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

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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 wrote: »

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.





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.

What the director has done is what every historian does.
He goes to the sources and interprets them - then presents his conclusions. In this case via the medium of film using re-enactments. It's not an uncommon way to do it. He may have tweaked. But to be honest I have been involved in broadcast documentaries and was not best please with the results of tweaking to such an extent that I won't partake in them anymore. Many historians are the same.

His sources are primary - the transcripts of the interviews with the boys are the primary source for what happened out of the public eye.
The newspaper reports are secondary sources for what happened outside the public eye but primary sources for how the media reacted.
The same goes for this film - it is a primary source for how the media - 25 years later - reacts but a secondary source as far as the event itself is concerned.
There no 'trying' about that - it's just how sources work.

As for Boards - if one wanted to discuss say Referendums than yes - boards would provide valuable primary sources as to what people on both sides were saying.
Or attitudes to Travellers in the early 20th century... wealth of material on that here.

You may disagree with his conclusions but it's hard to do so with any real vigour or objectivity unless you have read what he has.
You may disagree with his film on aesthetic grounds, or feel it is bad taste, but that is subjective - which isn't to say that is not valid but it is a personal feeling.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What the director has done is what every historian does.
He goes to the sources and interprets them - then presents his conclusions. In this case via the medium of film using re-enactments. It's not an uncommon way to do it. He may have tweaked. But to be honest I have been involved in broadcast documentaries and was not best please with the results of tweaking to such an extent that I won't partake in them anymore. Many historians are the same.

His sources are primary - the transcripts of the interviews with the boys are the primary source for what happened out of the public eye.
The newspaper reports are secondary sources for what happened outside the public eye but primary sources for how the media reacted.
The same goes for this film - it is a primary source for how the media - 25 years later - reacts but a secondary source as far as the event itself is concerned.
There no 'trying' about that - it's just how sources work.

As for Boards - if one wanted to discuss say Referendums than yes - boards would provide valuable primary sources as to what people on both sides were saying.
Or attitudes to Travellers in the early 20th century... wealth of material on that here.

I think we could go back and forth all day on much of the above tbh, so I’ll just address this bit below -

You may disagree with his conclusions but it's hard to do so with any real vigour or objectivity unless you have read what he has.
You may disagree with his film on aesthetic grounds, or feel it is bad taste, but that is subjective - which isn't to say that is not valid but it is a personal feeling.

I don’t disagree with his conclusions, we haven’t even gotten that far. I disagree with the entire premise of his perspective in the first place. I disagree with him when he says that the boys were dehumanised in the media. I don’t agree that they were. It’s as I said - there were a number of tabloids that of course played to the gallery, but I don’t think their efforts were to dehumanise the boys. Their images are iconic - if a person didn’t know, they would never suspect that those boys were capable of such cruelty from just looking at them.

Even to this day there are people who cannot fathom the idea of any child being capable of such cruelty, let alone committing such acts of violence. I don’t see what there is to be gained by focusing on two very specific individuals who have never been forthcoming with the facts themselves, and trying to “humanise” them. I get that they’re human already, and they are monsters, and they were children themselves at the time they committed torture and murder of another child, and that’s why they are regarded as evil - because what they did isn’t something that children generally tend to do at that age. They are as you suggested earlier more likely to be kicking a ball than hanging around a shopping centre attempting to abduct children to torture them.

I’m not sure what you’re driving at with the bit about personal feelings and being subjective and all, particularly given that the film we’re talking about is based upon the director examining his own personal feelings towards the boys. I don’t care for how the director feels one way or the other which immediately renders his feelings invalid from my perspective, before he even gets to try and convince me that I should empathise with two children who abducted, tortured, murdered a child, tried to cover it up, and have never had to explain their actions. All I see is the director imparting how he feels about the two boys, and on that basis I don’t regard the film as something I would ever feel compelled to watch.

Do I care that other people watch it? Of course not. If other people tell me it’s worth a watch, I might just do that to see whether it was worth all the hype.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think we could go back and forth all day on much of the above tbh, so I’ll just address this bit below -





I don’t disagree with his conclusions, we haven’t even gotten that far. I disagree with the entire premise of his perspective in the first place. I disagree with him when he says that the boys were dehumanised in the media. I don’t agree that they were. It’s as I said - there were a number of tabloids that of course played to the gallery, but I don’t think their efforts were to dehumanise the boys. Their images are iconic - if a person didn’t know, they would never suspect that those boys were capable of such cruelty from just looking at them.

Even to this day there are people who cannot fathom the idea of any child being capable of such cruelty, let alone committing such acts of violence. I don’t see what there is to be gained by focusing on two very specific individuals who have never been forthcoming with the facts themselves, and trying to “humanise” them. I get that they’re human already, and they are monsters, and they were children themselves at the time they committed torture and murder of another child, and that’s why they are regarded as evil - because what they did isn’t something that children generally tend to do at that age. They are as you suggested earlier more likely to be kicking a ball than hanging around a shopping centre attempting to abduct children to torture them.

I’m not sure what you’re driving at with the bit about personal feelings and being subjective and all, particularly given that the film we’re talking about is based upon the director examining his own personal feelings towards the boys. I don’t care for how the director feels one way or the other which immediately renders his feelings invalid from my perspective, before he even gets to try and convince me that I should empathise with two children who abducted, tortured, murdered a child, tried to cover it up, and have never had to explain their actions. All I see is the director imparting how he feels about the two boys, and on that basis I don’t regard the film as something I would ever feel compelled to watch.

Do I care that other people watch it? Of course not. If other people tell me it’s worth a watch, I might just do that to see whether it was worth all the hype.

We both agree that neither of us wish to see it.
Where we disagree is whether or not it should have been made.

In one way I am repelled by how there is a whole entertainment industry based around graphic depictions of murder and death but I do love me an Agatha Christie or a Midsummer Murders... Love the Swedish The Killing, and the Nordic The Bridge.. and I did 'like' the Steig Larsson books, eventually I was put off the Patricia Cornwall's because it just got to much... so much as I protest my disdain I am a consumer of murder as entertainment .

Given that it would be very hypocritical of me to call for films like this to be banned - or even not made.

I havnt seen the film, its an horrific crime that was committed but I think it is something that needs to be looked at and discussed. Most serial killers and people who have committed horrific crimes are wrote off as being evil but when you look into their backgrounds, upbringings and the families they came from, some times its easy to see how they became so messed up. Its a scary thought but anyone of us could have ended up the same way if we'd been unlucky enough to have their temperament and awful life experiences.
Im open to correction on this but im sure ive heard recently that one of the killers has been convicted for having images of children? Its not really surprising if thats the case. Instead of blaming someone for making a movie about these two boys and 'humanising' them - which I think is an awful description as we're all human, no actions can change that fact, its the legal system/child services/culture that should be blamed. Why wearnt these boys helped when they were young? Where were child services that could have potentially stopped this situation from ever happening through taking action and removing these boys from their own horrific home lives?
Why were they allowed to walk the streets again when they clearly showed psychopathic traits from a young age?

I dont think anyone is suggesting that their actions deserve any sympathy or that they arent accountable for their actions, they 100% are accountable - but there are other factors at play and I think it can only be a good thing to look at the whole picture and maybe try to understand how psychopaths are made, understanding this could prevent such situations happening again.