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! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Irish directed film on James Bulger comes under criticism for humanising the killers
Comments
-
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »I actually think branding people as ‘evil’ is far too easy and helps in no way. You are ignoring his upbringing by disregarding that it could in any way have influenced his actions.
You say you had an abusive childhood. Were you encouraged to visciously fight your siblings with adults egging you on? When you were scarcely three years old? And remember, he committed the crime whilst still a child. He hadn’t even become a teenager. He still had a greatly immature mind because he was a child, that had been subjected to abuse for probably all his life to that point. The abuse bordered on animalistic. I would consider what I have read about his abusive upbringing to be far outside the norm. I don’t think many people who had abusive childhoods were in that league.
When considering the crime, you cannot disregard the abusive environment he came from. You can’t sweep it aside and say “Well that had nothing to do with it”.
When you look at the backgrounds of serial killers, so many of them had extraordinarily fücked up childhoods above and beyond even the abusive norm. They still going to go to prison but I can’t understand why people completely disregard the effects of fücked up formative years experiences. These happen when the brain is fast developing. Why wouldn’t these experiences have a huge effect?
Nobody is disregarding his childhood. Did you even read my post? I open with... Nobody is disregarding his childhood and go on to say its definitely a contributing factor.
There's no easy answer here. It's shocking and awful how he was raised and what he was subjected to my his parents but it still doesn't explain why he did what he did.0 -
Nobody is disregarding his childhood. Did you even read my post? I open with... Nobody is disregarding his childhood and go on to say its definitely a contributing factor.
There's no easy answer here. It's shocking and awful how he was raised and what he was subjected to my his parents but it still doesn't explain why he did what he did.
Why do you think that?
I did read your post. It boiled down to “his childhood was horrific but he was still just evil”. And then vague comments about just as “many” people having equally horrific childhoods. When I read about his childhood, I thought it sounded like an absolute outlier in terms of the viciousness, not something that would have happened to “lots” of people. Much like the mindbendingly effed up childhoods of both Fred and Rosemary West. There is just no way they weren’t molded by their weird, violent childhoods.
Why are people so offended by the suggestion that extreme experiences in the formative years can have a huge effect? It’s not like they were not going to be jailed because of it. Thompson and Veneables were not going to be allowed to roam free on account of it.
I think people just find it more comforting and neat to think that some people are just born that way. Evil/Not Evil - much less messy.0 -
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »Why do you think that?
I did read your post. It boiled down to “his childhood was horrific but he was still just evil”. And then vague comments about just as “many” people having equally horrific childhoods. When I read about his childhood, I thought it sounded like an absolute outlier in terms of the viciousness, not something that would have happened to “lots” of people. Much like the mindbendingly effed up childhoods of both Fred and Rosemary West. There is just no way they weren’t molded by their weird, violent childhoods.
Why are people so offended by the suggestion that extreme experiences in the formative years can have a huge effect? It’s not like they were not going to be jailed because of it. Thompson and Veneables were not going to be allowed to roam free on account of it.
I think people just find it more comforting and neat to think that some people are just born that way. Evil/Not Evil - much less messy.
Nobody is born evil. You're almost entirely a product of your environment and upbringing.0 -
gerrybbadd wrote: »Nobody is born evil. You're almost entirely a product of your environment and upbringing.
Agreed.0 -
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »Why do you think that?
I did read your post. It boiled down to “his childhood was horrific but he was still just evil”. And then vague comments about just as “many” people having equally horrific childhoods. When I read about his childhood, I thought it sounded like an absolute outlier in terms of the viciousness, not something that would have happened to “lots” of people. Much like the mindbendingly effed up childhoods of both Fred and Rosemary West. There is just no way they weren’t molded by their weird, violent childhoods.
Why are people so offended by the suggestion that extreme experiences in the formative years can have a huge effect? It’s not like they were not going to be jailed because of it. Thompson and Veneables were not going to be allowed to roam free on account of it.
I think people just find it more comforting and neat to think that some people are just born that way. Evil/Not Evil - much less messy.
I'm not offended by the suggestion that their childhoods had an effect on their behaviour. I agree with you, how could it not. Even things like violent video games and horror movies have an effect. I do also believe personality comes into play. I think some people are born with an inherent badness in them and they will end up being horrible people regardless of their upbringing. I know a few dickheads who had very privileged childhoods, they're still dickheads. Conversely, someone could have a horrific childhood but go on to be a lovely person.0 -
I'm not offended by the suggestion that their childhoods had an effect on their behaviour. I agree with you, how could it not. Even things like violent video games and horror movies have an effect. I do also believe personality comes into play. I think some people are born with an inherent badness in them and they will end up being horrible people regardless of their upbringing. I know a few dickheads who had very privileged childhoods, they're still dickheads. Conversely, someone could have a horrific childhood but go on to be a lovely person.
