Thu 27 Jun 2019
A Movie Review by David Vineyard: THE LIMEHOUSE GOLEM (2016)
Posted by Steve under Horror movies , Mystery movies , Reviews[4] Comments
THE LIMEHOUSE GOLEM. Lionsgate, UK, 2016. Bill Nighy, Olivia Cooke, Douglas Booth, Sam Reid, Maria Valverde, Daniel Mays, Eddie Marsan Screenplay by Jane Goldman based on the novel Dan Leno and the Limehouse Golem by Peter Ackroyd Directed by Juan Carlos Medina.
I haven’t read the novel by Peter Ackroyd this film was based on, but based on Mr. Ackroyd’s previous work (Hawksmoor) I have to assume something went terribly wrong in the translation from book to screen. The year is 1880, and the Limehouse section of London has been rocked by a series of bizarre unrelated murders by a killer who designates himself as the Limehouse Golem, after murdering a rabbi who was studying the Golem of legend when he was struck down.
Inspector Kildare of Scotland Yard is assigned to the case with Constable Flood (Daniel Mays) and a quote by the Golem from Thomas de Quincey’s book Murder as a Fine Art leads them to the British Library, where the book is found defaced by the Golem with his own notes leading to four suspects who had access to the reading room before the murder — Dan Leno (Douglas Booth), a musical comic and social commentator who performs in drag; John Cree {Sam Reid), a journalist and failed playwright who was recently poisoned and whose wife, former music hall star Lizzie (Olivia Cooke) Leno’s protegee, is on trial for his murder; Karl Marx; and, Victorian novelist George Gissing, the latter two providing brief and pointless cameos and filler as each suspect gets a scene as the supposed killer (I suspect Ackroyd used them to show the political and social unrest and injustice of the era in the novel since that was what both men were known for, but here they serve only as unconvincing red herrings and in Gissing’s case a visit to a Limehouse Opium den).
Kildare soon becomes convinced that Cree is the killer, and that he can save Cree’s wife from the gallows if he can obtain a handwriting sample from the dead man and win sympathy for her as the wife who poisoned the Golem, but Cree destroyed all his own papers before his death and Lizzie Is curiously unwilling to be helped. A sample of Cree’s handwriting is the McGuffin the plot turns on, and source of one of the plots major twists (which is spelled out so obviously that I cannot imagine they expected anyone not to notice).
Before going any further I should mention most of the cast is outstanding, especially Olivia Cooke and Douglas Booth in the most demanding and theatrical roles. I wish I could say the same of Bill Nighy, an actor whose work I have greatly enjoyed elsewhere, but to call this performance one note would assume he ever achieves an actual tonal quality as Kildare. Even rushing to prevent an execution he can’t muster much.
Poor man obviously read the screenplay.
Some effort is made at providing a fair play solution, with red herrings presented, misdirection staged, and only a few plot contrivances to string the viewer along (with handwriting samples vital to their case the investigators drag their heels collecting the easiest of those needed because it would eliminate an attractive suspect thus making it all the easier for the viewer to figure out who did it — as if anyone didn’t early on).
And there lies one of the film’s problems. While scrupulously providing red herrings and misdirection the script has also been showing us the killer’s motive, nature, and personality so clearly that when the big twist comes it is no twist at all — you will have figured it out long before the detectives do, and killed the big reveal that is supposed to be the major plot element. Frankly I am having trouble even writing the review without giving the game away.
I’ll grant that the big twist might have fooled audiences even twenty years ago, and certainly in the Victorian period the story is set in, but in 2019 most of us have matured enough to think the once unthinkable, and once you even entertain the idea of the killer’s real identity everything that has gone before makes sense. Worse, if, like me, you caught on fairly early, then everything that happens simply convinces you more to the point you want to yell at Nighy’s character because it is so obvious.
Not really where you want to be in a mystery.
There are a few other minor problems from a historical standpoint. The Golem murders are headline grabbing news, yet handed to Kildare who has never investigated a homicide. We know enough about the Yard to know that passing difficult cases off on incompetents wasn’t how things worked. There was great social unrest in London in this period, riots, crime, and terrorism, and the Yard would have moved swiftly as they did eight years later with the Ripper to reassure the city. Abberline, who investigated the Ripper may have been a drunk, but he was a drunk with a reputation for solving crimes.
