john hurt
-
neil_mc — 20 years ago(May 27, 2005 06:28 AM)
It's also the lack of music that makes it more eerie. Music often has the effect of signposting what you should be feeling as you watch - "be scared here", "tension is building here", "get ready, big shock coming up" - this film abandons that and is
much
better for it. Terrific film.
"Please don't eat me! I have a wife and kids. Eat them!" -
Rock4Ever — 19 years ago(September 24, 2006 05:48 PM)
i thought every performance was fantastic, and i'd agree that the lack of music certainly pplayed a large part in making it so chilling, it's very rare for a film to be daring enough to trust in the actors and direction to 'tell' the viewer what to think. Richard A was stunning in this, quite the scariest performance i think i have seen in any film.
"321[BANG].You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off." -
peterjhunter — 17 years ago(May 05, 2008 06:06 AM)
Interesting how Hurt is best known for two particular roles, both of them as a pathetic little nobody. In 1970 he played Timothy Evans and 14 years later he was Winston Smith in the adaptation of Orwell's 1984. In between them, however, he had a really meaty role on British TV as Caligula in the celebrated BBC mini-series of I Claudius
-
reader4 — 15 years ago(June 27, 2010 11:11 PM)
The one comment I haven't seen anybody make is about John Hurt's accent. It was far too educated and cultivated for the semi-illiterate that he played. He was supoosed to be a low-life Mafia offspring, not a college graduate.
While his acting in the part was good, his clipped Cambridge delivery really interefered with his believability, in my opinion. -
matthewwave-1 — 13 years ago(May 04, 2012 10:58 AM)
While I can't speak to the matter of the accent, Hurt's overall characterization is pretty fantastic. It's an extremely well-acted film. My only complaint about the rightful praise heaped on Attenborough and Hurt in this film is that, in contrast, Judy Geeson's superb performance in a far less "showy" type of role is sometimes overlooked. She's an underappreciated and underutilized actress, I think, and this film helps shows why that's a shame. So, thanx to Rock4Ever for pointing out that all the film's perforances are terrific (even the supporting and bit roles are pretty wonderfully filled).
At least one other poster commented on the lack of violence/gore/blood in 10 Rillington making the film so effective. I agree and I disagree. Yes, there's little on-screen graphic violence. Even when we see Christy strangling his victims, we don't tend to get many shots of his victims being strangled. And leaving the killing of Geraldine off-camera is both merciful and merciless treatment of the viewer; we don't have to see any shots of a baby being murdered, yet the way the film tells us this is indeed what happens is stomach-churning indeed.
Still, the killing/rape scenes what we actually see in them are really sickening or at least they were to me. The sight of Christy heaving on top of the body of a dying/dead victim is a sick, sick one that I will have a hard time getting past for a considerable while. It's not just what the film suggests but what it blatantly makes me see that makes me sick to my stomach.
Yet, interestingly for me, I think one of the really memorable achievements of the film is how Attenborough and the folks behind the camera make Christy so completely disgusting aside from the killing and raping. If you were to remove all depictions of and references to those crimes, and presented 10 Rillington Place as a film about merely everything ELSE the actual film shows and tells us about Christy, I would find the man utterly dispicable. His pitiful lying, his manipulation of any and all persons he encounters, the way he basically took Tim's side in his domestic abuse of Beryl, the way he helped isolate Beryl from those who might have helped her deal with her bad marriage (throwing her friend out of the apartment when she'd come over to tend to her after taking the would-be abortion pills) Christy as detailed in this film was a vile human being in just about all respects.
Matthew -
ljones86-768-598858 — 11 years ago(January 02, 2015 05:32 PM)
I know it's been an age since you wrote your post, but because it was so inaccurate, I felt I had to reply.
John Hurt's accent was not clipped Cambridge. I'm British (English) and can't vouch for the authenticity of his welsh accent, but it sounded perfectly fine to me and I live near the welsh border.
The Queen's English it was not! -
gioconda91423 — 10 years ago(April 14, 2015 10:19 PM)
John Hurt's accent was that of an uneducated Welshman, not an educated Cambridge dude. I lived n England for a while. Some other Brits have posted the same opinion as well.
John Hurt has done many accentsall brilliantly IMHO.