Irish directed film on James Bulger comes under criticism for humanising the killers

Bobtheman

There is still a lot about child abuse we don't understand even between children. I expect both kids were extensively interviewed after arrest. This film will add nothing to that knowledge.

begbysback

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They took James with the intention of torturing and killing him -





I don’t think I need reproduce the more gruesome details to make the point that the two boys were wholly aware of their actions, and the consequences of their actions. They weren’t just messing because they had already attempted to abduct a child earlier and failed in the attempt. They also had 4km of a walk and met numerous people along the route, and could at any time just not have done what they did. I don’t think you could reasonably argue that what we know of their logic and reason was typical of a child of that age, which is what makes this case so exceptional as it is - it has been determined by psychologists who examined the boys that they were fully aware that their actions were wrong. It’s quite obvious even without the opinion of a psychologist that they knew their actions were wrong, as they tried to cover it up and make the murder look like the child had been run over by a train.

I used the term “messing” as in the act of abduction, not the torture and killing.

One of the difficulties of interviewing children for crimes is that they are likely to say anything - the thing I have difficulty with is that what’s reported - two 10 year old boys construct a sophisticated plan to steal objects which are to be used for the purpose of torture, plan an abduction, execute the abduction - then carry out premeditated torture and murder, exactly as planned.

Or is it that two 10 year old kids play truant, steal random objects from a shop, talk bravado, happen to come across a child and continue walking with the child as a mess, then find themselves beyond a point of return, and attempt to resolve a situation in panic through the rationale of a 10 year old.

Omackeral

begbysback wrote: »

Or is it that two 10 year old kids play truant, steal random objects from a shop, talk bravado, happen to come across a child and continue walking with the child as a mess, then find themselves beyond a point of return, and attempt to resolve a situation in panic through the rationale of a 10 year old.

Enjoyed that post, well written and thought provoking. One thing to point out is that James wasn't the first child they attempted to lure away from a parent that day in the Strand Shopping Centre. They tried to get another kid before him which, to me, shows a definite badness or naughtiness or whatever way you want to word it.

One eyed Jack

begbysback wrote: »

I used the term “messing” as in the act of abduction, not the torture and killing.

One of the difficulties of interviewing children for crimes is that they are likely to say anything - the thing I have difficulty with is that what’s reported - two 10 year old boys construct a sophisticated plan to steal objects which are to be used for the purpose of torture, plan an abduction, execute the abduction - then carry out premeditated torture and murder, exactly as planned.

Or is it that two 10 year old kids play truant, steal random objects from a shop, talk bravado, happen to come across a child and continue walking with the child as a mess, then find themselves beyond a point of return, and attempt to resolve a situation in panic through the rationale of a 10 year old.

I think given what we now know of the two boys in this case, and the particular circumstances of this case, of the two scenarios you presented above, it’s far more likely to be the first one than the second. That’s why I don’t agree with the idea that there is actually anything the general public can learn from this particular case which could prevent similar cases like this from happening again.

I know you didn’t put that forward as a justification for making the film, but some people have, and that justification is predicated on the thought that any child is capable of committing similar acts of violence if their circumstances were similar to the circumstances in which these two boys were raised. I don’t agree with that way of thinking personally, as it takes no account of the fact that these children’s (as they were at the time) mindsets are generally not representative of children’s mindsets. They are an extreme case.

While that may make them interesting to some people, I think making a film which attempts to portray them as normal children who made a terrible mistake on a fateful day for them, is giving them an acknowledgement they don’t deserve. What they did wasn’t normal, and to try and suggest that the film is an examination and questioning of humanity is nothing more than an attempt to portray the film as an intellectual endeavour, when in reality all it appears to be is macabre voyeurism made to appeal to an audience which likes to think of themselves as intellectually superior to the tabloid media which appeals to what they imagine are people who are intellectually inferior.

In short, the film very much reminds me of the story of the Emperors new clothes - anyone who objects to it, or doesn’t get it, is either too stupid to get it because it’s art, or they don’t care about humanity. I think that characterisation is just as lazy as their criticism of anyone who simply refers to these boys as evil monsters. Either way, I don’t think this film contributes a whole lot to either side of that philosophical discussion.

