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

shesty · 29-01-2019 7:04pm

Whether or not the film should have been made is one thing, but the least they should have done is contact the parents during the process to let them know what was being done.I wouldn't be surprised if a calculated decision was made not contact them, as it probably would have been the end of the film, but still.If I was her, I would be beyond livid to discover this had been done.There would be no excuse for it in my eyes-artistic reasons, understanding why, nothing.There is no understanding of an act like that.None.

retro:electro · 29-01-2019 7:06pm

Hermy wrote: »

So just like the two murderers you think it's okay to treat children in a horrific way?

Two boys who have never shown and ounce of remorse, one of whom has reoffended to the extent he had to be given a second protected indentity, and has shown to be sexually interested in children probably should be segregated from society for the remainder of their lives. Their sentence was disgracefully lenient. And the compensation they received a slap in the face to the child they tortured. Lest we forget:

Venables was caught with 1,170 indecent photos of children on his laptop. He admitted having 392 category A images, 148 category B and 630 category C pictures.

He also pleaded guilty to having a paedophile manual on or before November 17 last year.

Hermy · 29-01-2019 7:13pm

They absolutely should be segregated from society for the remainder of their lives but surely suggesting or desiring that they be allowed to rot makes us no better than them.

FrancieBrady · 29-01-2019 7:48pm

I don't think the film makes any comment on the actual crime. Lambe was abhorred by it as any decent person would. It isn't about the crime.

Grandeeod · 29-01-2019 11:03pm

Once it appears on RTE, I hope people watch it. Then and only then, can we have any kind of debate here. We all need to watch it and after that (if you've watched it) we are on a level playing field.

I always thought the Director made a mistake by not informing the family, but after listening to Denise, I can see why that decision was made in hindsight.

Outlaw Pete · 29-01-2019 11:57pm

I feel for the families in these situations as someone who had one of their best friends murdered and can also of course absolutely understand the angry reaction to the suggestion that the killers are being portrayed in a sympathetic fashion. Disgusts me for example how the General was made out to be some kind of lovable rogue given the suffering that he undoubtedly caused.

Beyond that though, it's over 25 years now and while out of courtesy it would be fitting if filmmakers informed the family of their plans to make such a film, I really don't think it should be felt that the murder is something filmmakers should feel they can't explore.

If anything I'm surprised there hasn't been many other films made about the murder already given it's high profile and from what I can see from the scenes which have been made available (link below) it certainly doesn't appear to be a film which is overly trying to get the audience to feel empathy for the two.

Be interested in seeing the full film at some stage.

https://vimeo.com/277662428

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 30-01-2019 12:07am

Laois_Man wrote: »

Actually, Denise Fergus claimed at the time that she didn't know whether it is him or not, that she couldn't get a straight answer about it rom the UK authoraties, and called for the Irish Government for full disclosure

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/TELL+ME+THE+TRUTH%3B+EXCLUSIVE+Jamie%27s+mum+in+call+for+answers+over...-a0145740874

Another similarity between Thompson and Walsh is, Walsh stabbed his pregnant girlfriend after getting wound up by a movie he had watched the night before. Exactly the same as the attack on little Jamie!

And Ireland counts as "off in Europe somewhere"

As far as I know, this violent film stuff was far from a certainty in the Bulger case. It was never taken that seriously that the boys were influenced by violent films.

And as someone else said above, James Bulger was never called Jamie. The newspapers christened him that. It’s a real bugbear of his parents and I don’t blame them.

RollieFingers · 30-01-2019 12:11am

Hermy wrote: »

So just like the two murderers you think it's okay to treat children in a horrific way?

I think it's ok to treat children in a horrific way, yes that's what I said, thanks for twisting my words.

I said I agree with a poster who believes that anyone who carries out an act like they did should get locked up for life. And if they happen to rot away, well that's their problem.

Grandeeod · 30-01-2019 12:13am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

As far as I know, this violent film stuff was far from a certainty in the Bulger case. It was never taken that seriously that the boys were influenced by violent films.

And as someone else said above, James Bulger was never called Jamie. The newspapers christened him that. It’s a real bugbear of his parents and I don’t blame them.

The film Child's Play was mentioned a lot and I think eventually banned by the BBFC as a result.

batgoat · 30-01-2019 12:22am

Grandeeod wrote: »

The film Child's Play was mentioned a lot and I think eventually banned by the BBFC as a result.

It was in relation to Child's Play 3, the police thought that they may have seen it because Venables' father had rented it(Chucky throwing paint at a victim was assumed to have inspired part of the attack) . But he wasn't living with the father at the time so later concluded to be unrelated.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 30-01-2019 12:25am

Grandeeod wrote: »

The film Child's Play was mentioned a lot and I think eventually banned by the BBFC as a result.

