Reviews

I can't help but think that the film's script is based on the song "Sweet Jane" by the Velvet Underground. We first hear the famous opening lines when Brian visits Jerry in his apartment. Then Jerry sings the same lines under the shower in his room at Audrey's house, and to really hammer the point home, the song is played in its entirety when the credits roll. And if you know the song's lyrics and if you think about it for a minute, Audrey could be Jane, Brian could be Jack and that would make Jerry the rock 'n roll musician. So, if this script is indeed based on the song, Things We Lost In The Fire is a film about an impossible love story, and one which is not headed for a happy ending at that.

Let me explain what I mean.

***WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!***

In the song "Sweet Jane" there are 3 characters. There's the "I" of the story. The main thing we know about him is that he's in a rock 'n roll band. Then there's Jack and Jane. Jack's a banker and Jane's a clerk. Jack and Jane have money but they are like "wooden soldiers", all set in their ways. The rock 'n roll guy hasn't forgotten about the olden days when poets "studied the rules of verse" and the ladies rolled their eyes. And really, being in a rock 'n roll band is so much cooler than working in a bank. So naturally, the listener's sympathies lie with the rock 'n roll guy. Jack and Jane have everything, he has nothing. They grew up being able to go out dancing, he had "an evil mother" who told him "everything is just dirt". If you have a mother like that, I imagine you don't really grow up being all ambitious and you end up having to work instead of being able to enjoy your evenings in front of a fireplace ("watch me now!"). But here's the catch: The song is called Sweet Jane. And just as much as it is not true that women always faint and that villains always blink their eyes, it is not true that the rock 'n roll lifestyle is always better than a banker's life. Because banker Jack has the one thing the rock 'n roll guy really wants and won't be able to get: He has Jane. Jane loves Jack ("heavenly wine and roses seem to whisper to her when he smiles") but it's the rock 'n roll guy standing on the street corner with his suitcase in his hand who's longing for "sweet Jane".

And you can tell Jerry has been in love with Audrey longer than he would want to admit. When Brian talks about Audrey sleeping with someone else, you can really see Jerry's interest sparking. In the diner, Jerry gears the conversation towards the subject of Audrey again (asking Brian if she was angry he came to see Jerry). And when Brian says "I don't know why you're so dead set against seeing her again", Jerry's explanation is lame, to say the least. After he's moved in, we see him having dreams about her.

But Jerry has very low self esteem (the legacy of "an evil mother"?) and he suffers silently through all of Audrey's verbal abuse ("It should've been you, Jerry. Why wasn't it you?"). He tells Harper he couldn't fill her daddy's shoes. It pains him that Audrey wants to play match-maker for him and Kelly but he doesn't protest, he doesn't believe that it could work between him and Audrey, because frankly: "Anyone who's ever had a heart, they wouldn't turn around and break it. And everyone who's ever played a part, they wouldn't turn around and hate it." He knows his part and he knows she has her part and if I am interpreting his dream at the end correctly, he is not entirely convinced he could overcome his addiction. He's trying but fate is against him. He doesn't want to give up on himself completely, so it's one "one day at a time". But will the "life of Jack (Brian)" really suit him? Will he be able to live life as a mortgage broker? Well, the reward would be sweet.

I couldn't get myself to like "From Hell" entirely. Unfortunately the story isn't as gripping as I thought it would be. I mean, hey, this is a JACK THE RIPPER story! A *mystery* unsolved since the 1880s ... Visually the film is great, the performances are great either but somehow I expected more, more, more ... I don't know what. More suspense? More dark alleyways and shadows? More hints instead of explanations? More mystery for the mind to digest? But this film gave me no puzzle, no riddles to solve, no heated discussions at the end about some details that just can't be explained ... But then again it was good fun to watch, it just shouldn't have been so clear and stylised and ... simple. Maybe I knew too much about the story beforehand.

---MAJOR SPOILER! DON'T READ THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T WATCHED THE FILM!--- You can't expect a film to be true to the facts but anybody who is interested in the real facts knows that the theory about Dr Gull being Jack the Ripper doesn't hold up (I was surprised to see that Donald Rubelow, author of a great book on the real Jack, was involved in the making of the film if you believe the credits--he must have told the Hughes that the theory was nonsense).