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

listermint

Having grown up knowing the headlines of these murders and being incredibly shocked and upset at the time of what happened. And now having a young son i cannot come to any relations as to what it would feel like for this to happen.

Its actually beyond alot of comprehension to be frank.

But i can still see the need to understand how those kids got to that point. Yes i do believe that some humans have a genetic predisposition to suggestion and a chemical imbalance in control. But these things are in alot of humans and do not always tip the balance into acts.

So my thoughts would be that yes its good for more visibility into the causes of such actions, Why, What could have been done, When did it start and how can we prevent such things occurring. having people being able to recognise red alerts before it gets out of hand.

But also i am torn that this whole thing keeps raising its head for the families involved. Its like groundhog day especially when its publicised again




I just dont know how to feel about the documentary as i havent seen it.


But i also dont want to relive the details of the childs murder. As had occurred in this very thread

nthclare

listermint wrote: »

calls other posters lefties

then follows up with this




Youve some head in the clouds fella

Better than having my head in the sand really, at least I can breathe.



Mod: banned for ignoring threadban

eagle eye

There are all types in the world. There's more people around these days who want to find an excuse for the scumbag and the evil bastard than ever before.
Ignoring them completely is about the only way to stay calm and get on with your life.
Just don't watch this thing. If it loses money then he might never get to make another one.

seamus

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Wonder how she feels about "filmmaker " making a film about her poor murdered son and not even having the manners to inform her.

The Bulger family's point of view on this has been well expressed, so what was the filmmaker to gain by contacting them?

No matter what he did, he was going to upset them. He didn't need their permission to make the film, or their blessing, or even confirmation that they were OK with it.

We know in fact, that they would not be OK with it. So what would be gained by giving them a "heads up"?

"I'm just ringing to let you know that a short movie which I made and which you are going to find deeply upsetting has been shortlisted for an Oscar"

?

What does that do except cause an argument?

I do understand why it feels like there should be a common courtesy to contact the family of a murder victim for their approval before publishing anything about the case.
But in reality if that were required, then we would only have very sanitised or narrow versions of these incidents.

When the incident is enormously high-profile, like this one was, then it moves beyond a private family tragedy and becomes public domain. And with that comes a certain level of duty on the part of journalists and other media to ensure that the incident has been roundly and honestly represented to the public, no matter how upsetting that may be.

pleas advice

Why do some "posters" keep putting certain "words" in inverted commas?

sk8erboii

SusieBlue wrote: »

Lefties are not saying pedophiles are a sexual orientation.
Pedophiles are the ones trying to push that agenda.
I would like to see proof of this alleged lefty independent group concerned with protecting the "sexual orientation" of child molesters.

As we all know, if you repealed the 8th youre also a satanic pedophile.

The Black Oil

seamus wrote: »

Vincent Lambe is a highly regarded director, and a far cry from an attention seeker.

The problem here is that the James Bulger murder is a sacred cow of the British tabloid class, and any discussion of the murderers which doesn't characterise them with horns and pitchforks will have them wailing about how it's "too soft" on them and "humanising" them.


Believing the murderers to be just randomly "evil" and beyond explanation helps them avoid uncomfortable truths.

Yep, I saw this on a UK forum in 2010 when the issue with Venables and child abuse imagery arose. It's a case that's almost impossible to discuss without the seething anger being front and centre, obscuring debate.

Nothing like a moral panic and bit of groupthink. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/feb/06/bulger.ukcrime

begbysback

Just seen the year on there 1993, that’s 25 years - the usual allotted time for information to be made public, does this mean that the short film has recently made public data? Or is it just a coincidence?

PuppyMcPupFace

The Black Oil wrote: »

Yep, I saw this on a UK forum in 2010 when the issue with Venables and child abuse imagery arose. It's a case that's almost impossible to discuss without the seething anger being front and centre, obscuring debate.

Nothing like a moral panic and bit of groupthink. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/feb/06/bulger.ukcrime

Oh behave will you. "Groupthink"????

You think millions can't get the idea themselves that the people who lured a toddler away from his mother and then tortured and murdered him are disgusting monstrous scum then you are insane.

tayto lover

begbysback wrote: »

Just seen the year on there 1993, that’s 25 years - the usual allotted time for information to be made public, does this mean that the short film has recently made public data? Or is it just a coincidence?

