The Limehouse Golem concerns a vicious
killer who stalked the East End of 1880s London. It details how the police were dogged by the
press as they went through a long list of suspects. It acknowledges that the crimes were as much
about class as sex, and the police investigation was as much about politics as
justice. There is doubt even over the
number of victims.
But it
isn’t a Jack the Ripper film.
Inspector
Kildare is a ferociously intelligent detective, with human failings and
questionable morals; who believes he is immune to the whiles of the fairer sex and who,
along with his assistant and sounding board, Flood, chases the clues, works the
evidence and pursues the suspects through the foggy, gas-lit back-streets of old London town.
But this
isn’t a Sherlock Holmes film.
Except, of
course, the shadows of Jack and Sherlock are so long, it’s impossible not to
feel their presence in any depiction of late Victorian London, even in their
deliberate absence.
The story
takes place eight years before the summer and autumn of the Ripper and begins with
a house full of corpses who have been so brutally murdered one could almost say
they’d been ripped! When Bill Nighy’s
Kildare is given the poison chalice of the ‘golem’ killings, the house, with the corpses still in situ, is also
full of police, the press and the curious.
There is nothing we’d recognise as police procedure, but then, this is
set 100 years before the term ‘serial killer’ was coined. Fortunately, he is assisted by a bobby called
Flood (played, ably, by Daniel Mays) who, in a departure from the way such
characters are usually portrayed, is as intelligent as he is street-wise. They make a good team and their friendship,
like their performances, is understated.
Nighy and Mays experimenting with one of those evidence boards, most beloved of movie serial killers and TV detectives. |
Kildare is trying to uphold justice
at a time when victims were routinely blamed for the crimes inflicted upon
them, the poor were beneath consideration, and women were guilty ... of being
women. As Elizabeth Cree notes “My
gender becomes inured to injustice. We
expect it, until we can greet it merely with a shrug”.
Through Cree, as played by Olivia
Cooke, the film gives voice to many of the injustices women faced then (and, by
extension, still face today) as well as exploring how the artifice of
theatrical life can offer escape from that injustice, into fantasy; at least to
some extent. But, the film is at pains
to point out, even when we aren’t painted and performing on stage, we’re still
pretending to be something we’re not.
Kildare and Cree. You might be forgiven for thinking this is a romantic moment, were it not for the fact it's in a prison and he's the only man who thinks she's innocent of poisoning her husband. |
Nighy, whilst remaining a thoroughly
Upper Class Brit in his diction and demeanour, has a deep vein of working-class
dissent running through him, which enables him to bring both humour and
humanity to Kildare. In interview, Nighy
has confessed to finding his own performances mannered and twitchy (not his
exact words, but you get the idea) well, here, he restrains the ticks and
tricks he uses to make his characters loveable in his comedic roles, and
grandiose in his Hollywood villain roles.
Instead, he is dignified and serious; which is what the film needs at
its centre.
Interestingly, Nighy was a last-minute replacement for Alan Rickman who was unavailable on account of being suddenly dead. This might explain why Kildare is, on the face of it, an unusual role for Nighy. But, for me, this makes him all the more engaging because, like his character, he's out of his comfort zone.
The novel on which this film is
based was written by Peter Ackroyd, a historian who has spent much of his
career unearthing the truth about the myths and legends of London. So, few writers would be better qualified to
see the city in all its historical detail, yet filter that through a
contemporary filter. Tales of faux
Victorian skirt-lifting are very on trend
at the moment, as are tales featuring unreliable narrators, psychogeography,
the gothic, and mercurial sexual identity; so it’s clear to see why this novel
has found its way to the screen, some 23 years after publication.
The story treads the line between
fact and fiction. Even though I know a
fair bit about Jack the Ripper, I had to research The Golem, to see if he, like
the Ripper, was a historical killer, or one Ackroyd had invented (I’ll let you
do the same research, rather than spoil your fun); what is certain, though, is
that Ackroyd didn’t invent everyone
in his cast. Dan Leno really was a
celebrated music hall performed (although not at the time the novel is set) and
writers like Karl Marx really did spend time in the British Library reading
room.
Leno is
introduced in full drag, on stage, playing a cheery dollymop, singing a rousing
sing-along song about how
she is subjected, daily, to domestic violence.
All together now: “Baby, hit me
one more time ...” Beyond that, though,
Leno (as portrayed by Douglas Booth) comes across as a calming influence, one
of the few people in the film who is comfortable in his own skin, presumably
because he is one of the few people in the film who doesn’t pretend to be
something he isn’t. Ironic, really.
Jay Leno. The things he's been reduced to since leaving his chat show. |
The film has quite an audacious
structure, layering the present with flashbacks which explain motivation and
circumstance; but then, Ackroyd is a writer who, even in his non-fiction, is
fascinated in the way that the past can poke through the skin of the
present. Much as the suppressed passions
of late Victorian men and women, such as unspoken homosexuality, unrequited
love, cross-dressing, sexual identity and jealousy, all poke through the thin
veneer of denial.
Added to this subtext, we have the
various scenarios that Kildare imagines as his investigation proceeds, seen
from the point of view of whichever suspect is in his sights at the time. This form of unreliable narrative helps keep
fresh a story which, despite being set 140 years in the past, feels very
contemporary.
Nighy is intense and serious and compelling throughout. A laugh riot, this film certainly is not. |
Ackroyd understands the sociological
role of the media and his characters do, too.
We are told, at one point, “People love to see degradation upon the stage, it's what they pay for.” I couldn’t help but think of the tabloid
front pages I walk past every day, the poverty-porn documentaries I flick past
at night, and the endless tirade of social media.
All of this is brought to the screen
with a chilly, gritty visual style by director Medina, who must have put
together a pretty-good pitch, since his IMDB profile doesn’t suggest he had
this film in him. He is, of course,
aided and abetted by Jane Goldman (aka Jonathan Ross’ little woman ... ahem)
who continues to make writing excellent, imaginative and compelling scripts
seem effortless. Her experiences of
being a woman in a traditionally male-dominated business will, no doubt, have
added some gravel to the issues which underpin this movie.
There is a rage at the iniquities of
Britain’s ingrained class system here, and at the miserable treatment of,
particularly, women. That, it seems to
me, is the main purpose of Victorian pastiche these days: to demonstrate what
the entitlement and the immorality of the paternalistic elite once led to, and what
the continued swing to Right in politics will, once again, lead to, for those
unfortunate enough to not be white, rich, able-bodied, straight or male.
The
Limehouse Golem is a tale of intersecting and overlapping unhappiness, and
what it costs good people to do something about it. It is literally a misery junction!
Dir: Juan Carlos Medina
Script: Jane Goldman
Cert: 15
Dur: 105 mins
No comments:
Post a Comment