Even so, if you read about the trial and the research they put into looking at the videos that were rented by each family in the months leading up to the murder, nobody involved seemed all that convinced that violent films - or videogames for that matter - played much if any part in the murder.

See batgoat’s post above mine.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 30-01-2019 12:33am

retro:electro wrote: »

Two boys who have never shown and ounce of remorse, one of whom has reoffended to the extent he had to be given a second protected indentity, and has shown to be sexually interested in children probably should be segregated from society for the remainder of their lives. Their sentence was disgracefully lenient. And the compensation they received a slap in the face to the child they tortured. Lest we forget:

Venables was caught with 1,170 indecent photos of children on his laptop. He admitted having 392 category A images, 148 category B and 630 category C pictures.

He also pleaded guilty to having a paedophile manual on or before November 17 last year.

The thing is, what sentence would be deemed appropriate? Considering they were children at the time the crimes were committed, spending their entire lives behind bars seems extreme. And in most European countries, including Ireland, they wouldn’t even have been old enough to be tried as adults. The UK has an unusually young age of criminal responsibility for a Western country. There was a lot of hand-wringing at the time about whether they were old enough to stand trial, seeing as it was a process they couldn’t fully understand.

mattser · 30-01-2019 1:01am

retro:electro wrote: »

I don’t think it’s too much to ask to be sympathetically contacted pre production to a film which details the gruesome murder of your little boy. Put yourself in her shoes; a film is being made about the death of your little boy, there’ll be another little boy who resembles him playing his part, and yet you haven’t even had as much as a courtesy heads up call from the director to let you know the worst moment of your life is about to resurface again, oh and it might even get Oscar nominated.
I’ve no objections to the film itself being made but I can understand her total annoyance at the ignorance of those involved.

Great post. Unfortunately, ignorance is acceptable in the eyes of those who have a skewed vision of " Art ".
Sympathisers/Apologists of wrongdoing will always disagree.

retro:electro · 30-01-2019 1:06am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The thing is, what sentence would be deemed appropriate? Considering they were children at the time the crimes were committed, spending their entire lives behind bars seems extreme. And in most European countries, including Ireland, they wouldn’t even have been old enough to be tried as adults. The UK has an unusually young age of criminal responsibility for a Western country. There was a lot of hand-wringing at the time about whether they were old enough to stand trial, seeing as it was a process they couldn’t fully understand.

Not sure. There’s nothing I can compare it to with regards to sentencing because it was such a unique case. Now realistically I’m aware that locking them up for the rest of their lives is neither practical or fair; but an 8 year sentence was clearly not enough given that Venables has reoffended twice already so has clearly learned nothing. The compensation they received from ECHR is fairly disgraceful too when you consider that they actually benefited financially from committing the most horrific crime. They both did something profoundly cruel and wrong, but John seems to still be hanging around the periphery of that dark place, even though by now he should have the intelligence and maturity to know the consequences of his actions. Clearly he shouldn’t have been let out in the first place. There’s been millions spent on his rehabilitation and new identities, he just seems to be a lost cause.

FrancieBrady · 30-01-2019 1:10am

retro:electro wrote: »

Not sure. There’s nothing I can compare it to with regards to sentencing because it was such a unique case. Now realistically I’m aware that locking them up for the rest of their lives is neither practical or fair; but an 8 year sentence was clearly not enough given that Venables has reoffended twice already so has clearly learned nothing. The compensation they received from ECHR is fairly disgraceful too when you consider that they actually benefited financially from committing the most horrific crime. They both did something profoundly cruel and wrong, but John seems to still be hanging around the periphery of that dark place, even though by now he should have the intelligence and maturity to know the consequences of his actions. Clearly he shouldn’t have been let out in the first place. There’s been millions spent on his rehabilitation and new identities, he just seems to be a lost cause.

Not excusing either of them but how do you know that the environment they were largely brought up in,(10 is still a child from a maturity point of view imo) and the unique way they were brought up since the crime is not part of the reason for re-offending?

That would be worth studying alone, what is best practice when crimes like these do occur.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 30-01-2019 1:23am

retro:electro wrote: »

Not sure. There’s nothing I can compare it to with regards to sentencing because it was such a unique case. Now realistically I’m aware that locking them up for the rest of their lives is neither practical or fair; but an 8 year sentence was clearly not enough given that Venables has reoffended twice already so has clearly learned nothing. The compensation they received from ECHR is fairly disgraceful too when you consider that they actually benefited financially from committing the most horrific crime. They both did something profoundly cruel and wrong, but John seems to still be hanging around the periphery of that dark place, even though by now he should have the intelligence and maturity to know the consequences of his actions. Clearly he shouldn’t have been let out in the first place. There’s been millions spent on his rehabilitation and new identities, he just seems to be a lost cause.

