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

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

What they did that day was no doubt 'monstrous'. Did they continue to be and are they intrinsically monsters is for those who know them to evaluate.

Again I fail to see how something almost entirely based on the transcripts of what happened (what was left out was left out for time reasons) can be construed as an 'alternative view' or even an artistic view. 'Alternative' to your view, certainly, but not to what actually happened.

so.... what? We can never make movies/books/art about terrible events now?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What they did that day was no doubt 'monstrous'. Did they continue to be and are they intrinsically monsters is for those who know them to evaluate.

Again I fail to see how something almost entirely based on the transcripts of what happened (what was left out was left out for time reasons) can be construed as an 'alternative view' or even an artistic view. 'Alternative' to your view, certainly, but not to what actually happened.

It’s not just for those who know them personally to evaluate, and according to the director, the whole point of making the film was for an audience who didn’t know the boys to make an evaluation of them. In trying to make the film more accessible to an audience, the director has to be aware of his audience and what he wants them to see, and for an audience who doesn’t know the boys to evaluate them on the basis of how he has chosen to present them.

I really can’t answer for how you fail to see how something which the director claims is ‘almost entirely based on transcripts’ is anything but the director presenting an alternative version of events which from his perspective, attempts to portray an alternative narrative to a narrative which is based upon the reality of the mindset that is capable of the premeditated torture and murder of another human being. It’s not fcuking rocket science like? It really doesn’t require any in-depth analysis.

In saying that - there is an audience for these sorts of macabre shocumentaries, y’know, there has been since civilisation began, but the attempts to portray the film as ‘a story that needs to be told’, etc? Meh, you’re alright thanks. Describing them as monsters, based upon their actions, works just fine for me personally. Attempting to portray them as benevolent and innocent victims of something bigger than themselves is an artistic endeavour which tries to be something bigger than it is - a shocumentary which is likely to be shown on one of the ‘true crime’ channels on satellite tv at some stage, and I’m fine with that.

The reason it’s gotten as much publicity as it has already is precisely because of the narrative the director has chosen to portray, it’s not as though he wasn’t aware of the consequences of his actions. If the film had been based on a factual and objective portrayal of the boys, it still would have been accessible to an audience, but they would be a different audience, and the story wouldn’t be so attractive to an audience which doesn’t care for films which are “based on a true story” - something which gives director a license to take liberties with how they present the story, as the director has done here, except he’s chosen to use the term ‘almost entirely based on the transcripts’.

suicide_circus wrote: »

so.... what? We can never make movies/books/art about terrible events now?

This is literally what it is coming down to at this point. Very sad to see so many against it for one reason or another. This thread is hard to follow, but the anger against the filmmaker is so pronounced. There are lots of religious references too with all this talk of Evil etc. etc. Perhaps little oul Ireland has tried to forget religion, but likes to remember aspects of it to suit a moanfest.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'benevolent and innocent victims'????

You have lost yourself in your outrage mate. :rolleyes:

Ahh don’t start with that ‘outrage’ shìte again, honestly, been enough of it in the thread already.

The point I’m making is exactly the way the director is hoping his audience will perceive these two boys who are the subjects of the film. I completely get that James Bulger isn’t the subject of the film - it’s told entirely from the directors perspective of their understanding of the transcripts and whatever other research they did in the making of the film. The idea of the film, and what the director is attempting to do, is portray an image of the two boys as innocent and benevolent children who weren’t conscious of their actions. The director calls his attempt ‘humanising’ the boys, as though they are victims of how they were portrayed in the media.

He doesn’t appear to have gained any insight into the mindset of the two boys, but rather he has chosen to filter the transcripts through his own lens of wanting to portray a different perspective of the boys than the way they were portrayed in the media. The film is entirely about his perspective, of the two boys, which tells me everything I need to know about the directors mindset, and nothing I didn’t already know about the two boys.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not just for those who know them personally to evaluate, and according to the director, the whole point of making the film was for an audience who didn’t know the boys to make an evaluation of them. In trying to make the film more accessible to an audience, the director has to be aware of his audience and what he wants them to see, and for an audience who doesn’t know the boys to evaluate them on the basis of how he has chosen to present them.

I really can’t answer for how you fail to see how something which the director claims is ‘almost entirely based on transcripts’ is anything but the director presenting an alternative version of events which from his perspective, attempts to portray an alternative narrative to a narrative which is based upon the reality of the mindset that is capable of the premeditated torture and murder of another human being. It’s not fcuking rocket science like? It really doesn’t require any in-depth analysis.


In saying that - there is an audience for these sorts of macabre shocumentaries, y’know, there has been since civilisation began, but the attempts to portray the film as ‘a story that needs to be told’, etc? Meh, you’re alright thanks. Describing them as monsters, based upon their actions, works just fine for me personally. Attempting to portray them as benevolent and innocent victims of something bigger than themselves is an artistic endeavour which tries to be something bigger than it is - a shocumentary which is likely to be shown on one of the ‘true crime’ channels on satellite tv at some stage, and I’m fine with that.