I'm not sure how you can critique a film, without having seen it first.

Porklife

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm not sure how you can critique a film, without having seen it first.

We all know the story so of course we can critique it. This isn't about the quality of the film, it's about the context and content therein.

That interview made my skin crawl. He is such an unlikeable man that Vincent Lambe.. what a self serving, opportunistic prick. Making money and raising his profile off the back of such tragedy. For someone who keeps throwing the word humaninsing around, making that film is pretty damn inhumane of him.

I was only 8 when the story broke and was so devasted I asked my mom to take me to Merseyside to put flowers on his grave. I had nightmares and thought about James every day.

I am sickened by this.

Porklife

Porklife wrote: »

We all know the story so of course we can critique it. This isn't about the quality of the film, it's about the context and content therein.
.

You cannot critique something you have not seen.
You can, as you have, disagree with the making of a film.
But, there are many many films about murders, killers & terrible killings, from different points of view.
Nothing wrong with making a film.

Bobtheman

I would ignore the film. Leave it to professionals to explore why kids would do this. Keep your kids away from violent video games though I know the reasons for this murder are more complicated than video games.
It's voyeuristic plain and simple. To be honest most news these days falls into that categ

Porklife

bubblypop wrote: »

You cannot critique something you have not seen.
You can, as you have, disagree with the making of a film.
But, there are many many films about murders, killers & terrible killings, from different points of view.
Nothing wrong with making a film.

This discussion is not about critiquing the film. This thread is not about whether it's a well made film or not. It probably is extremely well directed and acted and a great piece of work but that's not what we're discussing here. We're talking about whether or not it should have been made in the first place. The film forum is for critiqing films.

Porklife

bubblypop wrote: »

You cannot critique something you have not seen.
You can, as you have, disagree with the making of a film.
But, there are many many films about murders, killers & terrible killings, from different points of view.
Nothing wrong with making a film.

The exact question in the opening post is... Was this film made in bad taste and the exact answer is yes. Give a **** about critiqing the film or ever seeing it. I'm not lining Vincent lambs pockets with James Bulgers blood.

sk8erboii

bubblypop wrote: »

You cannot critique something you have not seen.
You can, as you have, disagree with the making of a film.
But, there are many many films about murders, killers & terrible killings, from different points of view.
Nothing wrong with making a film.

After hours is not for critiquing movies. People here are pretty old and thickheaded. Definitely post in the movies subforum though

One eyed Jack

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm not sure how you can critique a film, without having seen it first.

In the same way as the director can make a film based upon what he knows of the case, I can critique said film based upon what I know of both the director and the film already.

I wouldn’t suggest the director shouldn’t have made the film as he wasn’t there at the time when the two boys committed the acts they did, because I understand that the director made the film based entirely upon his own perspective of the case, he doesn’t actually have to have been there any more than I actually have to have seen the film to be able to offer an opinion on either the film, or the director of the film.

FrancieBrady

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No Francie, I don’t know much about film, and unlike yourself I’m not pretending I know much about film either as it’s a fairly large industry with numerous different roles and aspects to it, from Bollywood to Nollywood to Hollywood, etc. I don’t have to know much about film though to know that controversial content generates controversy. I’m quite aware that he wants his film to be seen, as any starving artist would either, and that still doesn’t take from my point that the reason a starving artist would want to generate controversial art is for their art to be seen by patrons, or an audience who will pay them to see more of their work, if you prefer those terms.

I never suggested he was responsible for presenters playing to the easily outraged, I suggested that it is entirely his responsibility for appearing on these shows and doing these interviews, knowing full well what he’s getting himself into, as opposed to your earlier assertion that he was in any way courageous for doing so. He’s doing it because it pays the bills Francie - film-making if you know anything about it at all, isn’t exactly cheap, and there are very few directors among thousands of directors who will ever enjoy any measure of media exposure.

'He's doing it because it pays the bills'??
You could trivialise all art in that way I suppose.
He mentioned that he struggled with the idea of making this film, so he was well aware of what he was getting into. Some creative people are motivated by that, which is fine in my book, some of the best art I know is confrontational and difficult.

Other than that I am not sure what your condescending point is about. Who else would get censored/suppressed in your ideal world is rather a scary thought.