Giving out new identities is extremely rare in the UK. In the case of Thompson and Venables, it had to be done because there is no doubt they would have been murdered if their identities hadn’t been hidden and if society wants to rise above their crime, they couldn’t let that happen. The only problem there is that innocent men who bear a passing resemblance to either have been targeted by vigilantes in the past.

As for Jon Venables not commiting the crimes he did as an adult if he was held longer; he was jailed for possession of child pornography. Would more jail time have quelled that urge? That’s doubtful.

Graces7 · 30-01-2019 6:51am

Hermy wrote: »

They absolutely should be segregated from society for the remainder of their lives but surely suggesting or desiring that they be allowed to rot makes us no better than them.

No one is ever "allowed to rot " in prison. Many prisoners live better than poor folk out here. Especially young offenders institutes. it is segregation. If they are under 12 they would be in a Secure Children's Home then a Young Offenders Institute

Hannibal_Smith · 30-01-2019 8:56am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not excusing either of them but how do you know that the environment they were largely brought up in,(10 is still a child from a maturity point of view imo) and the unique way they were brought up since the crime is not part of the reason for re-offending?

That would be worth studying alone, what is best practice when crimes like these do occur.

That was the whole discussion at the time. As far as I recall their up bringing was widely talked about as being the root of the problem. I also remember talk that video games desensitized them (and the rest of us!) with their violence.

I think I also remember talk that what they'd done to James, they saw on something and tried to mimic it? But I could be rememebering that wrong. I was always more focused on the boy who died.

batgoat · 30-01-2019 9:00am

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

That was the whole discussion at the time. As far as I recall their up bringing was widely talked about as being the root of the problem. I also remember talk that video games desensitized them (and the rest of us!) with their violence.

I think I also remember talk that what they'd done to James, they saw on something and tried to mimic it? But I could be rememebering that wrong. I was always more focused on the boy who died.

Ya that was throwing paint on him, it was thought to be inspired by a scene in Child's Play. He'd never seen it though and disliked horror films.

Omackeral · 30-01-2019 11:37am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And as someone else said above, James Bulger was never called Jamie. The newspapers christened him that. It’s a real bugbear of his parents and I don’t blame them.

Seriously this x100. It's been pointed out so many times and you still get people on here calling him "little Jamie", "poor Jamie" etc. It's James. It's only ever been James to his family. Denise states in her book that it hurt her so unnecessarily that they couldn't even get his name right, on top of everything else.

retro:electro · 30-01-2019 12:39pm

The Journal had an article the other day where they referred to him as “Jamie” all throughout, very annoying. Same with Madeline Mc Cann and the press referring to her as “Maddie”, her parents never did.

gerrybbadd · 30-01-2019 12:43pm

Laois_Man wrote: »

gerrybbadd wrote: »

What? How is the exact same? And it's James. Not Jamie

Do your own research

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/chucky-films-defended-1468498.html

I have. You might want to check yourself. It was Venables was assumed to have seen the movie. Not Thompson.

So not "the exact same" as you've stated.

Laois_Man · 30-01-2019 1:03pm

gerrybbadd wrote: »

I have. You might want to check yourself. It was Venables was assumed to have seen the movie. Not Thompson.

So not "the exact same" as you've stated.

Think again, Mr Justice Morland, (the judge in their trial) made the statement in his conviction of them that violent videos might have encouraged Thompson and Venables. That is the officially recorded legal conclusion. He did not distinguish which one of the boys, or any single movie for that matter, he used the word videos, plural

Justice Morland said in court after passing sentence that he could not comprehend how the children could have committed such an evil act, but he speculated their upbringing in broken homes and viewing of violent movies may have played a role.

'It's not to me to pass judgment on their upbringing, but I suspect exposure to violent videos played a role,' Morland said.

batgoat · 30-01-2019 1:12pm

That boils down to more of a personal suspicion, also a period of time where video nasties were a popular concept. There's no actual evidence that they played any part.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 30-01-2019 11:12pm

Omackeral wrote: »

Seriously this x100. It's been pointed out so many times and you still get people on here calling him "little Jamie", "poor Jamie" etc. It's James. It's only ever been James to his family. Denise states in her book that it hurt her so unnecessarily that they couldn't even get his name right, on top of everything else.

It seems to me they called him Jamie to heighten the tragedy by giving him a cutsie name. As if this horrific incident needed any embellishment.

