A young woman is possessed by the sins of her father as a Psychiatrist
attempts to exorcise these inherited demons. Peter Sasdy directs a competent
and gruesome thriller with lush interior and exterior set designs and a cabal
of actors who deliver the Victorian line-readings with veracity and efficacy.
Sasdy begins the film with torch-bearing townsfolk chasing a cloaked
figure through the darkened streets of London. He cuts to an interior shot of a
young woman clutching a small child to her breast as firelight flickers through
the drapes. The man comes crashing into the room and the woman looks relieved
instead of terrified, contradicting our expectation. She recognizes her husband
and is relieved that he is safe since Jack the Ripper has struck once again.
The man throws back his cloak and we see a horribly burned face. Her sudden
epiphany is literally cut short as he plunges a knife into his wife’s chest.
The child, peering through the crib-like bars of her prison witnesses the
brutal violence. Her mother’s breast which a few moments ago was a place of
serenity and comfort is now a crimson smear. The firelight flickers upon her
face with a hypnotic intensity as the scene fades out.
Sasdy sets up the narrative in the opening sequence which foreshadows the
conflict between science and superstition to come. Dr. Pritchard rescues the
child Anna, now grown into a beautiful young lady, from being prostituted by
her guardian, a fake Sear who forces Anna into acting as the spirit voice of
deceased loved ones in order to fool wealthy clients. When Anna is incarcerated
under suspicion of murder, Dr. Pritchard becomes her legal guardian in order to
examine her psyche to reveal the sickness that leads to violent acts and intent.
Anna looks like a porcelain doll, precious and fragile but we witness her
transformation into a crazed killer, her hands blistered and palsied and her
eyes void of cognizance. As the killings mount Dr. Pritchard makes excuses for
her violent impulses while attempting to cure her, believing in the power of
psychoanalysis over seance.
Sasdy introduces two supporting characters in Michael Pritchard (the
Dr.’s son) and his blind fiance Laura. Though primarily utilized to heighten
suspense in the final act, the characters also lend a competing model of a
traditional Victorian relationship that repudiates his father’s almost
incestuous fascination with Anna. Also of note is the fact of Laura’s blindness
is not seen as a handicap as she is portrayed as a strong and independent
character. Her blindness plays a role in the final scene in the Whispering
Gallery but it’s not entirely relevant to the denouement: I would argue that
the ending works regardless of Laura’s ability to see. Blindness is a key
concept to the story but it’s not Laura’s handicap…it’s Dr. Pritchard’s!
The Dr. soon realizes his impotence in treating Anna and is forced into
seeking the aid of a Psychic; He despises the idea since he is a man of science
but quickly succumbs to this spurious revelation. The plot revolves too easily
around this point and his pursuit of Anna into Whitechapel after a grisly
murder. It stretches credibility to believe that the Dr. so easily accepts the
psychic’s strident pleadings. It is also rather humorous that as he races to
find Anna he should so easily stumble into her in the crowded streets of
Whitechapel within minutes of diegetic time.
HANDS OF THE RIPPER is really a misnomer since it really isn't Anna’s
hands that are possessed; it’s her spirit. Though her hands are shown to become
physically altered, her hands don’t act independently or follow some
contradictory dreaded impulse. Sasdy doesn't shy away from a blood-spattering
arterial spray or hatpin to the eye which makes this one of the goriest in the Hammer
archives. Dr. Pritchard’s Freudian analysis can be applied to his own fate as
he is impaled by Anna with a large sword. Far from misogynist, the subtext of
the film seems to imply the power of femininity over authority, or at least
reveals the nasty consequences of a patriarchal society. In the chase sequence,
Dr. Pritchard runs by graffiti scrawled on a wall that proclaims the right for
women to vote. Here, both of Anna’s “fathers” bear the burden of moral blame
and she becomes victim of their indulgences. After all, is this not the
historical thesis for the need of sexual equality?
Final Grade: (B)
No comments:
Post a Comment