And some environmental influence would have caused that, it just doesn't happen for all.
Why the need to employ an archaic biblical influence escapes me.0 -
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »Why do you think that?
I did read your post. It boiled down to “his childhood was horrific but he was still just evil”. And then vague comments about just as “many” people having equally horrific childhoods. When I read about his childhood, I thought it sounded like an absolute outlier in terms of the viciousness, not something that would have happened to “lots” of people. Much like the mindbendingly effed up childhoods of both Fred and Rosemary West. There is just no way they weren’t molded by their weird, violent childhoods.
Why are people so offended by the suggestion that extreme experiences in the formative years can have a huge effect? It’s not like they were not going to be jailed because of it. Thompson and Veneables were not going to be allowed to roam free on account of it.
I think people just find it more comforting and neat to think that some people are just born that way. Evil/Not Evil - much less messy.
I don’t subscribe to the whole evil/not evil debate I think it boils down to a combination of factors ones childhood and also ones physiological makeup, in certain rare individuals it is a toxic combination that results in them committing horrific sadistic crimes for pleasure also coupled with the key factor lack of empathy/remorse.
I do not believe for one second that there aren’t many other children that were raised in horrific circumstances just like Thompson in this city and across the globe (And yes I have read about his childhood background in great detail) yet they DO NOT carry out crimes like Thompson, the crime took place in 93 and there has been possibly one other crime like it since then.
From researching his time in a care facility it is quite evident that Thompson displayed psychopathic traits, no remorse (not phased by his crime) obsession with himself (watching the news broadcasts on the case everyday) extremely manipulative.
My main issue is that I am not comfortable with an individual like above who is a murderer capable of barbaric brutality being free amongst the general population, an individual whos identity is hidden therefore he could be my next door Neighbour yet I don’t have a right to know because he is protected.
We had a case here in Ireland recently which immediately drew comparisons in my mind with this one, I will not name names as I do not want to cause an issue with the thread but the pattern of behavior was evident, a very disturbed individual from a very young age who then in adulthood committed horrific crimes and luckily for the victim they survived on another day they may not have. If he was locked up in a suitable facility that wouldn’t have happened. He had a terrible background which I’m sure is a great comfort to his victims. Whilst a terrible background should be taken into account in trying to understand the reason for someone committing a crime it should never be an excuse.
I personally believe that Venables and Thompson should not have been released at 18. I find it disturbing that they were coddled in care and tiptoed around, Thompson lived it up and manipulated that to his advantage every need catered for and look where we are now, Venables had been uploading and sharing violent child porn with peadophile groups online over a number of years even whilst being closely monitored who knows what he would have done if he wasn’t being watched and as for Thompson perhaps he is a different person however I wouldn’t be convinced of that I would say just a lot more cunning than Venables. Again a terrible background is an empty excuse and one which would offer little comfort to their victims.0 -
It’s so hard to know what to do with child on child murder re: lifelong incarceration. It’s much easier with adults. It’s easy to say than an Anders Breivik or Ted Bundy or Rosemary West should never be released.
But child murderers are so rare and the fact that they were still mentally developing when they killed just makes it so much harder to judge.0 -
Mr. Incognito wrote: »People are complex. They are not divided into "evil" and "good"
Yes, but it's easy to sort everything that way. Black vs. white, left vs. right and so on. It's easier to just call them evil and move on without any uncomfortable examination.0 -
Advertisement
-
Has this film been released yet at all? Where would you watch it? I see it's a half hour long - how does Lambe expect to "humanise" Venables & Thompson in that short a time frame0
-
gerrybbadd wrote: »Has this film been released yet at all? Where would you watch it? I see it's a half hour long - how does Lambe expect to "humanise" Venables & Thompson in that short a time frame
It has been on the film festival circuit.0 -
I presume not one person on this thread so far has actually seen this film as of yet.
Maybe people should hold fire until at least one person has watched it?0 -
He is coming across well now on Ryan Tubridy explaining why he didn't contact the parents.0
-
Read the file on what they actually did to him during the murder it made me feel ill reading it starting feeling off I had to stop0
-
-
Advertisement
-
Mr. Incognito wrote: »
Hitler won Times Man of the Year in 1937 for Bringing Germany back from the great depression.
.
Man of the Year was based solely on influence, not on whether the person was admirable.0 -
Some people are just bad though - sure, their environment determines how far they'll go, but we all know people who are just dreadful cruel bullies and have had a perfectly fine upbringing. To do what those boys did to James, you'd have to have a terrible upbringing really - but I think you'd also have to have inherent badness. Or evil - it's just a descriptive word.Yes, but it's easy to sort everything that way. Black vs. white, left vs. right and so on. It's easier to just call them evil and move on without any uncomfortable examination.
The fact that good people can be conditioned to do awful things does make people uncomfortable, but so does the fact that some other people are just horrible without any outside cause.