Doubt it.
I'd say all the grisly details came out in the trial.

AudreyHepburn

This is the one case that I read once and will never be able to bring myself to read again. What those boys did nothing short of horrific.

That said I see nothing wrong with trying to unseat derstand what a drives a person, adult or child, to commit such acts. There are very few people born inherently evil and there is something to said for trying to understand why these two boys did what they did.

Ignoring the darker aspects of life won’t make them go away.

DeanAustin

Candie wrote: »

Whatever about the killers, it's the family I really feel for. Every time someone sparks interest in the case, the media contacts the mother or father for comment. Every time someone seeks to examine the case, for righteous reasons or because they seek something sensational to raise their own profile, the parents are brought back to that time and find themselves considering some other angle of that horror.

No murder is committed by a monster, they're all committed by humans. Maybe the humans have something monstrous inside them, and that makes examination important so history is prevented from repeating itself. Ideally the examination is by trained health professionals, not to be confused with documentary makers.

100 times this. Haven’t read the rest of the thread but this is bang on the money.

What is the filmmaker going to learn and what are people like me going to learn that will make a difference and ensure this won’t happen again? This is purely to raise his profile and he should be ashamed opening up these wounds publicly for Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger again.

And it’s a small point but one that irritates me. He was never called Jamie by anyone except the media in England. His name was James.

Venables and Thompson are evil human beings who I wouldn’t shed a tear over if they both met a horrible death.

brendanwalsh

It's scary how we have been desensitised to these horrific crimes. At the time this happened it was one of the most vulgar murders ever to take place. Only a few months ago two dublin teenagers did the same thing to that poor little Polish girl and there was barely a mention of it in the papers.

My understanding is bulger and venabless have both gone on to offend again.

FrancieBrady

DeanAustin wrote: »

100 times this. Haven’t read the rest of the thread but this is bang on the money.

What is the filmmaker going to learn and what are people like me going to learn that will make a difference and ensure this won’t happen again? This is purely to raise his profile and he should be ashamed opening up these wounds publicly for Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger again.

And it’s a small point but one that irritates me. He was never called Jamie by anyone except the media in England. His name was James.

Venables and Thompson are evil human beings who I wouldn’t shed a tear over if they both met a horrible death.

If you don't require anymore insight to what happened here, don't go to the film.

Who really cares what you think? Only those who agree with you.

Nobody is being forced to go to this.

tayto lover

brendanwalsh wrote: »

It's scary how we have been desensitised to these horrific crimes. At the time this happened it was one of the most vulgar murders ever to take place. Only a few months ago two dublin teenagers did the same thing to that poor little Polish girl and there was barely a mention of it in the papers.

My understanding is bulger and venabless have both gone on to offend again.

Ah heeoor.
It was all over the media for weeks.

BalcombeSt4

nthclare wrote: »

You'll have the usual pattern of people defending these evil bastard's, always from the left.

I seen something a while back about lefties saying paedophiles are another sexual orientation, and how hard it must be to be rejected by society for being a naunce.

If society ever say's it's ok to be a naunce or child killer then Armageddon has surely arrived.

They don't belong here, they're sick twisted and need to be all rounded up and strung up by their nuts and bolts....

Do you have a link to any these statements?

DeanAustin

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you don't require anymore insight to what happened here, don't go to the film.

Who really cares what you think? Only those who agree with you.

Nobody is being forced to go to this.

It’s not about me. It’s about the family and particularly the parents who have to deal with this unimaginable tragedy opened up in the public domain again to raise the profile of a film maker and satisfy the voyeurism and pseudo intellectualism of some sections of the public. Me not going to see this film won’t make one jot of difference the Bulger family because the damage is already done.

donkeykong5

DeanAustin wrote: »

Candie wrote: »

Whatever about the killers, it's the family I really feel for. Every time someone sparks interest in the case, the media contacts the mother or father for comment. Every time someone seeks to examine the case, for righteous reasons or because they seek something sensational to raise their own profile, the parents are brought back to that time and find themselves considering some other angle of that horror.

No murder is committed by a monster, they're all committed by humans. Maybe the humans have something monstrous inside them, and that makes examination important so history is prevented from repeating itself. Ideally the examination is by trained health professionals, not to be confused with documentary makers.

100 times this. Haven’t read the rest of the thread but this is bang on the money.

