|
Post by dem bones on Mar 2, 2008 15:57:16 GMT
Robert Weverka - Murder By Decree (Corgi, 1979) blurb: Only one man, the most illustrious investigator of all time, could hope to solve the most baffling series of crimes in British history - the Ripper murders. Only Sherlock Holmes could begin to unravel the sordid web of intrigue and secrecy surrounding those acts of unspeakable horror.
But even Holmes could not have anticipated the terrible revelations which threatened the very fabric of Victorian society .... and the life of the great sleuth himself .... If we draw a discreet veil over what has to be the most boring cover in the history of novelisations, this is actually a most enjoyable, speedy read. Loosely based on Stephen Knight's The Final Solution, Murder ... scores over the A Study In Terror paperback by virtue of (a) a rather more 'fact'-based approach (other than Holmes and Watson, most of the characters actually existed and the victims are referred to by name: Sir William Gull and John Netley become Sir Thomas Spivey and John Slade, however), and (b) its welcome lack of Ellery & the stooges. Holmes is perplexed. Although this Ripper business is causing a major panic, Scotland Yard haven't deigned to implore his assistance, and he's had to wait for some shady, greasy-fingered oiks from the Vigilance Committee to make him feel wanted, which is hardly the same thing. The Ripper has just struck for the third time and the well-meaning bruisers want him to get started on the case immediately. Holmes assures them not to worry, it will be eight days until he's due to kill again. Unfortunately, nobody told Jack as he's off having his ghastly fun in Mitre Square, it being the night of the fabled "double event". No wonder the great detective swore Watson to secrecy over that one for a century: Lestrade would've laughed his tits off. Needless to say, there's a reason why Sir Charles Warren doesn't want Holmes prying into the sorry business, as the murders have been, if not officially sanctioned, then at least set underway by a chance remark from the Prime Minister who doesn't want it to be known that Prince Albert Victor, second in line to the throne, has wed a Catholic and - worse - had a child by her. Out of a deranged interpretation of his duty to the Queen, one man has decided that he must eliminate the women who know of this matter - a gaggle of Whitechapel prostitutes. Together with a madman of similar twisted patriotism and an unhealthy obsession with Freemason rituals, they set about sweeping the slums for Mary Kelly, the girl who witnessed the happy occasion. Although Holmes eventually unmasks the Ripper, this hardly goes down as his finest hour as he that unwittingly leads the murderers to Mary and we all know what happened to her. Consequently, he's in no mood to back down to the Prime Minister and his cronies when they try try flexing their flabby muscles in the direction of his deerstalker and start giving it the big one.. This version of Holmes is very much on the side of the downtrodden, bristling with righteous indignation as he sticks it up the establishment who he rightly perceives as morally bankrupt, self-serving and barking mad. There never was any threat to Monarchy or Government, he rails, except in their own paranoid fantasies. Still, he's roped into the cover-up, although at least he secures a promise that the Prince's bastard will be left unharmed now Spivey is too nuts to be a menace. As with the movie, Watson gets all the best lines (even if most of them are "what the deuce!") and his character is the best drawn and most endearing by far. He champions Holmes to the point of embarrassment, endures his colleague's insufferable showboating with patience and dignity (he doesn't even take the piss over the "double event" howler) and proves his courage over and over. Actually, if Weverka has achieved anything in this book, it is to capture something of James Mason's lovable portrayal of the good doctor. Of the three Ripper novels I've [re]read more or less on the spin, Robert Bloch's Night Of The Ripper is the horror, A Study In Terror is pure crime-detection, and Murder By Decree falls somewhere between the two.
|
|
|
Post by Jaqhama on Oct 1, 2008 14:12:14 GMT
I haven't read the book, but I throughly enjoyed the movie!
|
|
chastel
Crab On The Rampage
Where wolf? There castle!
