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

Gimme A Pound

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am unapologetic about censorship of any kind

Obviously not any kind. You know not everything can be given a platform. Otherwise abuse and defamation and bullying could go ahead.

FrancieBrady

Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »

Of course no acknowledgment of the various instances of hypocrisy and dishonesty.

You don't get to tell me what i think. I came in here to say why I can see how people would be upset, not to comment on the film I haven't seen. I did so quite civilly and I haven't avoided anything.

But spiteful comment after comment, and even insults, from you and Bannasidhe. Simply for disagreeing with you.

Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »

Obviously not any kind. You know not everything can be given a platform. Otherwise abuse and defamation and bullying could go ahead.

We get your point. You think it was a horrendous act (we all do) and you think that is the end of the matter. The two lads were evil/bad and that is that. Close the debate, or quest for insight.

I don't think things are ever black or white or good and evil.
I want to have that discussion and I think this film will add to that discussion.

A responsible film or artwork comes nowhere near the threshold of the 'platform' you speak of.

Gimme A Pound

Why are you putting words in my mouth and making up things i didn't say? Do you not see how it makes you look? There is a rule here - "don't be a dick". Why do you think you're above it?

Bannasidhe

Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »

I think when you're demonstrating how open-minded you are, you should also bring this into how you interpret people's tone. In my post there was no outrage, spluttering, shoutiness, keyboard thumping, getting worked up to the point of needing to take a breath - that's all in *your* head. On the other hand, your own tone in the above comment is plainly condescending and sneery. And pretty insulting. Especially when you can be quite forceful yourself, and have likely experienced people being dismissive of you.

Fair point. Shur you won't know whether I've googled or not but I do know about the moors murders. Not about other victims of notorious killers though in fairness. But plenty of people do, don't discount them.

You've lost that bet I'm afraid. I was well aware of it. It was a remarkable piece of work but of course it was going to upset people and he knew it. What point was he making? Is it so unreasonable to be of the opinion that it was in poor taste to make a giant picture of Myra Hindley using children's hand prints?

Yup - you're calm. Nothing like calling people sneery and condescending to demonstrate a zen like calmness.

I see you got my point. We pay attention to killers and ignore victims. You are, of course free to disagree, but I think we have that backwards. Killers should be shunned. Their names expunged. We should discuss their crimes, yes, but just call them "the killer". Give them some moniker they hate.

To expand on that point - if the artist had produced a painting of Lesley Ann Downey would you consider that in poor taste?
Do you admit most people wouldn't have any idea who she was until they read the wee card by the painting - or the outrage in the tabloids?

I apologise for thinking you didn't know the Myra painting. Few people do. Have you seen it in real life? It's extremely powerful.

Which is often the point of art - to produce powerful emotion. Outrage is one, as is disgust - but so is patriotism, so is religious fervour.

Much of Western Art consists of a human male in his the agony of his death throws suffering one of the most brutal forms of torture and capital punishment ever invented.
Yet, we think nothing of having these in our homes, schools, hospitals.
We are surrounded by crucifixions.

I find that ironic given the outrage here.

By the way - I don't think being open minded is the insult you may have intended it to be. It beats being closed minded hands down.
As for needing to demonstrate it - I do yeah. I really care what people I don't know and haven't met think about me on the internet. :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »

Why are you putting words in my mouth and making up things i didn't say? Do you not see how it makes you look? There is a rule here - "don't be a dick". Why do you think you're above it?

You have said there is nothing to look at or debate outside of the act and the fact that the perpetrators are evil/bad, have you not?

If that isn't what you are saying (you keep shifting the goalposts here) then what are your specific problems with the debate this film wants to promote/start?

Bannasidhe

Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »

Of course no acknowledgment of the various instances of hypocrisy and dishonesty.

You don't get to tell me what i think. I came in here to say why I can see how people would be upset, not to comment on the film I haven't seen. I did so quite civilly and I haven't avoided anything.

But spiteful comment after comment, and even insults, from you and Bannasidhe. Simply for disagreeing with you.

If I insulted you report me.
I didn't by the way.

I didn't even call you sneery or condescending.

Gimme A Pound

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yup - you're calm. Nothing like calling people sneery and condescending to demonstrate a zen like calmness.