The reason it’s gotten as much publicity as it has already is precisely because of the narrative the director has chosen to portray, it’s not as though he wasn’t aware of the consequences of his actions. If the film had been based on a factual and objective portrayal of the boys, it still would have been accessible to an audience, but they would be a different audience, and the story wouldn’t be so attractive to an audience which doesn’t care for films which are “based on a true story” - something which gives director a license to take liberties with how they present the story, as the director has done here, except he’s chosen to use the term ‘almost entirely based on the transcripts’.

You sound like a Nazi that wanted to join in the burning of books. You know nothing about filmmaking and if you do you should not be involved in it. Pure bollox. No doubt you will answer me with yet more bull****.`Have you even seen the film???

Grandeeod wrote: »

You sound like a Nazi that wanted to join in the burning of books. You know nothing about filmmaking and if you do you should not be involved in it. Pure bollox. No doubt you will answer me with yet more bull****.`Have you even seen the film???

I haven’t seen the film, and I don’t need to see the film to have an opinion on what the director has already said about his motivation for making the film.

Given that you think I sound like a Nazi who wanted to burn books because I think the director doesn’t bring anything new to the table but rather treads over a tired, conventional formula for a film suggests that you don’t know what a Nazi is, but you like how that sounded - the perfect audience for a film in the “based on a true story” genre.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I thought, spurious invented nonsense about his intent and the content.

'Benevolence and innocence' indeed! :D:D

It’s an opinion Francie, one that differs from your own, I don’t see what there is to get so animated about? What does the directors explanation mean to you when he says he wanted to ‘humanise’ the two boys? His motivation for making the film appears to be that he disagrees with how they were portrayed in the media at the time as monsters and so on, and you said yourself earlier that you’re not saying they weren’t monsters on that day, which is directly contrary to the directors attempting to portray them as something other than monsters.

We’re aware that they’re human of course, nobody has contested the fact that they are biologically human, so when the director says he wanted to ‘humanise’ them, as opposed to portraying them as monsters - what does the term ‘humanising’ mean to you?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s an opinion Francie, one that differs from your own, I don’t see what there is to get so animated about? What does the directors explanation mean to you when he says he wanted to ‘humanise’ the two boys? His motivation for making the film appears to be that he disagrees with how they were portrayed in the media at the time as monsters and so on, and you said yourself earlier that you’re not saying they weren’t monsters on that day, which is directly contrary to the directors attempting to portray them as something other than monsters.

We’re aware that they’re human of course, nobody has contested the fact that they are biologically human, so when the director says he wanted to ‘humanise’ them, as opposed to portraying them as monsters - what does the term ‘humanising’ mean to you?

Your opinion stretches to now saying the director is trying to show what they did was not monstrous? Jesus wept.

Filmmaking is so very special. Lots of arseholes in it. Lots of Wannabees in it. But there are lots of really passionate people involved in it that don't get where they want to be. However the worst part of it are the critics. Being a critic is easy.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where did the director say he want to show them as 'benevolent and innocent? Not to mention all the other nonsense you attributed to him.

No need to lie about it. Just say you don't like to hear or see other opinions - that would be honest at least.

Francie I wouldn’t be bothered my arse being involved in this discussion if I didn’t want to hear other people’s opinions. The director doesn’t utter those exact words explicitly and I’m not attributing anything to him that he hasn’t said. I’m giving my opinion on his motivation as he explained his motivation - he wants to humanise the two boys and make a film that would be more accessible to an audience.

I’m reluctant to go so far as to suggest he must imagine people are so dumb that they cannot evaluate the boys actions for themselves without his guidance “almost entirely based on the transcripts”, but I’m perfectly capable of determining and quantifying the boys actions according to a whole plethora of human behaviours In civilised society, because guess what? I’m human too, and what those boys did, I simply wouldn’t be capable of it. I don’t need to understand the directors perspective, but I do, and it’s not one I care enough to share.

Where can you watch this film is it on you tube or anything?

I don’t get the outrage though stuff like this is made all the the time about murders and real life events.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Francie I wouldn’t be bothered my arse being involved in this discussion if I didn’t want to hear other people’s opinions. The director doesn’t utter those exact words explicitly and I’m not attributing anything to him that he hasn’t said. I’m giving my opinion on his motivation as he explained his motivation - he wants to humanise the two boys and make a film that would be more accessible to an audience.

I’m reluctant to go so far as to suggest he must imagine people are so dumb that they cannot evaluate the boys actions for themselves without his guidance “almost entirely based on the transcripts”, but I’m perfectly capable of determining and quantifying the boys actions according to a whole plethora of human behaviours In civilised society, because guess what? I’m human too, and what those boys did, I simply wouldn’t be capable of it. I don’t need to understand the directors perspective, but I do, and it’s not one I care enough to share.

You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to invent (lie about) his intentions though. i.e. he wanted to show them as 'benevolent and innocent' or that he holds the opinion that the act on that day was not monstrous.