in other roles but still. I think they tried to make Mary Kelly Irish as she was historically but her accent seems to come and go a bit!
- I swear, every character in the series knows each other! Every character seemingly interacts at some point. I was half expecting Queen Victoria herself to come in and half a drink with Abberline!
- Music is a funny one. The opening graphic has a sort of chilling theme... which then gives way to this sweeping orchestral number as the opening credits start over a street in London that sounds more like you are about to go on an adventure rather than look at a notorious serial killer!
- There are some primitive special effects that just look a bit weird, it's really just the scene where Lees sees a spinning wheel of a carriage, but it looks so janky!
Conclusion:
- Overall, a bit weaker than I remember it and I haven't even scratched the surface with this review. As a whodunnit, it is passable (though muddled) and looks nice but as an account of the killings? Not so much. I am possible considering doing an unscripted video on the series, I would love to do a review but I have such a backlog (not least the 3 and half hour Napoleon review I am slowly working on...) but we will see. I might be doing a stream today although that is dependent on time, so keep an eye out!