Well see the thing is, I was referring to your previous post (not my response to you subsequently ) to me in which you said I demonstrated outrage, suggested I take a breath, calmed down, was pounding my keyboard and was "spluttering". With zero evidence of any of that. How it's unreasonable to call those comments (not you, the comments - attacking post, not poster) condescending and sneery is beyond me. I mean... they were. Also, why isn't it possible to call your comments sneery and condescending without being calm? Again, nothing to suggest I wasn't. Didn't suggest i was Zen like either though - most of the time people are somewhere in between.

Such weird hostility from you and the "Francie Brady" individual (i mean i didnt move any goalpost whatsoever). I'd understand it in the case of people attacking you and throwing a load of expletives or nonsense at you (as some have done) but not for just disagreeing.

We pay attention to killers and ignore victims. You are, of course free to disagree, but I think we have that backwards. Killers should be shunned. Their names expunged. We should discuss their crimes, yes, but just call them "the killer". Give them some moniker they hate.

To expand on that point - if the artist had produced a painting of Lesley Ann Downey would you consider that in poor taste?
Do you admit most people wouldn't have any idea who she was until they read the wee card by the painting - or the outrage in the tabloids?

I apologise for thinking you didn't know the Myra painting. Few people do. Have you seen it in real life? It's extremely powerful.

Which is often the point of art - to produce powerful emotion. Outrage is one, as is disgust - but so is patriotism, so is religious fervour.

Much of Western Art consists of a human male in his the agony of his death throws suffering one of the most brutal forms of torture and capital punishment ever invented.
Yet, we think nothing of having these in our homes, schools, hospitals.
We are surrounded by crucifixions.

I find that ironic given the outrage here.

By the way - I don't think being open minded is the insult you may have intended it to be. It beats being closed minded hands down.

Wha? I didn't even imply being open-minded was an insult, let alone intend it to be one.

I meant that if a poster is endorsing being open-minded about things, it surely behoves them not to say things like you opened your post to me with, with zero evidence.

I don't disagree with a lot of the above but I don't see what's strange about people finding the mural of Hindley using child hand prints to be in poor taste and if they didn't find a Lesley Ann mural in poor taste. Think it would be a bit disingenuous not to see the difference.

I think Myra Hindley was somewhat led astray by Brady btw (not because she was a woman before anyone starts) - he was clearly worse though. She still showed remorse. But of course she was responsible for her part too.

It's frustrating (and kinda nasty) when people will keep sneering at you because you say some people are just horrible - despite the fact that there are these people. The horrible boss, the school bully, the awful teacher... their environment shapes how far they'll go, but innately they are just people with negative traits. It's not all nurture.

FrancieBrady

Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »

Well see the thing is, I was referring to your previous post (not my response to you subsequently ) to me in which you said I demonstrated outrage, suggested I take a breath, calmed down, was pounding my keyboard and was "spluttering". With zero evidence of any of that. How it's unreasonable to call those comments (not you, the comments - attacking post, not poster) condescending and sneery is beyond me. I mean... they were. Also, why isn't it possible to call your comments sneery and condescending without being calm? Again, nothing to suggest I wasn't. Didn't suggest i was Zen like either though - most of the time people are somewhere in between.

Such weird hostility from you and the "Francie Brady" individual (i mean i didnt move any goalpost whatsoever). I'd understand it in the case of people attacking you and throwing a load of expletives or nonsense at you (as some have done) but not for just disagreeing.

Wha? I didn't even imply being open-minded was an insult, let alone intend it to be one.

I meant that if a poster is endorsing being open-minded about things, it surely behoves them not to say things like you opened your post to me with, with zero evidence.

I don't disagree with a lot of the above but I don't see what's strange about people finding the mural of Hindley using child hand prints to be in poor taste and if they didn't find a Lesley Ann mural in poor taste. Think it would be a bit disingenuous not to see the difference.

I think Myra Hindley was somewhat led astray by Brady btw (not because she was a woman before anyone starts) - he was clearly worse though. She still showed remorse. But of course she was responsible for her part too.

