Marie Belloc Lowndes
wrote a book in 1913 about Jack the Ripper called The Lodger. It has been made
into a movie a number of times, including the very first as a silent film by Alfred Hitchcock in 1926 and later made
with sound in 1932. In slightly more
modern times, there are three films that use the book, two of them surprisingly
faithfully, as the basis for cinema drama.
Incidentally, there have been other Ripper movies about or allude
to the notorious throat slasher, but the following are based on Lowndes’ classic
version of the story.
The Lodger (1944). I think this is the classic version. And it boasts a more renowned set of
actors. Laird Cregar plays the Ripper, building the monstrous madness of
his character, step by step, until the riveting end. There are subtle suggestions of love and
incest as well as a kind of Biblical madness, carefully and brilliantly hinted
at in Cregar’s portrayal. The cast, plucked from the best of the 1940s actors,
also includes Merle Oberon, George Sanders and the fine Sir Cedric Hardwicke. We are definitely dealing with gothic horror
and the first glimpses of psycho-sexual aberration as a plot device. The cinematography by Lucien Ballard and the direction by John Brahm create an eerie environment for the story to unfold. The suggestion at the very end may, though we
know very little, seems to be at odds with what we do know about the real “Jack
the Ripper.”
Man in the Attic
(1953). We are returned to London of the late 1800s, cobblestone streets
winding through darkness only slightly lit by gas lamps, with sets and scenes
almost directly lifted from the 1944 film.
While the Man in the Attic
isn’t poorly done, it’s difficult to figure out why they made it. It’s nearly identical — and the first is very
well done. There are some shifts. One is
the final horse and buggy chase through the damp streets to the dark
waters. But the main difference is the
choice of actors to portray the Ripper. In this one the strange, new lodger is Jack Palance. Criminally insane is written all over
Palance’s face from the start, but then it always is. It was also fun to see Frances Bavier (Aunt Bee) in a
significant role in the film. Constance
Smith as the female lead is effective and may have been more charming than
Merle Oberon.
The Lodger (2009).
I liked this, but there were a number of people who get paid for their opinions
who didn’t. In this version, liberties
were obviously taken. The time is now,
and the place is Los Angeles. We are
also drawn into two subplots not part of the original story line. While we are still trying to trap the
murderer, we are drawn into the serious relationship problems between the
possibly mentally unbalanced landlady and her suspiciously disappearing husband. Additionally we are compelled to deal with
the investigating detective’s troubled private life. Both
of these plots may create mystery as well as horror. Certainly these sublplots
were not part of the earlier films, but they do provide an interesting twist at
the end. I’ve always appreciated Simon Baker’s low-key acting. As the lodger, he is far less the obvious
psychopath. Alfred Molina does his usual fine job of being interesting while
not being particularly likable. It works here. Lots of darkness, rain and
blood. Some artistically jumpy camera
moves. Hope Davis does a fine job in the complex role of the
landlady. Perfect film for a rainy night
at home.
I think that all three in one evening is way too much. Choose two.
If it were up to me, I’d choose the 1944 and the 2009 versions, unless
you particularly enjoy seeing the same dialogue delivered by a different set of
actors. With regard to what we imbibe
during an evening of throat-cutting, my guess is start with Guinness and
finish with a hot toddy.
No comments:
Post a Comment