Porklife

Porklife wrote: »

This discussion is not about critiquing the film. This thread is not about whether it's a well made film or not. It probably is extremely well directed and acted and a great piece of work but that's not what we're discussing here. We're talking about whether or not it should have been made in the first place. The film forum is for critiqing films.

I can't see any reason why it shouldn't have been made.
It's not very nice that they didn't inform James bulgers family, but I'm still not seeing any good reason why it shouldn't have been made.

FrancieBrady

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

That's not it at all. Were you around during the whole story? I remember when the boy was reported missing. Everyone assumed it was an adult, then when they showed footage of him leaving the shopping centre I remember people talking about how they must have been bringing him to an adult. And then it turned out no, they brought him to torture him off their own bats. Then when the trial was going on, the reports on what they did. Jaysi s. Outrage junkies indeed.

I've never heard of another story like that. Granted I don't go looking for them. But I dont remember hearing about any other case similar to this. And I'm not an outrage junkie. There was nothing more I would have loved than for this story to have ended safe and well. It's nothing to do with finding one or two to hang em high.

I don't see the point in making the movie. It doesn't mean it can't be discussed. This thread has been going for how many pages now? It's not that discussion has been stifled, you're discussing it right now.

I was around when it happened.
The film would be suppressed if some had their way on here.

One eyed Jack

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'He's doing it because it pays the bills'??
You could trivialise all art in that way I suppose.
He mentioned that he struggled with the idea of making this film, so he was well aware of what he was getting into. Some creative people are motivated by that, which is fine in my book, some of the best art I know is confrontational and difficult.

Other than that I am not sure what your condescending point is about. Who else would get censored/suppressed in your ideal world is rather a scary thought.

I have no wish to censor or oppress anyone?

You’re surely aware that people’s opinions of the value of art can vary significantly and that just because you imagine something has artistic merit doesn’t mean anyone else who is of a different opinion doesn’t know what they’re talking about? For example I see no artistic merit in a dramatisation of police interviews, it’s not like it’s presenting anything new, and I certainly wouldn’t regard it as difficult or confrontational.

I get that he struggled with the idea of making the film, I would too if my career depended upon it, and for me I would probably decide not to make the film because I would consider a dramatisation of police interviews in this particular case as unworthy of an audience. I’d have no choice but to do as the director has done in this case and present it in a way that I could claim was more accessible to an audience. That suggests to me that he isn’t creating art for the sake of art, he’s creating art which he imagines will appeal to his intended audience, and really there’s nothing difficult or confrontational about that when he is already aware of what appeals to his audience - it’s no different than George Hook giving his audience what they want to hear.

Instead of seeing criticism of his work as an attempt to shut him down or censor his opinions, an alternative way to look at it is simply exposing his work to a whole new audience, one which doesn’t appear to share his perspective of his own art. If you know anything of art, you must surely be aware that it is entirely subjective.

Dyr

bubblypop wrote: »

Good people sometimes do terrible evil things.
Not so good people sometimes do very very nice good things.
Without understanding what was going on in a person's head at the time of the offence, no-one can understand why they did what they did.

This is a film, art should be art, paint pictures, make films/tv shows, write plays etc about whatever. It's art. It's interesting.

Art should be art. Documentaries are not art. Clues in the name like.

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t agree with the directors perspective that they were ever dehumanised in the first place tbh..

Just on this part as this seems to be your main issue.
You disagree they were dehumanised. Therefore you don't believe the director believes they were dehumanised.
Are you projecting there?

I, and may others here, have said we think they were dehumanised by being referred to as 'animals'. 'pure evil' - not to mention the suggestion they be executed and their organs harvested ... is that what we advocate we do with humans now? And that act of dehumanising killers is a way of absolving the human race of it's atrocities. They did these awful things but they were animals.
Animals don't do these things. Humans do.

As for the merits of the actual film - I cannot comment as I have't seen it. I will never see it. I haven't even see Misery or Monsteror any of the plethora of Chainsaw Last Summer Freddy films as I don't those images in my head.