It's frustrating (and kinda nasty) when people will keep sneering at you because you say some people are just horrible - despite the fact that there are these people. The horrible boss, the school bully, the awful teacher... their environment shapes how far they'll go, but innately they are just people with negative traits. It's not all nurture.

Again...what exactly are you 'disagreeing' with? Can you refresh your specific objections to this film without depending on anybody else's specific objections,



*^^ says the 'individual' known as Francie Brady as opposed to the group known as Francie Brady I take that distinction to mean.

begbysback

Where’s the love people?

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again...what exactly are you 'disagreeing' with? Can you refresh your specific objections to this film without depending on anybody else's specific objections,



*^^ says the 'individual' known as Francie Brady as opposed to the group known as Francie Brady I take that distinction to mean.

Would you ever give over badgering the poster?

FrancieBrady

Candie wrote: »

Would you ever give over badgering the poster?

What?

I asked a question from somebody who has suddenly decided the world is against them.

What specifically is the problem with this film from their point of view. And I asked them not to speak on others behalf in answering it.

Not sure what you are intervening for. Have you a view yourself?

Gimme A Pound

"What?"
"I'm pretending I can't understand stuff"

I explained myself over and over.

Candie has posted her view numerous times. She is just noticing your bizarre hostility. Have some self awareness.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

*^^ says the 'individual' known as Francie Brady as opposed to the group known as Francie Brady I take that distinction to mean.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

somebody who has suddenly decided the world is against them.

****ing lol

FrancieBrady

Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »

"What?"
"I'm pretending I can't understand stuff"

I explained myself over and over.


****ing lol

Are you going to answer the request for clarification of your view or not?


What specifically is the problem with this film from your point of view? Given that nobody is watering down the original crime.

Zorya

Ah Jaysis....

Bannasidhe

Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »

Well see the thing is, I was referring to your previous post (not my response to you subsequently ) to me in which you said I demonstrated outrage, suggested I take a breath, calmed down, was pounding my keyboard and was "spluttering". With zero evidence of any of that. How it's unreasonable to call those comments (not you, the comments - attacking post, not poster) condescending and sneery is beyond me. I mean... they were. Also, why isn't it possible to call your comments sneery and condescending without being calm? Again, nothing to suggest I wasn't. Didn't suggest i was Zen like either though - most of the time people are somewhere in between.

Such weird hostility from you and the "Francie Brady" individual (i mean i didnt move any goalpost whatsoever). I'd understand it in the case of people attacking you and throwing a load of expletives or nonsense at you (as some have done) but not for just disagreeing.

Wha? I didn't even imply being open-minded was an insult, let alone intend it to be one.

I meant that if a poster is endorsing being open-minded about things, it surely behoves them not to say things like you opened your post to me with, with zero evidence.

I don't disagree with a lot of the above but I don't see what's strange about people finding the mural of Hindley using child hand prints to be in poor taste and if they didn't find a Lesley Ann mural in poor taste. Think it would be a bit disingenuous not to see the difference.

I think Myra Hindley was somewhat led astray by Brady btw (not because she was a woman before anyone starts) - he was clearly worse though. She still showed remorse. But of course she was responsible for her part too.

It's frustrating (and kinda nasty) when people will keep sneering at you because you say some people are just horrible - despite the fact that there are these people. The horrible boss, the school bully, the awful teacher... their environment shapes how far they'll go, but innately they are just people with negative traits. It's not all nurture.

I apologize if I took you up the wrong way.
Genuinely.

If I came across as sneering or condescending I also apologize. That was not my intention. Your post read to me as outraged keyboard pounding, and I reacted to that interpretation.

As for Hindley - I had the misfortune to meet her back in the 80s (loooong story - and no I wasn't doing porridge. I was a volunteer prison visitor).
She was the closest person I have ever met to what I would call evil. Unbelievably manipulative - and extremely good at it. So no, I have no issue with saying some people are just awful, terrible, human beings, I will even say some children are just awful human beings. What I don't agree with with is hang 'em high. I'm not the merciful.

Grandeeod

Omackeral wrote: »

They did actually. His mother has stated many times he was never known by that moniker and that it hurt her to see them reporting his name wrong.

