I had to switch off after ten minutes... - The Last Hangman (2006) Discussion

[–] red-rob 16 years ago

Like Timothy Evans?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans#Evans.27_trial_and_executio n

My Movies: http://uk.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=24218096

reply

[–] paulsoffstump 13 years ago

Timothy Evans most probably did not kill his child, for which he was indicted, convicted and executed. Christie will have done that murder because he didn't want the Police poking about, him being a mass murderer already. But a close study of the case suggests that Evans probably DID kill his wife - and then he fled, leaving the baby. Evans was not indicted or tried for the murder of his wife, as the usual custom in Britain in those times for more than one murder was to only indict for one of the crimes, usually the one seen as the most heinous (the child in this case). This was to allow a separate indictment and trial for other murders, as well as making the one trial less complex. Evans was thus pardoned as he was materially innocent of the crime for which he was condemned, but whether he was actually morally innocent of all crimes is probably not the case. If he had been tried for the murder of his wife he would likely have been found guilty and according to the law in 1953 would have hung anyway.

reply

[–] Elfminster 12 years ago

Timothy Evans most probably did not kill his child, for which he was indicted, convicted and executed. Christie will have done that murder because he didn't want the Police poking about, him being a mass murderer already. But a close study of the case suggests that Evans probably DID kill his wife - and then he fled, leaving the baby. Evans was not indicted or tried for the murder of his wife, as the usual custom in Britain in those times for more than one murder was to only indict for one of the crimes, usually the one seen as the most heinous (the child in this case). This was to allow a separate indictment and trial for other murders, as well as making the one trial less complex. Evans was thus pardoned as he was materially innocent of the crime for which he was condemned, but whether he was actually morally innocent of all crimes is probably not the case. If he had been tried for the murder of his wife he would likely have been found guilty and according to the law in 1953 would have hung anyway.

John Christie admitted to killing both Beryl and Geraldine Evans + another 7 woman.

reply

[–] Corner_House_guest 16 years ago

Well its a movie about the death penalty, Pierrepoint deliberately avoided finding out about what the condemned had done so he could do his job dispassionately. Obviously some of the people got a quicker less painful death than they gave their victims, but the film wasnt about them or in fact the murderers, just the effect on P. and the fickle public opinion. Hero when hanging Nazi war criminals, villian when hanging Ruth Ellis.

reply

[–] DeathToPigs 16 years ago

Even killers can be remorseful, or put on a show of being so. Maybe those dumb enough to believe in an afterlife. You didn't see the Nazi executions, I somehow doubt we were being invited to feel pity for them.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gary_overman 8 years ago

Even killers can be remorseful, or put on a show of being so. Maybe those dumb enough to believe in an afterlife. You didn't see the Nazi executions, I somehow doubt we were being invited to feel pity for them.

Does remorse, even genuine remorse, mean that the criminal should not be punished? Or punished less?

reply

[–] gregoir-1 16 years ago

I must say I didn't know anything about Pierrepoint before watching the movie, so I saw the movie without preconception of his later views on capital punishment.
But I don't see at all how you could construe that opinion based on the first ten minutes of the film. It's only in the last twenty minutes of the movie that Pierrepoint starts to doubt whether his job truly carries out justice or not.

Personally, I'm quite right wing and in favor of capital punishment, and I thought the movie was obviously much more about the psychological effects of being an executioner (and striving for perfection and efficiency) than about capital punishment itself. Perhaps you should give the movie another shot, I truly enjoyed it

reply

[–] chilaili 15 years ago

If you watch all the way to the end you will see a comment made by Pierrepoint during an interview in 1974 where he apparently said that after all his experiences, as far as he could tell, capital punishment was little more than an act of vengeance. Interesting.

Anyway, I did not get the impression at all that this movie was an indictment of capital punishment or that it showed any sympathy to the hanged. I think it was very careful to be dispassionate and biased neither one way or the other. It really showed Pierrepoint's gradual change in his feelings about the job. He made a point of not judging but rather treated everyone with the same level of dignity and respect. As he says to the young Army officer, they've paid the price.

reply

[–] Cablebot3000 13 years ago

Agreed, it didn't come across as "left-winged" to me either. It was about Pierrpoint's life as an executioner. I do think it tends to show capital punishment as bad, but that's film for you. Films will have some biased, you just have to get over that. It's a really good movie and its too bad you turned it off, and this is coming from a right-winger.

Go Mischa/Marissa(2003-2006)
Wisdom is freedom

reply

[–] lornamd-1 13 years ago

So Pierrepoint showed those executed as being scared and upset. That isn't left wing unless it is showing reality you think the film should show them as not caring about what happened to them.

How is depicting that taking anything away from the suffering of the victims?

Also is not so simple that everyone executed was a monster:

Timothy Evans - an innocent man executed for the crimes of a serial killer
Derek Bentley - had the mental age of a child and was executed for supposedly saying "Let him have it" which the real killer said he never heard and that Bentley had no influence over him committing the murder
Ruth Ellis - she was a murderer but she killed a man who beat her while pregnant causing her to have a miscarriage. I don't condone that but its more complex than her being evil and him being innocent

reply

[–] PsychoDingo 9 years ago

I suspect you went into the film with preconceptions and you saw what you wanted to see, because it was not a "poor little murders" movie at all.

I got girls up here do more tricks than a god damn monkey on a hundred yards of grape vine.

reply

[–] Edward_de_Vere 7 years ago

The film portrays Pierrepoint as a completely sympathetic and likable man, so how do we get "nasty murdering state" from that?

Furthermore, the anti-death penalty protestors shown taunting and spitting on Pierrepoint aren't exactly shown in a favorable light.

It seems as though you're projecting something onto the film that just isn't there.

reply

[–] Ariane67 7 years ago

And what about watching a movie more than ten poor little minutes to comment it ?
I would never dare to do that.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

"Don't act, be !" (Kate Winslet)

reply