I’ve tried putting myself in his parents’ shoes on this and, yeah, it would irk me if a murdered loved one was called by a name in death that they never were called in life. It’d be like they were talking about somebody else.

Hermy · 31-01-2019 10:34am

RollieFingers wrote: »

I think it's ok to treat children in a horrific way, yes that's what I said, thanks for twisting my words.

I said I agree with a poster who believes that anyone who carries out an act like they did should get locked up for life. And if they happen to rot away, well that's their problem.

Apologies - I did jump into that comment headlong.

The point I was trying to make was regarding the conflicting attitudes to those who commit heinous crimes.

On the one hand people are rightly appalled by such acts but on the other hand they often wish for a similarly heinous fate to befall the perpetrators of such acts.

Mrcaramelchoc · 02-02-2019 5:18pm

RollieFingers wrote: »

The acting in the trailer looks awful too, hopefully this gets nowhere near an Oscar.

i have to disagree.i think the acting particularly by the children in the trailer is amazing.could you get your kid to say those words and cry on camera like that?at that age?i couldnt do it myself never mind my kids.

whisky_galore · 02-02-2019 6:01pm

Wonder how many people critical of this will jump on the latest Netflix serial killer documentary, Mindhunter or the like?
Because it's all the way over in America, no qualms about victims families because it's not on our doorstep, so to speak.

Grandeeod · 02-02-2019 9:52pm

Once again, I'm looking forward to people actually seeing this short film. Then we can actually talk about it.:rolleyes:

retro:electro · 02-02-2019 9:54pm

When are RTE showing it?

gerrybbadd · 25-02-2019 11:26am

It didn't get the nod at the Oscars last night anyhow, Detainment.

Mrcaramelchoc · 25-02-2019 11:29am

retro:electro wrote: »

When are RTE showing it?

Im sure someone in here said rte towards the end of February.im open to correction.

B_ecke_r · 25-02-2019 11:31am

Mutant z wrote: »

I have absolutely no hesitation in describing those children now adults as pure scum of the earth and yes they are absolutely evil for brutally torturing a defensless toddler to death in the most horrific way possible which they have never shown an ounce of remorse for so forgive me if I don't follow your advice because the simple fact is they are cold blooded killers who should have rotted in prison for the rest of their lives.

Close thread.

gerrybbadd · 26-02-2019 10:53am

Ralph & James' Uncle have gone to the High Court to seek removal of the Worldwide Injunction over Jon Venables' identity

https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/father-and-uncle-of-james-bulger-in-high-court-challenge-to-killers-injunction-907131.html

begbysback · 26-02-2019 1:35pm

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

That was the whole discussion at the time. As far as I recall their up bringing was widely talked about as being the root of the problem. I also remember talk that video games desensitized them (and the rest of us!) with their violence.

I think I also remember talk that what they'd done to James, they saw on something and tried to mimic it? But I could be rememebering that wrong. I was always more focused on the boy who died.

Us?

I have never been desensitized by a video game

ohnonotgmail · 26-02-2019 1:38pm

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

That was the whole discussion at the time. As far as I recall their up bringing was widely talked about as being the root of the problem. I also remember talk that video games desensitized them (and the rest of us!) with their violence.

I think I also remember talk that what they'd done to James, they saw on something and tried to mimic it? But I could be rememebering that wrong. I was always more focused on the boy who died.

As others have mentioned there was a suggestion that one of them had seen the film Child Play 3 but that turned out to not be the case.

Hannibal_Smith · 26-02-2019 2:48pm

begbysback wrote: »

Us?

I have never been desensitized by a video game

I never said you or any body else was desensitized. I was recalling the discussions being had at the time.

Hannibal_Smith · 26-02-2019 2:54pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

As others have mentioned there was a suggestion that one of them had seen the film Child Play 3 but that turned out to not be the case.

So after all the about the video games and movies it turned out none of them were a contributing factor?

ohnonotgmail · 26-02-2019 2:57pm

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

So after all the about the video games and movies it turned out none of them were a contributing factor?

Pretty much.

gerrybbadd · 04-03-2019 3:57pm

Seems Ralph's bid to have some of Venable's info made public has failed.

He's 100% right here - something has failed with the rehabilitation process. What he was looking for was info relating to Venables' movements, addresses, past identities to be released and made public.

When he's released, it will no doubt be with ANOTHER new identity, so i'm not sure why his bid was shot down

Mrcaramelchoc · 08-03-2019 5:14pm

Id say it will be shown somewhere pretty soon because its available online.

spodoinkle · 06-06-2019 4:33pm

Just watched a bit of this, had to turn it off when the lads start saying one was going to throw the baby in the canal, then decided to leave him there then they baby ran after them,awful, awful stuff, depressed beyond words

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

Comments