Grand so. Hardly a point continuing though. The name is James.

eagle eye

FrancieBrady wrote:

The obvious thing to say here is: don't go and see the film.

This, exactly this.
Don't even talk about it. The less publicity thus idiot gets for the film the better.

Grandeeod

eagle eye wrote: »

This, exactly this.
Don't even talk about it. The less publicity thus idiot gets for the film the better.

Why? Its hardly some made up video nasty from the 80s. FFS, now the Director is an idiot. I really despair.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

This, exactly this.
Don't even talk about it. The less publicity thus idiot gets for the film the better.

Not the way the world works though. No matter how much you jump up and down getting offended on yours and others behalf, the discussion will still be had.

There are 1000's of threads on this site, I could go on to some of them demanding the conversation be stopped because they offended me...but I don't. I just don't go on the ones that I feel that way about. Same with film or art. If you know it will offend, stay away.

chupacabra

Humanizing evil is important. Evil exists in every single one of us, like it or not.

wakka12

gctest50 wrote: »

.

God that is so hard to read. And it was done to a baby, theres just no words

One eyed Jack

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are you going to answer the request for clarification of your view or not?

What specifically is the problem with this film from your point of view? Given that nobody is watering down the original crime.

I think with this film, that appears to be exactly the directors motivation behind making the film - to water down the nature of the act the two boys (as they were at the time) and to present it as though they weren’t fully aware and couldn’t have been fully aware of the consequences of their actions as though they had no understanding of the consequences of their actions themselves. I think that is a false portrayal of the facts given that we know their actions were premeditated.


Here are some quotes from the director himself -

The 37-year-old director of Detainment said that after looking into the case, he felt he had to ‘humanise’ the two 10-year-old boys, who were labelled ‘evil’.

Speaking on The Ryan Tubridy Show today, he explained: “A lot of people will say they are evil, and I think it is easier sometimes to label them evil than to really try understand why they did it but said I ‘well I am going to give it a shot’.

“And I started to read everything I could find about it and I got the interview transcripts and I think I was expecting to find something much darker and colder but instead I found, and realised there was this human story beneath it all.

“And I think at the time I didn’t really know that I’d be making a film about it. But that’s how it started, I just couldn’t get it out of my head.”

The writer said the film is ‘almost entirely’ based on the transcripts and revealed: “I changed very little it was more what I took out in the writing really to put a structure on it just to make it accessible to an audience and I think just by intercutting them in a film... it really builds momentum and I think it is the right way to tell the story.”

He continued: “I’m not here to make excuses, but the film definitely isn’t meant to be sympathetic to the boys in anyway, I think what it does do, it humanises the boys.“And some people might say it is wrong to do that but I would say you know they have been so dehumanised by the media and they’ve only ever been seen as these evil monsters.

“The film is a dramatisation but it’s entirely factual and there is no embellishment whatsoever..

“I think in the film, for the first time ever we see them exactly as they were and they were two ten-year old boys who did something that was horrendous but they don’t really know why.”

He’s presenting a narrative which isn’t based upon the facts at all, but is based entirely upon his own attempts to present an alternative and reasonable defence for their actions - that they’re human, they’re not the monsters the media made them out to be, etc. The fact of the matter is that they actually are monsters, and they’re human, and their actions were the epitome of evil. It’s not a case of one or the other - either they’re human or they’re monsters. When people speak of evil, they’re referring to a mindset which could do what these boys did to James Bulger, it doesn’t require “further understanding”, nor would any sort of understanding of these two boys mindset “prevent anyone else from doing similar in the future”, a justification often presented to defend the making of these sorts of “shocumentaries”.

That’s all it is. I don’t consider it a documentary in any sense as it’s far from an objective examination of the case, it’s entirely from the biased perspective of the director who has chosen to present a certain narrative which supports their understanding, rather than present any objective understanding of the mindset of the two boys who are the subject of the film. I don’t see any artistic merit in it whatsoever. One could argue of course that art is subjective, but if one is going to claim their efforts have some altruistic purpose to further human understanding and make us question our understanding of the human condition, then they have a responsibility to the public to present the facts rather than try and spin an alternative human interest piece out of their criticism of how the boys were presented in the media. Otherwise, how are they any different to the people they’re criticising? Both are sensationalising someone else’s tragic circumstances for their own ends, and simply calling it art doesn’t change that fact, nor do the directors explanations of his own motivations for making the film change the fact that some people will see his efforts as unnecessary sensationalism.

