Sun 2 Feb 2020
A Movie Review by Jonathan Lewis: 10 RILLINGTON PLACE (1971).
Posted by Steve under Crime Films , Reviews[8] Comments
10 RILLINGTON PLACE. Columbia Pictures, UK/US, 1971. Richard Attenborough, Judy Geeson, John Hurt, Pat Heywood, Isobel Black. Director: Richard Fleischer.
For a serial killer movie, Richard Fleischer’s 10 Rillington Place is rather subdued. There’s comparatively little screen-time violence and there is almost no blood or gore. What there is, however, is psychological violence of the worst kind.
Richard Attenborough gives a chilling performance as psycho-sexual deviant John Christie, a real-life criminal responsible for the strangulation murders of numerous women in late 1940s and early 1950s. He’s an everyman, struggling to survive in post-war London, and operates under the radar. Nobody, except perhaps his long-suffering wife, seems to suspect that there might be anything amiss in the building that Christie lets out for renters.
Enter a working-class married couple with a young infant daughter. Timothy Evans (John Hurt) and his wife, Beryl (Judy Geeson) are just trying to make ends meet. He drinks. She stays home. They fight. But overall, it’s a decent marriage. Until Christie decides that he is going to make Beryl his next victim. In a dastardly act of manipulation, Christie finds a most shocking way to get Beryl alone and vulnerable, before proceeding to strangle her to death.
What comes next is even more unnerving. Realizing that Evans is a simple illiterate with few friends, Christie manipulates him into leaving town, telling him that Beryl died accidentally. Evans, doe-eyed and unaware of the evil enveloping him, complies and seals his fate. Eventually, he is arrested for the murder of his wife and is hanged by the authorities for it.
Attenborough disappears entirely into the role. His Christie is less salacious than Anthony Hopkins’ scenery-chewing (pun intended) Hannibal Lecter, but perhaps even more vicious. Apparently, Attenborough took the role of Christie in significant part because of the film’s implicit anti-death penalty stance. Evans, after all, was truly an innocent man, a victim of both Christie and a judicial system unable to look past his social origins and lack of intelligence.
As you might have suspected, 10 Rillington Place is an undoubtedly bleak film, largely bereft of daylight, either in the literal or metaphorical sense. Everyone lives in a fog of despair and depression. This was, after all, the age of austerity. Britain was trying to get back on its feet after the Second World War and the subsequent loss of empire.
There was massive social dislocation in postwar London, with many persons left without families, spouses, or social support systems. Christie, the film implies, seems to have taken advantage of the weak, the lonely, and the trusting in the worst possible way. Fortunately, he eventually did get caught and face justice. But not before shocking many middle-class Britons with his horrendous crimes.
Fleischer is a talented director who worked in many genres over a long career in Hollywood. Some may consider him an auteur. Others, most certainly would not and feel that he was skilled journeymen, who adapted with the times and reinvented himself as his career required. Whatever the case, his direction here is steady and immersive. He certainly gets the most out of his actors. This is particularly true for Attenborough and Hurt, whose professionalism lends the film its necessary gravitas. Indeed, there’s nothing particularly exploitative here.
On the contrary, it’s perhaps too antiseptic, distant even, at times. A movie happy to show you what happened, without trying to overly capitalize on your emotional response. In fact, there’s not much – if any – music or overly intrusive ambient noise in the film. What we have instead is a quiet, claustrophobic world manipulated by a sociopath who learned how to lie and to manipulate his way into far too many lives.
The film is able to make you feel this intellectually, even more than emotionally. It’s a different kind of serial killer film. One that persons who usually don’t like that particular subgenre of crime film might find worth a look.
February 2nd, 2020 at 7:17 pm
Richard Attenborough has become one of my favorite actors, even before Jurassic Park, the movie he’s probably the most famous for, at least in this country.
What I’m not a big fan of serial killers, though, neither booksn or movies, so I’m torn between watching this one or not.
When I went looking for scenes from the film to add, I was surprised to see that the movie is in color. The subject matter made it seem as though it ought to have been in black and white.
February 2nd, 2020 at 8:36 pm
This is much closer to the reality of the real life rather banal men most serial killers are compared to the colorful sociopaths of most fiction because it is rooted in the facts of the Christie case that before it ended brought in both the famed Sir Bernard Spilsbury and Robert Fabian of Scotland Yard.
Attenborough gives one of his best performances here, though his ability to play compelling sociopaths dates back to his Pinky in BRIGHTON ROCK.
Ludovic Kennedy’s book, the basis of the film, is a must read among true crime books.
February 2nd, 2020 at 9:06 pm
Very well written review.
It’s a chilling, disturbing film even in scenes where nothing much seems to be happening; just the various characters conversing in the mustard-yellow light and fogged windows behind them, can come back to haunt you afterwards. There’s an extremely sour and dispirited look & feel to everything presented to the viewer; as remarked upon above–there’s nothing quite like Britain immediately post-WWII for grimness. Every fan of the genre should at least be aware of this eerily quiet movie and try to sample it a little bit. It’s just a flick worth knowing about, it carves out a little territory of its own. Attenborough is uncanny. I personally would never watch it again but I’d hate to be unaware of the reality it captures. It’s a valuable reminder as to human nature, and how ‘appearances deceive’. Poor Judy Geeson, and whew, when John Hurt sees her “afterwards”, his reaction is something you can’t easily lump in with too many other examples of acute grief on-screen. He gives a little sob which makes a viewer wince/cringe in sympathy. Ouch!
February 2nd, 2020 at 9:21 pm
It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that the DP deployed that old trick –I forget what it’s called –of filling interior spaces just prior to a shot, with clouds of dust or pumice or some other kind of fine particle to suffuse the air. The breathing-room around all the actors seems utterly murky and foggy. Intensely claustrophobic.
February 3rd, 2020 at 11:04 am
“They sent Tim Evans to the drop for a crime he didn’t do.
Twas Christie was the murderer, the judge and jury too.”
February 3rd, 2020 at 7:38 pm
Richard Fleischer’s work ranges from highly enjoyable to completely anonymous. The problem is that even his good stuff seems to lack any personal stamp that would differentiate it from Henry Hathaway, Gordon Douglas or even Lesley Selander.
February 4th, 2020 at 10:07 am
Dan, what difference does any of that make so long as the story telling is effective; that is, good stuff.
February 4th, 2020 at 12:22 pm
I just reminded myself as to his filmography, and both the above statements seem fair to my ears. He may not display a distinct “Fleischer touch” –and he has some howlers on his resume — but overall he gave us a lot of competently-directed films exhibiting few ‘glaring’ mistakes. He even turned out a few dazzling gems. This is not a modest accomplishment, right? Doing a decent job for the most part, cheerfully handling any assignment given him, and not tripping over his own feet? I (for one) think so. I wish Hollywood might always boast a few journeyman directors of such a reliable caliber.