MovieChat Forums > Dance with a Stranger (1985) Discussion > User review

User review

posted 19 years ago by AngelRedhead
6 replies | jump to latest

I've just read the user review on this film & I would advise anyone who has any knowledge of the Ruth Ellis story to ignore it. There were legal reasons why everything was not explained. The boy was a result of a war time romance. Ruth Ellis also had a husband (& daughter) who for legal reasons could not be named or mentioned. Ian Holm played the part of her lover who did exist & did nothing to help her once she was arrested.

If you don't understand the film read the following books first & then watch the film:
Ruth Ellis: The Last Woman to Be Hanged (Robert Hancock)
Ruth Ellis: My Sister's Secret Life (Muriel Jakubait, Monica Weller)
Ruth Ellis, My Mother: A Daughter's Memoir of the Last Woman to Be Hanged (Georgie Ellis, Rod Taylor)

Personally I think the film is excellent but of course I did know the story before I watched it.

[–] xavrush89 19 years ago

I don't know what that user was "using" at the time, but I got the gist of it--even though I had never heard of Ruth Ellis before discovering this film.

In fact, I think anyone who's known someone who took up with human sewage (or did so themselves!) could understand it. What more needed explaining? In fact, for me it was all too easy to see where this poor woman was heading.

I wouldn't badmouth someone just for not liking a film, but user Andy seemed to take great pride in expressing his dislike of every aspect of this film, yet obviously there are several of us who would beg to differ. You'd think he would have noticed by the other four reviews that he was in the minority, and would have acknowledged that.

I loved the dismal moodiness of this film, and found the performances of the three principals flawless. Sure MR went into extreme histrionics at times, I would have too. I don't think you need to know a thing about the story to appreciate the quality of Dance With a Stranger.

KAKISTOCRACY (n.) - a society governed by its worst citizens.

[–] AngelRedhead 19 years ago

Well said xavrush89...all of your points & observations are spot on...I'm glad you liked DWAS & I am sorry for harping on about reading books because as you said we've either been in that position or know someone who has. Bravo posting.

I cannot live without my life! I cannot die without my soul.... Heathcliff-Wutherin g Heights

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WarpedRecord 15 years ago

Hello, AngelRedhead:

Thanks very much for your reality check on the film. It always bothers me when historical events are altered when adapted for the big screen, but clearly here it was for legal reasons rather than dramatic ones.

So are you saying that Ruth Ellis was married at the time she had the lover (played by Ian Holm), as well as the other lover (played by Rupert Everett)? What a busy woman!

Has there ever been a documentary on Ruth Ellis, with footage of her? I would be very interested in seeing something like that, or even news footage. I was a bit disappointed especially that the film didn't portray the aftermath of the killing – the trial and the execution – after almost two hours of buildup.

Regardless, this is an interesting film with strong performances from actors early in their career. It's unfortunate it is largely forgotten. Thanks again for providing the historical context.

[–] Flossieandflo 14 years ago

I think her estranged husband is mentioned briefly in the film, as a reference that he is not her son's father. I also think there was a brief reference to her having another child, but no detail. The film may not give the exact details, but gave the impression that she had a complicated background. It was very subtle however, and to give some reviewers the benefit of the doubt I think some had problems with the dialogue and didn't have subtitles so may have missed this.

From the sources I've read it would seem there was enough material make several films from Ruth Ellis's short life, and all of it tragic. Her sister Muriel said she was abused by their father and says Ruth was too, (soucre:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/sep/12/ukcrime.claredyer) which may explain why she was drawn to abusive relationships. This was only revealed in 1999, so couldn't have been included in the film.

I can understand there was a legal reason Cussen's part in the shooting was not mentioned, there have been several assertions he provided the gun and drove her to the pub but the scandal was that the law did not pursue this information. Obviously with no conviction this could not have been included in the film. The film's biggest shortcoming to me is that Desmond Cussen comes across as a fairly benign character, yet there is much evidence to suggest that Cussen and the solicitor he employed for Ellis covered up his part in the shooting. The scandal continues that the neglect to pursue Cussen has never been officially apologised for.

[–] marktayloruk (2378) 2 years ago

Why wasn't Cussen charged?