The problem with the film is it’s premise is a false dichotomy - the director is critical of the media for portraying the two boys as monsters, and he argues that he wanted to ‘humanise’ them. The criticism of the film comes from the fact that the director not only never has to fully acknowledge or understand just what the two boys did to another human being themselves, but also in the fact that he attempts to portray the two boys as benevolent and innocent victims of something bigger than themselves that they couldn’t possibly have understood at the time.

The fact is that we know they did understand what they were doing, as it was premeditated in the first place, and they tried to cover up what they had done after the fact. I find myself asking myself do I really care about the directors perception of the two boys who are the subject of the film? The only answer I have to that question is that I don’t care for them, I’m ok with labelling them as evil monsters, because of their actions. I don’t really care to know why they did what they did, and I don’t care enough about them to want to understand why they did what they did what they did. It’s the director who takes the point of view that the media dehumanised them, and I don’t agree with that perspective. People themselves just didn’t care about two boys who had committed such cruelty against another human being, and attempting to present the two boys as innocent and benevolent as the director in this case is trying to do, is the attempt to present a false narrative of reality.

FrancieBrady

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think with this film, that appears to be exactly the directors motivation behind making the film - to water down the nature of the act the two boys (as they were at the time) and to present it as though they weren’t fully aware and couldn’t have been fully aware of the consequences of their actions as though they had no understanding of the consequences of their actions themselves. I think that is a false portrayal of the facts given that we know their actions were premeditated.


Here are some quotes from the director himself -





He’s presenting a narrative which isn’t based upon the facts at all, but is based entirely upon his own attempts to present an alternative and reasonable defence for their actions - that they’re human, they’re not the monsters the media made them out to be, etc. The fact of the matter is that they actually are monsters, and they’re human, and their actions were the epitome of evil. It’s not a case of one or the other - either they’re human or they’re monsters. When people speak of evil, they’re referring to a mindset which could do what these boys did to James Bulger, it doesn’t require “further understanding”, nor would any sort of understanding of these two boys mindset “prevent anyone else from doing similar in the future”, a justification often presented to defend the making of these sorts of “shocumentaries”.

That’s all it is. I don’t consider it a documentary in any sense as it’s far from an objective examination of the case, it’s entirely from the biased perspective of the director who has chosen to present a certain narrative which supports their understanding, rather than present any objective understanding of the mindset of the two boys who are the subject of the film. I don’t see any artistic merit in it whatsoever. One could argue of course that art is subjective, but if one is going to claim their efforts have some altruistic purpose to further human understanding and make us question our understanding of the human condition, then they have a responsibility to the public to present the facts rather than try and spin an alternative human interest piece out of their criticism of how the boys were presented in the media. Otherwise, how are they any different to the people they’re criticising? Both are sensationalising someone else’s tragic circumstances for their own ends, and simply calling it art doesn’t change that fact, nor do the directors explanations of his own motivations for making the film change the fact that some people will see his efforts as unnecessary sensationalism.

The problem with the film is it’s premise is a false dichotomy - the director is critical of the media for portraying the two boys as monsters, and he argues that he wanted to ‘humanise’ them. The criticism of the film comes from the fact that the director not only never has to fully acknowledge or understand just what the two boys did to another human being themselves, but also in the fact that he attempts to portray the two boys as benevolent and innocent victims of something bigger than themselves that they couldn’t possibly have understood at the time.

The fact is that we know they did understand what they were doing, as it was premeditated in the first place, and they tried to cover up what they had done after the fact. I find myself asking myself do I really care about the directors perception of the two boys who are the subject of the film? The only answer I have to that question is that I don’t care for them, I’m ok with labelling them as evil monsters, because of their actions. I don’t really care to know why they did what they did, and I don’t care enough about them to want to understand why they did what they did what they did. It’s the director who takes the point of view that the media dehumanised them, and I don’t agree with that perspective. People themselves just didn’t care about two boys who had committed such cruelty against another human being, and attempting to present the two boys as innocent and benevolent as the director in this case is trying to do, is the attempt to present a false narrative of reality.

