MovieChat Forums > Frenzy (1972) Discussion > Richard Blaney's alibi

Richard Blaney's alibi


This movie is a piece of art.
Neverthless there is one thing I find a little lame in the end.
Rusk is supposed to be a serial killer by the number of victims he has done in London so he's probably unable to control himself for a long time. So why Richard Blaney (Jon Finch) had to hide and escape from prison instead of waiting for the killer to strike again and provide him an alibi?

My Blog
http://mhaipresodistriscio.blogspot.com

reply

Rusk is supposed to be a serial killer by the number of victims he has done in London so he's probably unable to control himself for a long time. So why Richard Blaney (Jon Finch) had to hide and escape from prison instead of waiting for the killer to strike again and provide him an alibi?

---

First, I agree that Frenzy is a true work of popular art. But that said, it does have to "push" a few plot points near the end.

One: Blaney tells the cops that Rusk is the real killer. Oxford doesn't investigate Rusk until AFTER Blaney has been tried and convicted.

Two: Indeed, why not just wait for Rusk to kill again and thus reveal Blaney as innocent?

To the first:

It turns out that in a real life case upon which Frenzy was partially based (the "John Christie case"), the "real Rusk" was questioned and even brought into the trial of the "wrong man." And the real Rusk was let go. And the wrong man was convicted and hanged. "Truth is stranger than fiction."

The problem is: killers ALWAYS say somebody else did it. The cops are inured to reacting with no compassion, beyond maybe taking note of the other suspect and investigating him/her. But they don't release the main suspect.

To the second:

Likely Rusk would kill again soon -- and Blaney's friend the pub owner says EXACTLY this TO Blaney(without saying "Rusk" of course. He says "this necktie fellow")

I think Hitchcock covers this by "rushing to the ending." Blaney's not in prison very long before he breaks out. So we have no time to contemplate the point -- even though Blaney's pub owner friend brought it up in the first place.

I would guess that were "the murders to start again," Scotland Yard might publically attribute them to "a copycat." Or Rusk might start burying his victims and hiding them better(doubtful -- he's putting his next one in a shipping trunk when the film ends.)

No..I think this plot point was just skimmed over in the "rush to curtain."

Which is why Frenzy, while artful , isn't quite the classic Psycho is.

reply

There was no assurance that Rusk would kill again, especially since he had arranged for a fall guy to be convicted of the murders. So far as the movie is concerned, this is not an issue.

reply