Novelist or no, there is a point you have to nod to reality. In addition both Kildare and Flood are gay, and fairly openly so. I am not arguing there were no gay inspectors or constables, but this was a period when the Yard was raiding male brothels (at one point embarrassing the Royal family and government by capturing an heir to the crown in one) and persecuting gays and I would have to see some historical evidence that gay men were openly tolerated in the Metropolitan Police in this period. The idea of the barely closeted Kildare and the fairly open Flood (at least they are in the film) being tolerated in that environment much less assigned a sensitive case is unlikely, and if the book makes a believable argument for why or how, the film doesn’t bother. And there lies another problem, since I suspect a lot of dotted i’s and crossed t’s in Ackroyd’s book got left on the cutting room floor in lieu of sensationalism and melodrama.
Many of my problems with the film are likely dealt with in the novel in light of Ackroyd’s known literary skills.
It’s just one of several things in the film that work against the important suspension of disbelief needed in any film and especially in one with a historical setting. I’m far from a stickler about these things, but when they interfere with story logic they do bother me, and I know Ackroyd, an expert on this era and a fine novelist and biographer, knows better leading me to suspect the screenwriter and director just didn’t bother.
The film is handsomely produced, and there is a certain underlying intelligence and literacy. There is brief nudity and quite a bit of gore as well as some disturbing scenes but nothing too gratuitous. The glimpse of musical hall life in Victorian London and the few bits of performances and plays are the best of the film, and you share young Lizzie’s euphoria on stage with her, so much so I wish they had dumped the murder mystery and made a film about the Victorian music halls instead.
I suspect if you see it, you will feel the same.
June 27th, 2019 at 1:39 pm
I couldn’t figure out why I’d never heard of this till now, but then I read on Wikipedia that it had only a limited theatrical release and since then it’s pretty much been a Video on Demand film.
In spite of your misgivings about the movie as a mystery, David, I like the Victorian setting, and I may take a chance with it, but only if the chance comes along.
June 27th, 2019 at 2:03 pm
“I would have to see some historical evidence that gay men were openly tolerated in the Metropolitan Police in this period.”
I don’t know about the late Victorian age, but a few years later, in the 1920s, openly gay policemen had affairs with well-known writers – E.M. Forster, for example. One of them, Harry Daley, wrote a memoir: This Small Cloud, published posthumously. Attitudes to homosexuals and homosexuality seem to have been confused and contradictory, and the fact that homosexuality was illegal and could be severely punished almost irrelevant, unless the people concerned were unlucky.
I saw the film – or part of it, I think I gave up – and was resolutely unimpressed. It just seemed pointless and trivial and – as you say – the theatricals were much more interesting than the plot.
June 28th, 2019 at 6:34 pm
Roger,
This is the era in which the Met was raiding male brothels and cracking down on homosexuals accidentally catching a grandson of Queen Victoria in one, when not many years later Oscar Wilde was tried and convicted of being a homosexual, and not much after that Sir Roger Casement was hanged for treason but mostly for being homosexual — causing Conan Doyle to write a famous essay in his defense because the accusations of treason were largely ignored in favor of publicly shaming Casement for his diaries. But as you say there was a certain acceptance so long as no one was too obvious, but among the mostly lower middle class professionals of Scotland Yard it would seem unlikely, and what I found unlikely was the openness about it.
In any case since watching this I have read the fine novel by Peter Ackroyd and it contains none of the films anachronisms, Constable Flood is not mentioned and Kildare is neither a failure on his first murder case nor viewed by fellow police as closeted. The structure of the book allows Ackroyd to pull off the hat trick the movie fails at using actual court testimony and diaries to tell the story.
Karl Marx and George Gissing both have stronger parts that go to important points in the book (a throwaway line of Marx in the film is one of the keys to the mystery in the book).
Steve, The book is relatively short, well under three hundred pages and fairly easy to find. I would read it before watching the film.
Annoying as the film was, the annoyance comes because Ackroyd provided such a strong mystery and two of the actors playing Dan Leno and Elizabeth Cree are compelling and interesting even when the mystery is obvious and the film making less than spectacular. The scenes involving the theatrical background and the film’s final twist are worth seeing. Just don’t expect much of a mystery or much suspense.
I suspect you will know who the killer is and why as soon as they are introduced.
July 1st, 2019 at 9:55 am
Years ago I read the Notable British Trials book on Casement and saw that Doyle put his money where his mouth was. They had a list of contributors to a Casement defense fund and Doyle made the largest.