With the central view of Masonic ritual and murderous blackmail all but discarded as authentic, the plot seems sensationalistic but anyone who has read Stephen Knight's Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution or The Ripper Files on which this film is based will say there are questions that need answering. The problem that I would suggest faces all Ripperologists is that every other account has conflicting facts that remain at the core of proof. Critics have said:
More plausible is James Kenneth Stephen (February 25, 1859 - February 3, 1892), poet and tutor to Prince Albert Victor ("Eddy"), Duke of Clarence and Avondale. Perceived as a misogynyst he suffered from serious physical and mental problems after an accident occurring during the winter of 1886/1887. His poems are seen as having a sense of morbidity in them. But there is nothing to indicate that this came from personal experience as a murderer. He was brought to the attention of "Ripperologists" mainly through his connection to Prince Eddy.
Meanwhile, in the squalid jungle of the East End of London, a prostitute is being horribly murdered. The dreaded killer, commonly known as Jack the Ripper for the gruesome manner in which he mutilates the bodies of his victims, has struck again. The sickly miasma of fear is as palpable as the autumn fogs which envelop the slums. The forces of law and order seem powerless to stop the savage butchery.
Holmes is approached by shadowy figures to take on the case. Although Police Inspectors Foxborough (David Hemmings) and Lestrade (Frank Finlay) more than welcome his assistance, Sir Charles Warren (Anthony Quayle), the Commissioner of Police from Scotland Yard, actively does not.
The master criminologist is guided in his pursuit of justice, through the seamy Victorian underworld, to the psychic Robert Lees (Donald Sutherland) who fearfully points him in another direction. Holmes and Watson, constantly in danger for their lives and liberty, become not only the grand masters but also the pawns in this lethal game of hide and seek.
They search out and are found by the hapless Mary Kelly (Susan Clark), a girl of the streets, whose only crime is the knowledge of a fatal secret, which she will protect at all costs. She in turn leads them to Annie Crook (Genevieve Bujold), a servant who made the mistake of marrying above her station, whom even the illustrious detective cannot protect from herself.
The hunters and the hunted stealthily move through the mist-shrouded maze of Whitechapel’s cobblestone streets where every shadow instills fear. Watson is violently attacked by, and Holmes at last comes face to face with, the Ripper.
As he inexorably unravels the mystery, Holmes crosses swords with Lord Salisbury (John Gielgud), the Prime Minister of England, and finds himself threatened by the macabre power of a secret society and the all-pervasive, long reaching might of the Establishment. He is challenged by no ordinary murderer but one with influential and determined friends and what he has to stop – if he can – is Murder by Decree.
Cast:
Sherlock versus the Ripper
The idea of Sherlock Holmes tackling the Ripper case is hardly a new idea now, nor was it in 1978 when Bob Clark (Co-producer, story and director) started piecing together his story for Murder by Decree. This is first and foremost a Ripper film rather than a Holmes film as Holmes simply provides the vehicle for telling the story. We had last seen Holmes tackle the Ripper in the 1965 film A Study in Terror which featured John Neville as Holmes and based on an Ellery Queen novel.
In an odd twist, two actors from the previous film, one as the same character, would also appear in the new one. That version, as satisfying as it was, didn’t actually take into account much of the popular Ripper mythology that had sprung up around the unsolved case. The basic premise behind Murder by Decree can actually be traced directly to a 1973 BBC documentary entitled simply Jack the Ripper that first introduced the suspects and their motives as used in the film.
''“I first came up with the idea of the film when I heard about that very first theory printed by a British journalist saying the Duke of Clarence was the killer. I thought, what an incredible notion for a movie. That theory was soon discredited and the theories that we’re following are much later ones. I really didn’t want to make a film to prove any history, I’m not trying to prove anything. I’m just doing a “what if” history. That’s why I brought Sherlock Holmes into it, who is a semi-fictional character. He’s not real, but so many think he is. By bringing him into the story, we’re saying in effect that we’re not claiming this is fact.” ”
“The relationship between the two men appealed to me deeply. This is a passionate and caring Holmes; I wanted to get through his traditional reserve. I have aimed for a humanizing of the characters.”
“First of all, we were looking for two men who really do have a relationship between them. Although I loved the Basil Rathbone – Nigel Bruce teaming, what I didn’t like was Holmes continually patronizing Watson without really enjoying him as much as he should. James has created a much more intelligent Watson, still a bit of a fustian old soldier type, because the movie Watson is invariably that image. But James is not stupid, his character has got a good sense of humor. He’s pretty quick on the uptake; yet he remains a step behind Holmes at all times naturally. But he has center stage himself several times, he does some pretty good sleuthing on his own and he’s never befuddled or patronized by Holmes. He’s much more perceptive, which I think is a necessary updating.”
External link