What is the filmmaker going to learn and what are people like me going to learn that will make a difference and ensure this won’t happen again? This is purely to raise his profile and he should be ashamed opening up these wounds publicly for Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger again.

And it’s a small point but one that irritates me. He was never called Jamie by anyone except the media in England. His name was James.

Venables and Thompson are evil human beings who I wouldn’t shed a tear over if they both met a horrible death.

Apologise to anyone for using Jamie in my posts to refer to James. I was living in England at that tragic time and yes you are correct he was constantly referred to as Jamie.

FrancieBrady

DeanAustin wrote: »

It’s not about me. It’s about the family and particularly the parents who have to deal with this unimaginable tragedy opened up in the public domain again to raise the profile of a film maker and satisfy the voyeurism and pseudo intellectualism of some sections of the public. Me not going to see this film won’t make one jot of difference the Bulger family because the damage is already done.

So you are getting offended on behalf of someone else?

There were two other people involved and two other families as well.
I understand how this is upsetting for the family of James Bulger but that should not stop responsible and justified questioning of what happened.
This case has barely been out of the media spotlight since it happened. But if the story is about the 'evil' of the the two boys who killed him, there doesn't seem to be any outrage funnily enough. :rolleyes:

El_Duderino 09

eagle eye wrote: »

There are all types in the world. There's more people around these days who want to find an excuse for the scumbag and the evil bastard than ever before.
Ignoring them completely is about the only way to stay calm and get on with your life.
Just don't watch this thing. If it loses money then he might never get to make another one.

The first line is completely right there are all kinds of people in the world. So why would it be wise to ignore that fact?

He says in the interview that he's not trying to make excuses for them. Explaining what actually happened is not the same as excusing it.

I don't believe in evil. It's a label we put on very bad behaviour but it doesn't actually explain anything. When I hear people calling a person evil I just hear them saying they don't want to understand it. They just label it evil and stop taking in new information.

begbysback

DeanAustin wrote: »

100 times this. Haven’t read the rest of the thread but this is bang on the money.

What is the filmmaker going to learn and what are people like me going to learn that will make a difference and ensure this won’t happen again? This is purely to raise his profile and he should be ashamed opening up these wounds publicly for Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger again.

And it’s a small point but one that irritates me. He was never called Jamie by anyone except the media in England. His name was James.

Venables and Thompson are evil human beings who I wouldn’t shed a tear over if they both met a horrible death.

What worries me about the future is not that extremely rare cases of child murders occur, but the lack of curiosity about how and why they occur.

DeanAustin

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you are getting offended on behalf of someone else?

There were two other people involved and two other families as well.
I understand how this is upsetting for the family of James Bulger but that should not stop responsible and justified questioning of what happened.
This case has barely been out of the media spotlight since it happened. But if the story is about the 'evil' of the the two boys who killed him, there doesn't seem to be any outrage funnily enough. :rolleyes:

Where did I say I was offended? I think it’s a ****, self serving move on behalf of the director. I’m not offended, I just think it’s a prick move. What difference does it make if he questions this or if I question it or you question it? We aren’t experts in psychology and it serves no real purpose. There are experts that can do that and don’t have to be on camera doing it.

This is just voyeurism.

Zorya

There are different styles of documentary film making.
Poetic, subjective documentaries, for example, or apparently more objective styles like expository or observational etc. There are other styles but no matter what kind of documentary is made there is the unavoidable presence of the film-maker.
Every act of editing in a documentary film is a deliberate choice, an act of bias, an attempt to persuade on behalf of the film maker, consciously or unconsciously.
Documentary is scripted, just like any other narrative. It cannot be free from arrangement and distortion.
For that reason I cannot understand how some seem to think that a documentary like this, or any documentary in fact, could reveal some new objective ''truth'' or objective ''deeper understanding''. Nor that a film maker might claim such a motive, as he does. The film maker could not have avoided the thought that this was a construction of events that would be controversial and attract notoriety. He was evasive in that interview. Better to be honest.

Some things are better left alone. Like this story. I remember feeling similiarly when Edna O' Brien wrote her book about Imelda and Liam Riney.