??? Did you not just do the same thing you accuse the director of doing there?

And this is what he said he did:

The writer said the film is ‘almost entirely’ based on the transcripts and revealed: “I changed very little it was more what I took out in the writing really to put a structure on it just to make it accessible to an audience

donkeykong5

One eyed Jack wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are you going to answer the request for clarification of your view or not?

What specifically is the problem with this film from your point of view? Given that nobody is watering down the original crime.

I think with this film, that appears to be exactly the directors motivation behind making the film - to water down the nature of the act the two boys (as they were at the time) and to present it as though they weren’t fully aware and couldn’t have been fully aware of the consequences of their actions as though they had no understanding of the consequences of their actions themselves. I think that is a false portrayal of the facts given that we know their actions were premeditated.


Here are some quotes from the director himself -

The 37-year-old director of Detainment said that after looking into the case, he felt he had to ‘humanise’ the two 10-year-old boys, who were labelled ‘evil’.

Speaking on The Ryan Tubridy Show today, he explained: “A lot of people will say they are evil, and I think it is easier sometimes to label them evil than to really try understand why they did it but said I ‘well I am going to give it a shot’.

“And I started to read everything I could find about it and I got the interview transcripts and I think I was expecting to find something much darker and colder but instead I found, and realised there was this human story beneath it all.

“And I think at the time I didn’t really know that I’d be making a film about it. But that’s how it started, I just couldn’t get it out of my head.”

The writer said the film is ‘almost entirely’ based on the transcripts and revealed: “I changed very little it was more what I took out in the writing really to put a structure on it just to make it accessible to an audience and I think just by intercutting them in a film... it really builds momentum and I think it is the right way to tell the story.”

He continued: “I’m not here to make excuses, but the film definitely isn’t meant to be sympathetic to the boys in anyway, I think what it does do, it humanises the boys.“And some people might say it is wrong to do that but I would say you know they have been so dehumanised by the media and they’ve only ever been seen as these evil monsters.

“The film is a dramatisation but it’s entirely factual and there is no embellishment whatsoever..

“I think in the film, for the first time ever we see them exactly as they were and they were two ten-year old boys who did something that was horrendous but they don’t really know why.”

He’s presenting a narrative which isn’t based upon the facts at all, but is based entirely upon his own attempts to present an alternative and reasonable defence for their actions - that they’re human, they’re not the monsters the media made them out to be, etc. The fact of the matter is that they actually are monsters, and they’re human, and their actions were the epitome of evil. It’s not a case of one or the other - either they’re human or they’re monsters. When people speak of evil, they’re referring to a mindset which could do what these boys did to James Bulger, it doesn’t require “further understanding”, nor would any sort of understanding of these two boys mindset “prevent anyone else from doing similar in the future”, a justification often presented to defend the making of these sorts of “shocumentaries”.

That’s all it is. I don’t consider it a documentary in any sense as it’s far from an objective examination of the case, it’s entirely from the biased perspective of the director who has chosen to present a certain narrative which supports their understanding, rather than present any objective understanding of the mindset of the two boys who are the subject of the film. I don’t see any artistic merit in it whatsoever. One could argue of course that art is subjective, but if one is going to claim their efforts have some altruistic purpose to further human understanding and make us question our understanding of the human condition, then they have a responsibility to the public to present the facts rather than try and spin an alternative human interest piece out of their criticism of how the boys were presented in the media. Otherwise, how are they any different to the people they’re criticising? Both are sensationalising someone else’s tragic circumstances for their own ends, and simply calling it art doesn’t change that fact, nor do the directors explanations of his own motivations for making the film change the fact that some people will see his efforts as unnecessary sensationalism.

The problem with the film is it’s premise is a false dichotomy - the director is critical of the media for portraying the two boys as monsters, and he argues that he wanted to ‘humanise’ them. The criticism of the film comes from the fact that the director not only never has to fully acknowledge or understand just what the two boys did to another human being themselves, but also in the fact that he attempts to portray the two boys as benevolent and innocent victims of something bigger than themselves that they couldn’t possibly have understood at the time.

