Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

1…457910…19

Comments

  • #182
    RWCNT
    Registered Users Posts: 1,430 ✭✭✭RWCNT


    donkeykong5 wrote: »
    "Filmmaker " doing the rounds. Apparently hes on today FM at 3.45pm today.

    Why do you keep on putting that word in quotation marks? He made a film.


  • #183
    Omackeral
    Registered Users Posts: 32,956 ✭✭✭✭Omackeral


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Having reared children and having taken them through school, I have seen many many of them get involved in stuff, they know to be wrong, totally wrong) but do not have the ability or cognitive maturity to stop what is happening. I have also seen many involve themselves in things they know to be wrong, but that is the thrill. Curiosity killed the cat etc.
    I see my role as a parent and member of the community to coach them through these phases of their lives. That is why 'minors' remain the responsibility of adults after all.

    Kids bully and act the bollox for a variety of reasons. They don't generally kill though because they know it's beyond the pale. However, if society starts hanging kids, as many called for, it's pretty bleak. I don't think it was ever a clear cut and dry case. The fact one of them had to be given a fresh identity again in adulthood is sickening though.


  • #184
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Care to dial back the old outrage there?
    Maybe if you took a breath, calmed down, stopped pounding your keyboard you would see my point.
    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.
    My point is we remember the killers and forget the victims. We, as a society, work in hand with killers to give what many of them want - infamy - and in stripping their victims of their identity. They become "the victim".
    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 have no idea what the work was "designed" to do. You are assuming. Doing the very thing you are outraged at me, apparently, doing. I bet you never even heard of it until I mentioned it.
    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?


  • #185
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,817 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Omackeral wrote: »
    Kids bully and act the bollox for a variety of reasons. They don't generally kill though because they know it's beyond the pale. However, if society starts hanging kids, as many called for, it's pretty bleak. I don't think it was ever a clear cut and dry case. The fact one of them had to be given a fresh identity again in adulthood is sickening though.

    They don't generally kill, that is a fact. But it can happen.

    Re: the rest of these lads lives, I think the event and the ensuing events make it very difficult to say what behaviour is caused by those events and what their lives would have been like had those events not happened.
    While not for one minute condoning/excusing what they did, the extreme bubble they have lived in since could not be healthy.


  • #186
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    They don't generally kill, that is a fact. But it can happen.
    Yeah and they're aware they're doing it. To imply a child has zero responsibility by age 10 as you did earlier is way too dishonest.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,071 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    Zorya wrote: »
    I don't know how much of the film Kirby saw. Fair point.

    We agree then there is a place called stop, it is just a matter of disagreement as to where that place is. That is something people will have very individual takes on, and doesn't make one opinion more unacceptable than another. Both sides can be reasonably argued. Sans outrage.

    I would never watch a film like this, or one about similar things. My psyche would not withstand it. But that's my choice/limitation. And if I made a film like this I would be fully aware from the outset of exactly what I was doing, in every single aspect, including being aware of the subtle thrill of being dangerous and controversial, and perhaps even becoming notorious. Lambe denied that - that is not honest.

    I have no problem with reasonable argument, but I'm sure you'll agree that there are a lot of unreasonable arguments on both sides.

    There is no evidence that Lambe got a subtle thrill of being dangerous and controversial and perhaps even becoming notorious. I accept that from a creative point of view, it is always in the interests of a Director to extract as much emotion as possible from the source material. But remember that the source material in this case is real life and not the made up in the mind variety. I don't think its a case of Lambe reinventing the story or ramping it up in exaggerated content. Apparently there are minor differences, but the basic concept is based on what was actually said by the two lads.

    The outrage behind this issue is more based on - how dare a filmmaker produce a story on this awful event. How dare the filmmaker try to explore a different angle, despite NOT condoning the guilty parties. How dare the filmmaker not consult Jamie Bolgers parents. Personally if it was me I'd have done only one thing different. I'd have spoken to Jamies parents and told them I was doing the film and why. If they disagreed, I would have done the film anyway so at least that particular negative was dealt with. The scariest film you will ever make is one based on a real life horrific event. The saddest film you will ever make is one based on a real life tragic event. It is perfectly understandable that human beings will be upset at the portrayal of difficult real life events, but I don't believe that creative people behind these portrayals should be exposed to any unreasonable commentary.


  • #188
    Omackeral
    Registered Users Posts: 32,956 ✭✭✭✭Omackeral


    Grandeeod wrote: »

    How dare the filmmaker not consult Jamie Bolgers parents. Personally if it was me I'd have done only one thing different. I'd have spoken to Jamies parents and told them I was doing the film and why.

    Again, not to dispute any of your points but it's James. The child's name was James and not Jamie.


  • #189
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,071 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    Omackeral wrote: »
    Again, not to dispute any of your points but it's James. The child's name was James and not Jamie.

    Yes his name is James, but in 1993 he was frequently referred to as Jamie Bulger. I was in my 20s when it happened and the event is etched in my memory as the Jamie Bulger case. I assume some family member refrred to the little lad by that name. I doubt the media invented it.