Posts: 42
|
Post by chastel on Feb 15, 2009 1:24:17 GMT
Of course the Gull/Freemason angle was shameless libel - oops, dead people can´t speak for themselves! - but otherwise classy and wonderfully atmospheric film. Where I could find the book?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Jan 29, 2020 14:13:32 GMT
The Ballantine edition of Murder by Decree seems to be easier to find than the Corgi edition. It went into a second edition.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Feb 7, 2020 12:30:44 GMT
Robert Weverka - Murder By Decree (Corgi, 1979) blurb: Only one man, the most illustrious investigator of all time, could hope to solve the most baffling series of crimes in British history - the Ripper murders. Only Sherlock Holmes could begin to unravel the sordid web of intrigue and secrecy surrounding those acts of unspeakable horror.
But even Holmes could not have anticipated the terrible revelations which threatened the very fabric of Victorian society .... and the life of the great sleuth himself .... If we draw a discreet veil over what has to be the most boring cover in the history of novelisations, this is actually a most enjoyable, speedy read. Loosely based on Stephen Knight's The Final Solution, Murder ... scores over the A Study In Terror paperback by virtue of (a) a rather more 'fact'-based approach (other than Holmes and Watson, most of the characters actually existed and the victims are referred to by name: Sir William Gull and John Netley become Sir Thomas Spivey and John Slade, however), and (b) its welcome lack of Ellery & the stooges. Holmes is perplexed. Although this Ripper business is causing a major panic, Scotland Yard haven't deigned to implore his assistance, and he's had to wait for some shady, greasy-fingered oiks from the Vigilance Committee to make him feel wanted, which is hardly the same thing. The Ripper has just struck for the third time and the well-meaning bruisers want him to get started on the case immediately. Holmes assures them not to worry, it will be eight days until he's due to kill again. Unfortunately, nobody told Jack as he's off having his ghastly fun in Mitre Square, it being the night of the fabled "double event". No wonder the great detective swore Watson to secrecy over that one for a century: Lestrade would've laughed his tits off. Needless to say, there's a reason why Sir Charles Warren doesn't want Holmes prying into the sorry business, as the murders have been, if not officially sanctioned, then at least set underway by a chance remark from the Prime Minister who doesn't want it to be known that Prince Albert Victor, second in line to the throne, has wed a Catholic and - worse - had a child by her. Out of a deranged interpretation of his duty to the Queen, one man has decided that he must eliminate the women who know of this matter - a gaggle of Whitechapel prostitutes. Together with a madman of similar twisted patriotism and an unhealthy obsession with Freemason rituals, they set about sweeping the slums for Mary Kelly, the girl who witnessed the happy occasion. Although Holmes eventually unmasks the Ripper, this hardly goes down as his finest hour as he that unwittingly leads the murderers to Mary and we all know what happened to her. Consequently, he's in no mood to back down to the Prime Minister and his cronies when they try try flexing their flabby muscles in the direction of his deerstalker and start giving it the big one.. This version of Holmes is very much on the side of the downtrodden, bristling with righteous indignation as he sticks it up the establishment who he rightly perceives as morally bankrupt, self-serving and barking mad. There never was any threat to Monarchy or Government, he rails, except in their own paranoid fantasies. Still, he's roped into the cover-up, although at least he secures a promise that the Prince's bastard will be left unharmed now Spivey is too nuts to be a menace. As with the movie, Watson gets all the best lines (even if most of them are "what the deuce!") and his character is the best drawn and most endearing by far. He champions Holmes to the point of embarrassment, endures his colleague's insufferable showboating with patience and dignity (he doesn't even take the piss over the "double event" howler) and proves his courage over and over. Actually, if Weverka has achieved anything in this book, it is to capture something of James Mason's lovable portrayal of the good doctor. Of the three Ripper novels I've [re]read more or less on the spin, Robert Bloch's Night Of The Ripper is the horror, A Study In Terror is pure crime-detection, and Murder By Decree falls somewhere between the two. I'm half-way through re-reading Murder By Decree. Further to the above (from 12 years ago!), it's worth noting that apart from a few too-modern phrases and American spellings, Weverka captures Arthur Conan Doyle's original style better than most other neo-Holmes authors. Also, apart from the references to Dr. Watson being a old man (inevitable as James Mason was 69 at the time of filming), the novel remains largely true to the original canon. From IMDB: "Mason agreed to play Watson if he could make him a serious character, not the 'silly ass' buffoon character which was the rule. Mason re-wrote two scenes, including the famous 'pea scene'." The film itself shows up the Sherlock Holmes films with Robert Downey Jr to be the crass and incoherent rubbish that they are.
|
|
|
Post by helrunar on Feb 7, 2020 14:46:17 GMT
Interesting, Michael. I saw part of one of those Downey films (I think it was the first one) on TV some years back. Utterly loopy. When it finished up I thought "What the hell did I just watch?"