I have read an awful lot of primary source historical documents where killers have boasted of their atrocities - and I'm not talking Nazis, I'm talking Tudor officials in Ireland writing to London saying their arms were tired from slaughtering children after a massacre, or how in order to scare chieftains into submission they decapitated their wives and children and placed their heads on stakes outside the meeting place, or how they hanged toddlers to show they weren't going to be defied.
Should all these documents be filed away and forgotten?
I don't think so - I think each time someone examines them we can learn something new about not just the events themselves but how seemingly ordinary human beings can commit such terrible deeds. Fresh minds, fresh perspectives.
And yes, I DO understand why these Tudor officials did what they did - even as I am utterly appalled by it. They did it for power, for glory, for land, for fear, for political advancement, for money, for fun.

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

You cannot critique something you have not seen.
You can, as you have, disagree with the making of a film.
But, there are many many films about murders, killers & terrible killings, from different points of view.
Nothing wrong with making a film.

Ian McEwan, a few years before these events, wrote a number of pieces where children committed horrendous crimes. His point was that the environment and society these children were brought up in (northern England) conditioned them and basically destroyed them.
He faced much the same controversy for writing them as Lambe faces here.

Thankfully artists and creatives still consider it a duty to illuminate the dark corners in the way they do. The sad thing is that the twitteratti and outrage junkies are developing some muscle and can censor discussion and enlightenment.
We are entering a new Dark Age I fear.

Anyone who wants (and you ultimately have a choice here...don't click if you are already offended ) Can have a look at the trailer here, it certainly is a quality production, whatever else it is.
https://vimeo.com/277662428

FrancieBrady

Bambi wrote: »

Art should be art. Documentaries are not art. Clues in the name like.

It's not a documentary, it is a dramatised piece based on the transcripts.

namloc1980

Bambi wrote: »

Art should be art. Documentaries are not art. Clues in the name like.

This isn't a documentary. Some people in this thread need to get that into their heads. It's a short film based on the transcripts of the police interviews.

sk8erboii

Bambi wrote: »

Art should be art. Documentaries are not art. Clues in the name like.

Art isnt a tangible object.. art is how you relate to something

Zorya

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Anyone who wants (and you ultimately have a choice here...don't click if you are already offended ) Can have a look at the trailer here, it certainly is a quality production, whatever else it is.
https://vimeo.com/277662428

Don't know how those child actors could not be traumatised by that work.

That portrayal of Jon Venables makes him look like above all he was absolutely raging to have been caught.

As far as the ''insight'' that might be gained for society, given that there has not been a murder like that of James Bulger in 25 years, I cannot see that as being a valid motive.

It is a shocking real life event turned into a filmed narrative edited with the director's natural bias for the entertainment of people. Nothing essentially wrong with that, if that's the kind of thing one finds entertaining. Lots of people have done that kind of art. Many seek and have found notoriety in that way.

But this dressing it up as sociological or criminological research or having some kind of societal merit is dishonest.

Which is obviously just my opinion, before someone splutters out their cornflakes on their screens at the thought of important art being censored.

FrancieBrady

Zorya wrote: »

Don't know how those child actors could not be traumatised by that work.

That portrayal of Jon Venables makes him look like above all he was absolutely raging to have been caught.

As far as the ''insight'' that might be gained for society, given that there has not been a murder like that of James Bulger in 25 years, I cannot see that as being a valid motive.

It is a shocking real life event turned into a filmed narrative edited with the director's natural bias for the entertainment of people. Nothing essentially wrong with that, if that's the kind of thing one finds entertaining. Lots of people have done that kind of art. Many seek and have found notoriety in that way.

But this dressing it up as sociological or criminological research or having some kind of societal merit is dishonest.

Which is obviously just my opinion, before someone splutters out their cornflakes on their screens at the thought of important art being censored.