  • #190
    Sardonicat
    Registered Users Posts: 12,378 ✭✭✭✭Sardonicat


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    Omackeral wrote: »
    Again, not to dispute any of your points but it's James. The child's name was James and not Jamie.

    Yes his name is James, but in 1993 he was frequently referred to as Jamie Bulger. I was in my 20s when it happened and the event is etched in my memory as the Jamie Bulger case. I assume some family member refrred to the little lad by that name. I doubt the media invented it.
    Actually, I heard an interview with his mother Denise recently and she was saying how angry it made her that the media kept getting his name wrong. According to his mother, his name was James and he was never known as Jamie by his family. James Bulger.


  • #191
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


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

    Other than that, I am bewildered as to what your point is here. Nobody has condoned or excused these killings, from what I have seen, including the film maker.
    I like the way you addressed my other points.

    I never said people condoned or excused the killings. I'm saying there are folk who are too keen to find an answer outside of those who were actually responsible because that would mean having to agree with people who say they were evil. Some people are just horrible cruel people - that's their character, whether caused by a personality disorder or not. "Evil" is just a description - don't be so fixated on a word.

    People say "Those who just dismiss it as evil don't want to face the reality that non evil people do bad things" which i agree with, but others are also unwilling to face reality that there are just some bad people out there with no outside causes of this.

    There are also people sneering at folk for being upset by the case and it makes them look pretty damn cold.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Omackeral
    Registered Users Posts: 32,956 ✭✭✭✭Omackeral


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    Yes his name is James, but in 1993 he was frequently referred to as Jamie Bulger. I was in my 20s when it happened and the event is etched in my memory as the Jamie Bulger case. I assume some family member refrred to the little lad by that name. I doubt the media invented it.

    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.


  • #193
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,817 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »
    Yeah and they're aware they're doing it. To imply a child has zero responsibility by age 10 as you did earlier is way too dishonest.

    Well I will just take it as fact now that you are as bad as other outrage junkies. I never said they had 'zero' responsibility.

    By the way, if my 10 year old breaks the law, I would be rightfully imo, held responsible. And prosecuted if I had failed knowingly in that responsibility.

    A wee bit more complicated than your: 'they were evil, that is all' comfort blanket.


  • #194
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Well I will just take it as fact now that you are as bad as other outrage junkies. I never said they had 'zero' responsibility.
    You attributed numerous things to me that I didn't say or imply so don't be such a hypocrite. One of the first things you said to me was "Were you 'responsible' at 10 years of age?" Air quotes for responsible as if it's an alien concept - so yes, it did look like you were saying a 10-year-old has zero responsibility.
    By the way, if my 10 year old breaks the law, I would be rightfully imo, held responsible. And prosecuted if I had failed knowingly in that responsibility.

    A wee bit more complicated than your: 'they were evil, that is all' comfort blanket.
    I never even implied that's my view so throwing that pot shot just makes you look spiteful and a hypocrite again, as well as dishonest. Why the hostility towards people who don't attack or insult you, just disagree with you?

    It's common among so many "Be tolerant" folk. They may be more articulate but they are as unpleasant as the right-wingers foaming at the mouth.


  • #195
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,817 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »
    You attributed numerous things to me that I didn't say or imply so don't be such a hypocrite. One of the first things you said to me was "Were you 'responsible' at 10 years of age?" Air quotes for responsible as if it's an alien concept - so yes, it did look like you were saying a 10-year-old has zero responsibility.

    I never even implied that's my view so throwing that pot shot just makes you look spiteful and a hypocrite again, as well as dishonest. Why the hostility towards people who don't attack or insult you, just disagree with you?

    It's common among so many "Be tolerant" folk. They may be more articulate but they are as unpleasant as the right-wingers foaming at the mouth.

    So what is your point?


  • #196
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    So what is your point?
    Crikey. :eek:

    Ok, here's ONE post: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109034155&postcount=191


  • #197
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,817 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »
    Crikey. :eek:

    Ok, here's ONE post: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109034155&postcount=191

    Basically, they were evil. That is all there is?

    So, as said, this film is not for you. Or any discussion.


  • #198
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Basically, they were evil. That is all there is?

    So, as said, this film is not for you. Or any discussion.

    That's not it, as you know.

    You had your posts comprehensively addressed and dismissed the poster with a faux-naif one liner.


  • #199
    Liamario
    Registered Users Posts: 2,094 ✭✭✭Liamario


    Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »
    Yeah and they're aware they're doing it. To imply a child has zero responsibility by age 10 as you did earlier is way too dishonest.

    How much responsibility do they have?


  • #200
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,817 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Candie wrote: »
    That's not it, as you know.

    You had your posts comprehensively addressed and dismissed the poster with a faux-naif one liner.

    What?

    Here is the post they described as summing up their point:

    I never said people condoned or excused the killings. I'm saying there are folk who are too keen to find an answer outside of those who were actually responsible because that would mean having to agree with people who say they were evil. Some people are just horrible cruel people - that's their character, whether caused by a personality disorder or not. "Evil" is just a description - don't be so fixated on a word.

