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

Porklife wrote: »

He may not have known that it would get nominated but he was obviously hoping it would do well and would therefore up his profile and earn him money. Are you really saying that he made the film with no profit in mind?

Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

You are not a filmmaker of any kind. You have absolutely no idea how a filmmaker thinks and in particular how a filmmaker writing and directing a short film approaches things. You are making assumptions because you disagree with the context of the film.

Some facts Porklife -

You do not make money from a short film.
Your profile may be raised, if the short film is popular, but more often than not, it isn't and you head back to obscurity.
The reaction to this film since the publicity will most likely damage Vincent Lambes fledgling career.
The film was premiered a year ago and has been around the festival circuit for over 6 months now.
The Director did not court controversy or notoriety at any point over the last year.
The fact that it got linked with the Oscars, which has nothing to do with the Director, is the reason this thread exists and you are spouting baloney like a lot of others. You haven't seen it either. You are on a bandwagon.

Porklife wrote: »

Lol... Yeah I'm on a bandwagon and know nothing about the case. Try telling the above 'facts' to Denise Fergus asshole.

The fact is you have said stuff about short film which isn't based on any facts about short film. Accept that or present links to short film makers making money on short films.

Denise Fergus does not have any censorship rights on this case, but she has our sympathy and should have been at least informed that the film was being made. There is nothing in the film that isn't already in the public domain however.

Well, it's now officially nominated

Not sure how I feel about it. I'm so sorry for Jamie's mum and dad but there's half of me thinks they shouldn't have the right to prevent anyone making / watching a movie about this. I'm torn!

Charmeleon wrote: »

Hopefully someone else makes a documentary about all the children who grow up in extreme poverty and adversity, exposed to all sorts of horrific things, and yet somehow manage not to torment, torture and murder a small child and deviously attempt to cover up their crime.

Maybe that would then help to uncover why those two done what they did?
Brushing things under the carpet as being evil prevents the analysis of what actually made them do such a thing.

Do they not produce oxytocin - is it a chemical imbalance, is it an upbringing issue, what is it?

I don't think there is anything such as evil - there is something in the composition of people that makes them this way and to be so blasé about it prevents the uncovering of what is going on inside these people.

In regards to the movie, I've not seen it, so cannot comment on it specifically. However, there are numerous movies based on real life events that have been released whilst the relevant parties were still alive.

Sardonicat wrote: »

They were 10. I never understood how they tried them as adults. What was the reason for that?

10 is the age of criminal responsibility in the UK

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

I hear what you're saying and yes, people are extremely complex. I have had personal experience of that myself. The reality is that we're still trying to figure out certain aspects of the human brain and a lot of it is still a mystery even today in 2019.

However, what these then two young boys did to another human being is, quite frankly, psychopathic behavior. It simply wasn't normal. It may seem too lazy to label then two young kids as evil but that's what they were and most probably still are (Venables has been done for downloading child pornography many times since his release along with other misdemeanors).

To inflict so much damage to a young child resulting in death, and enjoy it, can only be classed as evil. We've got to be real here.

So it is ok for you to analyse them and make up your mind what they are but not for anyone else? Particularly those of us who don't believe in the simplistic biblical concept of 'evil'.

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

What has the bible got to do with the concept of what is evil behavior?

I'm not particularity religious if that's what you're trying to get at.

The evidence clearly shows what they are. At the very least mentally deranged and yes I consider what they did to that child as evil. You don't have to be a God botherer to recognize a particular act or individual as 'evil'.

For example I consider pedophiles to be evil. Venables is a pedophile. Now some folk here like to excuse pedophilia behavior as an 'illness' which can over time be possibly cured.

Nonsense.

Evil is evil. This is the real world we're talking about here and there is any amount of it in the world today. Always has been and always will, because simply that's some human beings for you. Cases like this can be studied all you want but you'll never really get satisfactory answers as to why things like this happen in the first place.

It isn't anything to do with the 'real' world at all. It is a concept, a concept that originates in a world created by an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God.

If you don't believe in the above the concept of evil is moot and useless.