You use the word 'entertainment' here as if it is a bad thing. I don't think any sane or reasonable person is going to be 'entertained' in the way you suggest. Yes, the tabloid consumers will probably be entertained by it's shock value but then they have been well catered to over the years since these sad events as we all know.
Why are some so afraid of the reasons this happened being investigated and prodded in what is obviously (from the trailer) a considered and well produced way?
I understand the idea that people have a low opinion of artists having a go at doing it.
Why is this case such a no go area for film art though, when almost every other high profile murder cases are?
Can you shed some light on that dichotomy? Are you against all film that looks at the motivations and reasons for real crime? That would make some sense, if it is the case.

namloc1980

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You use the word 'entertainment' here as if it is a bad thing. I don't think any sane or reasonable person is going to be 'entertained' in the way you suggest. Yes, the tabloid consumers will probably be entertained by it's shock value but then they have been well catered to over the years since these sad events as we all know.
Why are some so afraid of the reasons this happened being investigated and prodded in what is obviously (from the trailer) a considered and well produced way?
I understand the idea that people have a low opinion of artists having a go at doing it.
Why is this case such a no go area for film art though, when almost every other high profile murder cases are?
Can you shed some light on that dichotomy? Are you against all film that looks at the motivations and reasons for real crime? That would make some sense, if it is the case.

Because deep down people are fearful of the reasons behind what those two did. The fact they were 10 year olds is very uncomfortable. Dismissing them as simply monsters as the tabloids have done for 25+ years is an easy way to cope with it.

FrancieBrady

namloc1980 wrote: »

Because deep down people are fearful of the reasons behind what those two did. The fact they were 10 year olds is very uncomfortable. Dismissing them as simply monsters as the tabloids have done for 25+ years is an easy way to cope with it.

Makes sense for some of the reactions I suppose.

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Just on this part as this seems to be your main issue.
You disagree they were dehumanised. Therefore you don't believe the director believes they were dehumanised.
Are you projecting there?

Oh no, I believe that the director believes they were dehumanised in the media and so on. As he explained himself, the tabloid media were his primary source if you like, for the information he was exposed to about the case. When I say I don’t agree that they were dehumanised, I mean that I don’t agree with his opinion that referring to the boys as evil monsters dehumanised them. I’m quite aware of humans capacity for cruelty, and I don’t think categorising the two boys as evil monsters on the basis of their actions and their behaviour is actually an attempt to suggest they aren’t human. It’s a way to put what they did into some sort of perspective that people can relate to - what they did wasn’t normal behaviour, and that’s why people found it unthinkable to get their heads around it. It’s far easier for people to get their heads around a concept if they can at least relate it to something they’re familiar with already- ‘evil monsters’ would be an apt description in this particular case.

I think what the director is attempting to do is he’s taken an idea that he already had - the idea that these boys weren’t the evil monsters they were portrayed as in the media, and it’s undoubtedly influenced his work. If he’s going into something with an already held position, holds fast to that position, and views the evidence and tailors the evidence to support that position, then he hasn’t done anything new or brought any new perspective to the discussion that hasn’t been discussed already. In order for his perspective to gain any traction towards acknowledgement, let alone acceptance - he has to dramatise it in order to make it more accessible to his audience. He wants to portray a particular narrative that we should empathise with these boys too on the basis of our shared humanity, and I get that, I really do, however I simply have no interest in empathising, let alone needing to understand what motivated these boys in this particular case to do what they did. I’m just not finding any compelling reason to want to try and empathise with the director in this particular case either if I’m being honest. I get why he would say it was a tragedy for three families, and I would say that’s the film he should have made, but instead he chose to make a dramatisation of 15-20 hours of police interviews with the two boys in which the boys themselves offered no explanation for their behaviour.

If anyone is projecting, it’s tbe director, in his attempt to suggest that the boys themselves don’t understand what they did at the time, as though they shouldn’t have been held responsible for their actions. I think the director is ignoring an awful lot we now know about this case long before he ever offered his perspective which isn’t bringing anything new to the table IMO in terms of our understanding of what could possibly have motivated these boys in this particular case to do what they did.

I, and may others here, have said we think they were dehumanised by being referred to as 'animals'. 'pure evil' - not to mention the suggestion they be executed and their organs harvested ... is that what we advocate we do with humans now? And that act of dehumanising killers is a way of absolving the human race of it's atrocities. They did these awful things but they were animals.
Animals don't do these things. Humans do.

As for the merits of the actual film - I cannot comment as I have't seen it. I will never see it. I haven't even see Misery or Monsteror any of the plethora of Chainsaw Last Summer Freddy films as I don't those images in my head.