I have a really vague memory of going out to see Murder by Decree when it came out... I enjoyed it, but that is the sum extent of my memory of it.
cheers, H.
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Feb 8, 2020 13:35:25 GMT
Interesting, Michael. I saw part of one of those Downey films (I think it was the first one) on TV some years back. Utterly loopy. When it finished up I thought "What the hell did I just watch?" I have a really vague memory of going out to see Murder by Decree when it came out... I enjoyed it, but that is the sum extent of my memory of it. cheers, H. I saw both Downey's. I have no strong recollection, some nice ideas and the usual re-imagining nonsense. The first was okay, the second I only remember as pretty dull. For the life of me I can't remember who Watson was played by. (I googled it, it was a well-known actor, and I still can't be bothered.) Recently I got the DVD edition of Brett's Holmes as a gift. I am slowly working through it to avoid overdose, and it is still so much better then the contemporary versions. As I see most Holmes versions, I must have seen Murder by Decree, but also can't remember. Hm. I have seen A Study in Terror, but liked the Ellery Queen adaption better. Michael's endorsement of the Weverka novel is indeed pretty high.
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Feb 8, 2020 14:03:14 GMT
I must have seen Murder by Decree, but also can't remember. It has one quite subtle but disturbing scene that has stuck in my memory.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Feb 8, 2020 14:16:41 GMT
I must have seen Murder by Decree, but also can't remember. It has one quite subtle but disturbing scene that has stuck in my memory. Is the scene where Holmes squashes Watson's pea? www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-9R-iwywmo
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Feb 8, 2020 14:49:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by helrunar on Feb 8, 2020 18:59:51 GMT
I have to wonder what a disciple of Herr Doktor Freud, or the Great Shrink Himself (Hell, 7 percent solution anyone?) would make of the fact that Holmes squashed Watson's pea. I have no recollection at all of that... will have to look at the film clip.
H.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Dec 12, 2020 14:27:05 GMT
As a prelude to Murder by Decree here is Christopher Plummer as Holmes in the 1977 tv version of "Silver Blaze". You can watch it here: www.youtube.com/watch?edufilter=NULL&v=8l7hs0tRCCo I didn't have the time to watch this today as an allegedly blind woman who needs to use the big-screen computer I was on took precedence. Again! I don't know what she looks at on the big computer but it must be very funny. She's always tittering! If she annoys me again, she won't see me coming. Am I a bad man?
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Dec 12, 2020 15:43:10 GMT
I don't know what she looks at on the big computer but it must be very funny. She's always tittering! If she annoys me again, she won't see me coming. Am I a bad man? In ghost stories such persons are the harbinger of doom :-) Especially the tittering ones. Where do you watch? In the library of the Miscatonic University?
|
|
|
Post by ripper on Dec 12, 2020 17:48:01 GMT
I think I had a copy of the novelisation of Murder by Decree at one stage, but don't anymore. I do, however, have a copy of the film itself. I thought Christopher Plummer made a pretty decent Holmes, and though I like James Mason as an actor, he was really a little old for Watson. Though the story is a re-telling of the Royal Conspiracy, they used different names for some of those involved e.g. Sir William Gull became, I think, Sir Thomas Spivey. Some great scenes and atmosphere, and I particularly liked Holmes confrontation with the PM and his cronies at the end of the film, and Holmes barely contained anger at them.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Dec 14, 2020 14:42:58 GMT
I don't know what she looks at on the big computer but it must be very funny. She's always tittering! If she annoys me again, she won't see me coming. Am I a bad man? In ghost stories such persons are the harbinger of doom :-) Especially the tittering ones. Where do you watch? In the library of the Miscatonic University? Yep. It's only a twenty minute walk from home. She's back! Right now. She can't be blind: when she left on Saturday she told the library staff that it was "looking lovely for Christmas"! And she's tittered again at only God (if he exists) knows what.
|
|