Having listened to some discussions about this over the last few days I think the problem some have with humanizing the perpetrators is something that ppl aren't comfortable with due to the reason that if one were to explain it physiologically then we would have to understand it and in understanding it we are afraid to think that what we wouldn't think quite as badly of them as we first did.

But I think that's irrational. It's always better to understand things than not. In understanding there is a possibility of prevention, seeing warning signs for example and if not prevention dealing with them better so they don't re-offend once apprehended. I heard that these kids spent all day out on the street for 10 hours at a time and that can't be a good upbringing not that that fully explains there actions but it must be a factor.

I do think though that the filmmaker was shockingly selfish not to inform the parents.

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

And one that will never be conquered.

You can't 'predict' abnormal mental behaviors in people.

How can you possibly know that? People would have had the same attitudes to schizophrenia and bi-polarity at one time. There is a great Irish book which discusses how a woman probably suffering from the above, who was burned as a witch in the late 1800's.

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

You can't predict mental health issues before the child is born obviously(unless there is a severe history of mental health issues in the family) and neither can you predict same in the child's formative years i.e 24 months.

The human mind will always be a mystery which will never be solved.

So in the case of Venebles and Thompson they were punished accordingly; the crime utterly reprehensible regardless of age and the only people we should have sympathy for is Jamie Bulgar who suffered (and he suffered a lot before death) and his family that was torn apart and the family of the two boys who, at the end of the day committed a crime - Murder.

I am not interested in getting into a conversation about 'sympathy', I don't think anyone is looking for that for the boys.

We understand a vast amount about the brain and human behaviour that we didn't even at the time of this sad event.

It is ridiculous to state that we 'will never solve the mystery of the human brain'.

And even if we don't, we should never ever stop trying to.

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

The parents of Jamie Bulger don't give a **** about any of that.

It won't bring back their son.

It's not at all ridiculous, it's a fact. Although we can and I'm sure will continue to try like we have for decades now.

What?

The right to make a film does not belong to Jamie's parents. Nothing will bring back their son.

Advances in medical understanding will be made and we have no idea were that will take us. Fact.

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Yes, a film that seeks to humanize two killers.

You seem to think we can prevent people from becoming future killers, pedophiles, rapists etc just from understanding their minds and if we if we can catch them young, like there is some kind of antidote. Wishful thinking.

It's in a persons makeup from the get go, unpopular fact but there you go. I wouldn't get too upset about it if I where you.

You need to give that crystal ball a wipe.

What if patterns of behaviour can be discovered? Would responsible investigative work be worthwhile then?

If you are going to just sit back and say 'ah he/she is just evil', you are living in the dark age.

I don’t think anyone or anything will ever convince me of anything other than the fact these two boys, now men, are pure scum. Venables in particular has done nothing but reoffend. How much of a debased piece of filth do you have to be to compromise and fcuk up your protected indentity to the extent that you have to be given a second one. At least Thompson has gone on to live a quiet life, as far as we know. I’m a murder podcast fanatic, I’ve read tonnes of books on this case and others and even my chosen career path is involved in dealing with case files of abused and neglected children. I have never in my life come across the absolute savagery and evil brutality these guys inflicted on poor James.
It’s also important to remember that although there are suspicions of abuse in their own backgrounds, and they came from deprivation; there’s nothing actually psychologically wrong with them.
On the piece of film itself, I’ve no objections to it being made. We capitalise on murder and grief all the time, although he should have reached out to Denise. I’ll probably watch it. And from the clips I’ve seen the two boys seem to be portrayed by two fine young actors, fair play to them. It can’t have been easy. But there isn’t a piece of film in the land that can convince me of anything other than the fact these kids are intrinsically evil.

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Sorry this ain't Minority Report.

Nor is it the Dark Ages.

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

What about killers who come from perfectly normal backgrounds of which there has been many?

The nature/nurture argument comes into play here, but it would appear that these traits in some humans are entirely random. Certainly can't be predicted anyways.

Yes I agree and it is sometimes random
But more often than not they are from a background of neglect or favouritism or abuse in the home .