I have read an awful lot of primary source historical documents where killers have boasted of their atrocities - and I'm not talking Nazis, I'm talking Tudor officials in Ireland writing to London saying their arms were tired from slaughtering children after a massacre, or how in order to scare chieftains into submission they decapitated their wives and children and placed their heads on stakes outside the meeting place, or how they hanged toddlers to show they weren't going to be defied.
Should all these documents be filed away and forgotten?
I don't think so - I think each time someone examines them we can learn something new about not just the events themselves but how seemingly ordinary human beings can commit such terrible deeds. Fresh minds, fresh perspectives.
And yes, I DO understand why these Tudor officials did what they did - even as I am utterly appalled by it. They did it for power, for glory, for land, for fear, for political advancement, for money, for fun.

In any case, you’re always going to get people falling over themselves to express their revulsion and disgust, and y’know it’s completely an individual thing as to whether or not they should be taken seriously, but speaking only for myself, I don’t tend to entertain that sort of nonsense.

I think to equate this film to the primary sources you’re talking about is a bit much, notwithstanding the fact that the film itself is a secondary source, at best! I don’t think historical documents which offer considerable insight into society and culture in any given time period should be filed away and forgotten. I think there is so, so much we can learn from them and I actually love it when you’re giving history lessons (I do, I’m not a big history buff, but at least you make it interesting and make me want to learn more!), whereas the motivation behind the making of this film? Well, it’s a bit like imagining that Boards will be of any value as a primary source in offering future generations any insight into society and culture as it is now tbh. I can’t imagine anyone finding it all that useful as a historical reflection of Irish society. I have no doubt that someone will claim it has historical value as a primary source, in the same way some people claim this film has artistic merit or value in offering an insight into humanity, but for me, I simply see that as reaching to justify something which would be IMO a waste of time as it offers nothing of any value to society. It offers value to individuals of course, and I understand that, but let’s not go overstating it’s importance in terms of what it offers to it’s intended audience.

FrancieBrady

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have no doubt that someone will claim it has historical value as a primary source, in the same way some people claim this film has artistic merit or value in offering an insight into humanity, but for me, I simply see that as reaching to justify something which would be IMO a waste of time as it offers nothing of any value to society. It offers value to individuals of course, and I understand that, but let’s not go overstating it’s importance in terms of what it offers to it’s intended audience.

As I said earlier, we are entering a new Dark Age if we follow this line of thinking.

I also think you are confusing 'primary source' with 'primary'.
This short film is a small part of the discussion around these events, nobody, including the artist/film maker has claimed it is the only or definitive version of the events or even an authoritative one.

fly_agaric

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think any sane or reasonable person is going to be 'entertained' in the way you suggest.

Don't know about that. People have been entertained by far worse (tyburn tree, the colloseum). They were not all "insane" or even "unreasonable" back then.

People watch videos of atrocities on online now + they say its to "inform" themselves on the evils of mankind etc. as I've seen it stated on threads on this website. I wonder if it is really just scratching the same itch (which is not so acceptable as it was in the 18th century) alot of the time.

Anyway won't be watching this film myself but when it comes out.
I'll have to get the great insights from this piece of cinematic art second hand.

One eyed Jack

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I said earlier, we are entering a new Dark Age if we follow this line of thinking.

I also think you are confusing 'primary source' with 'primary'.
This short film is a small part of the discussion around these events, nobody, including the artist/film maker has claimed it is the only or definitive version of the events or even an authoritative one.

What’s this ‘we’ business? Again I have to question where you’re getting the idea that I want to censor anything or anyone. I don’t. I simply don’t see the value in the film that you appear to see in it. It doesn’t offer anything new that I wasn’t aware of already, it doesn’t even offer a new perspective. It simply offers one perspective within a very limited context- solely the directors perception of the two boys that he gained from reading about them in the tabloid media, and then documenting and dramatising his exposure to the police interviews. We’re still a long way from the Dark Ages Francie, no need to be going all Chicken Licken so soon.

As for primary and secondary sources in the historical context in which Bannsidhe and I were speaking, I think you’re speaking about something else entirely -


Primary and secondary sources


The documents Bannsidhe was referring to are a primary source of information, the film in this case is as I said, at best a secondary source because the director is using secondary source material to form his opinion which he has turned into a short film for which he has come to the attention of the same tabloid media he claims his film is his attempt to distance himself from.