Zorya

Zorya wrote: »

There are different styles of documentary film making.
Poetic, subjective documentaries, for example, or apparently more objective styles like expository or observational etc. There are other styles but no matter what kind of documentary is made there is the unavoidable presence of the film-maker.
Every act of editing in a documentary film is a deliberate choice, an act of bias, an attempt to persuade on behalf of the film maker, consciously or unconsciously.
Documentary is scripted, just like any other narrative. It cannot be free from arrangement and distortion.
For that reason I cannot understand how some seem to think that a documentary like this, or any documentary in fact, could reveal some new objective ''truth'' or objective ''deeper understanding''. Nor that a film maker might claim such a motive, as he does. The film maker could not have avoided the thought that this was a construction of events that would be controversial and attract notoriety. He was evasive in that interview. Better to be honest.

Some things are better left alone. Like this story. I remember feeling similiarly when Edna O' Brien wrote her book about Imelda and Liam Riney.

How can anyone really believe that a short film maker is going to reveal some truth that managed to escape the trained and experienced health professionals with unfettered access to the killers? Twenty five years after the event?

What possible reason would anyone have to avoid simply informing that parents that they might see images of their toddlers killer on tv again, or happen on an interview that discusses the injuries he suffered for the education of the greater public? How much education do they need?

I'm all for unearthing the motivations and circumstances surrounding these kinds of crimes, but not for exploiting an anniversary and calling it art or education or being arrogant enough to think that informing the parents isn't important, even from a human decency point of view.

PuppyMcPupFace

Candie wrote: »

How can anyone really believe that a short film maker is going to reveal some truth that managed to escape the trained and experienced health professionals with unfettered access to the killers? Twenty five years after the event?

What possible reason would anyone have to avoid simply informing that parents that they might see images of their toddlers killer on tv again, or happen on an interview that discusses the injuries he suffered for the education of the greater public? How much education do they need?

I'm all for unearthing the motivations and circumstances surrounding these kinds of crimes, but not for exploiting an anniversary and calling it art or education or being arrogant enough to think that informing the parents isn't important, even from a human decency point of view.

Well said. He's choosing an emotive topic to cash in on the Making a Murderer etc Netflix bandwagon.

It's sick.

FrancieBrady

DeanAustin wrote: »

Where did I say I was offended? I think it’s a ****, self serving move on behalf of the director. I’m not offended, I just think it’s a prick move. What difference does it make if he questions this or if I question it or you question it? We aren’t experts in psychology and it serves no real purpose. There are experts that can do that and don’t have to be on camera doing it.

This is just voyeurism.

So don't go to the film. Simple. Save you having to express your anger/outrage/offence or whatever it is you are trying to express.

I don't go to all sorts of thing because they offend everything from my morals to my taste...so what?

DeanAustin

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So don't go to the film. Simple. Save you having to express your anger/outrage/offence or whatever it is you are trying to express.

I don't go to all sorts of thing because they offend everything from my morals to my taste...so what?

You really are missing the point. My very strong opinion is that the film should never have been made as it serves no positive purpose and just causes the family of James more unnecessary trauma. Whether I go and watch it or not doesn’t change that. Whether millions go and see it or dozens go and see it, the damage has been done to James’ parents by having this story prominent in the media again.

FrancieBrady

DeanAustin wrote: »

You really are missing the point. My very strong opinion is that the film should never have been made as it serves no positive purpose and just causes the family of James more unnecessary trauma. Whether I go and watch it or not doesn’t change that. Whether millions go and see it or dozens go and see it, the damage has been done to James’ parents by having this story prominent in the media again.

So you are getting offended/outraged on somebody else's behalf.

I happen to disagree with you, if a serious filmmaker/artist feels they can shed light on an issue, I think it is imperative that they be allowed to do that without censorship.

As I said, nobody seems to have a problem when tabloids and the usual outrage brigade want to vent their one dimensional 'evil' theories.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I said, nobody seems to have a problem when tabloids and the usual outrage brigade want to vent their one dimensional 'evil' theories.

Many have said they do. Most people make the distinction between acts that are evil in their depravity, and the concept of evil inherent in a person.

Those boys aren't monsters, thats the tricky thing. But what they did is monstrous.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Candie wrote: »

Many have said they do. Most people make the distinction between acts that are evil in their depravity, and the concept of evil inherent in a person.

Those boys aren't monsters, thats the tricky thing. But what they did is monstrous.

Hmm. Is that much of a distinction? How do we tell the monstrous from the non monstrous except in actions?