The fact is that we know they did understand what they were doing, as it was premeditated in the first place, and they tried to cover up what they had done after the fact. I find myself asking myself do I really care about the directors perception of the two boys who are the subject of the film? The only answer I have to that question is that I don’t care for them, I’m ok with labelling them as evil monsters, because of their actions. I don’t really care to know why they did what they did, and I don’t care enough about them to want to understand why they did what they did what they did. It’s the director who takes the point of view that the media dehumanised them, and I don’t agree with that perspective. People themselves just didn’t care about two boys who had committed such cruelty against another human being, and attempting to present the two boys as innocent and benevolent as the director in this case is trying to do, is the attempt to present a false narrative of reality.

Was the filmmaker asked why he didnt inform the murdered childs parents that he was doing a film about their childs horrific murder ?

retro:electro

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Whatever. Your ridiculous posts about an amazing presenter says it all. Cheers Ben Sheppard for once again representing general publics views on prime time TV.

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Yeah agree. Versatile. Amazing guy.

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Outraged junkie on the sofa. What are you on about pal. ?

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Ben Sheppard pal. How dare you call him a junkie. Maybe look in the mirror. Truth hurts. Your comments re ben are absolute nonsense.

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Ah get over yourself. Jealousy terrible affliction.

Are ya alright there pal? Maybe create another thread about Ben Sheppard and how much you fancy him instead of cluttering this one

One eyed Jack

FrancieBrady wrote: »

??? Did you not just do the same thing you accuse the director of doing there?

And this is what he said he did:

I did, and I didn’t have to detach myself from reality to do it either, unlike the director in this case who had to detach himself from reality in order to try and present his alternative narrative of the two boys who are the subject of the film.

One eyed Jack

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Was the filmmaker asked why he didnt inform the murdered childs parents that he was doing a film about their childs horrific murder ?

I didn’t see the interview myself, but from earlier in the thread it appears his justification for not informing James Bulgers parents is because he thought they wouldn’t approve of the film. He didn’t even give them the opportunity to give him their opinion one way or the other.

FrancieBrady

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I did, and I didn’t have to detach myself from reality to do it either, unlike the director in this case who had to detach himself from reality in order to try and present his alternative narrative of the two boys who are the subject of the film.

It isn't alternative...it is ‘almost entirely based on the transcripts'.

You have decided they are 'monsters'. Have you read the entire transcripts and met them?

*I am not saying that what they did on that day when they were 10 years of age was not monstrous by the way.

donkeykong5

One eyed Jack wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Was the filmmaker asked why he didnt inform the murdered childs parents that he was doing a film about their childs horrific murder ?

I didn’t see the interview myself, but from earlier in the thread it appears his justification for not informing James Bulgers parents is because he thought they wouldn’t approve of the film. He didn’t even give them the opportunity to give him their opinion one way or the other.

Thanks for reply. I didn't hear Ryan tubridy interview. I was just wondering if Ryan like Ben asked the question about why filmmaker didnt inform the parents about the film he made about their murdered child. !

One eyed Jack

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It isn't alternative...it is ‘almost entirely based on the transcripts'.

You have decided they are 'monsters'. Have you read the entire transcripts and met them?

*I am not saying that what they did on that day when they were 10 years of age was not monstrous by the way.

The words ‘almost entirely based on the transcripts’ imply that artistic liberties were taken to present as you quoted yourself already from the director - a narrative that was ‘more accessible to an audience’. He’s done his job as a director in presenting a narrative which fits with his own understanding of how he wanted the boys to be portrayed.

I haven’t read the transcripts, but why would I need to read the transcripts before I decide they are monsters? I made that evaluation on the basis of their actions - what they did fits into a category of behaviours I would define as monstrous. It’s a fairly small category which includes a few other things, but the premeditated torture and murder of a child, and then the attempt to cover it up - fits right in there.

I get that you aren’t saying that what what they did when they were 10 years of age was monstrous, but why would you even feel the need to qualify that when I didn’t accuse you of having said it in the first place? I get that you have a different opinion already, I’m not going to get hung up over how you’re saying it when I get the general gist of what you mean and where you’re coming from.