    People say "Those who just dismiss it as evil don't want to face the reality that non evil people do bad things" which i agree with, but others are also unwilling to face reality that there are just some bad people out there with no outside causes of this.

    There are also people sneering at folk for being upset by the case and it makes them look pretty damn cold.


  • #201
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Basically, they were evil. That is all there is?
    Nope, not in the least. And you're just being spiteful.

    All my posts plainly indicate i don't think that's all there is.

    It appears you are just annoyed by disagreement with you - and what better way to reconcile that than to sneer, dismiss and make up things not said (while of course getting all indignant if you get a whiff of same towards you).


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,817 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »
    Nope, not in the least. And you're just being spiteful.

    All my posts plainly indicate i don't think that's all there is.

    It appears you are just annoyed by disagreement with you - and what better way to reconcile that than to sneer, dismiss and make up things not said (while of course getting all indignant if you get a whiff of same towards you).

    So again, forgive me here. If that isn't all there is, what is your specific problem with this film?
    I am not talking about you getting offended on behalf of others btw. Why would you have a problem with a responsible piece of film work if you don't think that is all there is? Does the film maker have the right to think 'that is not all there is'?


  • #203
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    Liamario wrote: »
    How much responsibility do they have?
    Ooh, about such and such a figure.

    What? Pointless comment. More than zero obviously.


  • #204
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    What?

    Here is the post they described as summing up their point:
    It's clear what they said - not that confusing.

    It looks like your view is "either people who have my view" or "people who are pitchfork wielding torture fantasists". Someone so keen on keeping an open mind should surely be aware that there's an in-between point.


  • #205
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,817 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »
    It's clear what they said - not that confusing.

    It looks like your view is "either people who have my view" or "people who are pitchfork wielding torture fantasists". Someone so keen on keeping an open mind should surely be aware that there's an in-between point.

    If that was the case, why would I be defending the right of this film maker to make his film?
    I haven't seen it and do not know what he is offering to the debate, it could be completely contradictory to my point of view.
    Do you see me opening threads disputing the right of others having a view?

    No you don't, so your point is nonsense.


  • #206
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    If that was the case, why would I be defending the right of this film maker to make his film?
    I haven't seen it and do not know what he is offering to the debate, it could be completely contradictory to my point of view.
    Do you see me opening threads disputing the right of others having a view?

    No you don't, so your point is nonsense.

    Maybe you don't see yourself as disputing the rights of others to have a view, but you are utterly dismissive and insulting to those who don't share yours.

    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Nobody is 'deflecting' from what happened. It happened a long time ago and the film is not about what happened but why it happened and what happened since.

    Many many many things happen in the world that are horrific and sad and bad. This is just the usual ghouls thinking they own these events and will not allow anyone or anything to upset their opinion of those events.
    It is typical of the outrage junkies to respond like that actually.

    *I think your perception of a 10 year old's cognitive abilities is patently ridiculous tbh. Having just recently reared two children past that age.


    Very open minded of you.


  • #207
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    If that was the case, why would I be defending the right of this film maker to make his film?
    I haven't seen it and do not know what he is offering to the debate, it could be completely contradictory to my point of view.
    Do you see me opening threads disputing the right of others having a view?

    No you don't, so your point is nonsense.
    You clearly demonstrated a "You're either with us or agin' us" tone towards me. Don't be so dishonest.

    And I'm sick of your repeated question - I came to this thread because of the discussion around what happened, not the film. As I've said.


  • #208
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,817 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Candie wrote: »
    Maybe you don't see yourself as disputing the rights of others to have a view, but you are utterly dismissive and insulting to those who don't share yours.





    Very open minded of you.

    I am unapologetic about censorship of any kind, especially of responsible journalistic or artistic inquiry.
    I believe there are 'ghouls, who think they own events', and can keep up a diatribe against anyone who wants to look at them in a different way.

    Whether posters here are that, I don't know, if the cap fits then wear it.


  • #209
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,817 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »
    You clearly demonstrated a "You're either with us or agin' us" tone towards me. Don't be so dishonest.

    And I'm sick of your repeated question - I came to this thread because of the discussion around what happened, not the film. As I've said.

    The film isn't about 'what happened' though. So stop trying to deflect to that. We all know 'what happened'.

    And avoid the 'questions' if you wish, I kinda knew you would.


  • #210
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    I am unapologetic about censorship of any kind, especially of responsible journalistic or artistic inquiry.
    I believe there are 'ghouls, who think they own events', and can keep up a diatribe against anyone who wants to look at them in a different way.

    Whether posters here are that, I don't know, if the cap fits then wear it.

    So when you referred to posters as the usual ghouls, you didn't know if they were ghouls or not. Or if the had perfectly understandable reservations. Just knee-jerk insults.

    Because that sounded like a diatribe to me.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    The film isn't about 'what happened' though. So stop trying to deflect to that. We all know 'what happened'.

    And avoid the 'questions' if you wish, I kinda knew you would.
    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.


Advertisement