"Everyone is essentially good but how they turn out depends on nurture" is a nice idea - and one I believed in for a long time, but it's not true.0 -
donkeykong5 wrote: »Why ! Because he has no manners. No respect. No empathy. Is it ?
I think his empathy is what's gotten him into trouble pal.0 -
Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »Some people are just bad though - sure, their environment determines how far they'll go, but we all know people who are just dreadful cruel bullies and have had a perfectly fine upbringing. To do what those boys did to James, you'd have to have a terrible upbringing really - but I think you'd also have to have inherent badness. Or evil - it's just a descriptive word.
The fact that good people can be conditioned to do awful things does make people uncomfortable, but so does the fact that some other people are just horrible without any outside cause.
"Everyone is essentially good but how they turn out depends on nurture" is a nice idea - and one I believed in for a long time, but it's not true.
By studying cases like this and asking questions you can see how easy it is to lose control of society.
You can see work like this as a warning to societies in danger of going out of whack and refocus social services and parents and people in general
In that sense work like this is very worthy and more important than inaccessible theory and specialised texts0 -
Hopefully it will be shown at the Dublin International Film Festival.
Schedule not published as of yet though.
https://www.diff.ie/festival/films0 -
Advertisement
-
Lack of !donkeykong5 wrote: »Why ! Because he has no manners. No respect. No empathy. Is it ?
I think his empathy is what's gotten him into trouble pal.0 -
Empathy towards the killers if towards anybody.
If this guy made this movie and said he was donating all the money generated to the James Bulger Memorial Trust or to our mental health services or criminal psychology units to help understand and therefore prevent such cases from ever happening again, then hats off to the guy. I probably still wouldn't watch the documentary but I would at least believe it was made with good cause and hope for a greater society.
Right now, I believe Vincent lambe made the documentary as he knew the shock value would raise not only publicity and outrage but also his professional profile and ultimately his bank balance.0 -
Read the file on what they actually did to him during the murder it made me feel ill reading it starting feeling off I had to stop
Its absolutely horrendous that two kids did this to another kid. Half of it didn't come out in court.
I would have made it my life long mission to hunt them down and torture them in the same way they did to him if that had been my son.
Kids like that don't come back from that.0 -
Empathy towards the killers if towards anybody.
If this guy made this movie and said he was donating all the money generated to the James Bulger Memorial Trust or to our mental health services or criminal psychology units to help understand and therefore prevent such cases from ever happening again, then hats off to the guy. I probably still wouldn't watch the documentary but I would at least believe it was made with good cause and hope for a greater society.
Right now, I believe Vincent lambe made the documentary as he knew the shock value would raise not only publicity and outrage but also his professional profile and ultimately his bank balance.
What you are saying is that Lambe wanted a quick way to fame and profit.
He never expected this film to get a nomination, which has exponentially raised it's profile among the ...ahem...permanently outraged twitteratti, redtop media.
There were easier ways to shock and draw attention.
It played at film festivals without 'outraging anyone' and only drawing praise from what I can see/research.
Those only taking notice of it now that it has received acclaim from film making peers might be the ones that need to assess whether they are bandwagoning.
P.S. It is doubtful a film such as this will ever make more than wages for those who made it, if even that. So as a get rich scheme, he would have had easier ways too.0 -
Right now, I believe Vincent lambe made the documentary as he knew the shock value would raise not only publicity and outrage but also his professional profile and ultimately his bank balance.
He made it because he's a filmmaker and sometimes stories need to be told from a different perspective, even stories that the masses want to forget about.
He definitely should have consulted the family and it was insensitive not to, but it's got nothing to do with wanting to further his career. People are only saying that because it's quite good. They're overlooking the fact that if it was sh*t then that, combined with the subject matter, would kill his career. It's a flawed argument.0 -
gerrybbadd wrote: »Has this film been released yet at all? Where would you watch it? I see it's a half hour long - how does Lambe expect to "humanise" Venables & Thompson in that short a time frame
It's based I believe on the police transcripts when they interviewed them. In terms of humanising I would look at the movie Jaws and Quint's famed Indianapolis speech. In four minutes of screen time, this speech humanises Quint. Before he was this one dimensional, irascible salty sea dog but his retelling of his experience forms a much fuller and human character.
In short, he himself, is scared of sharks and has PTSD. He has been so affected by it that he dedicated his life to hunting them. He refuses to wear a life jacket for example and Brody and Hooper empathise with his experience. That changes a person. It helps explain why he is a curmugeonly and cantankerous man. This was a movie with a man eating shark, there are graphic scenes and jump scares aplenty yet for me the scariest scene is Quint, sitting at a table, slightly tipsy, recounting his backstory. Our vivid imaginations filling in the blanks with empathetic dread and the primal fear as we think what it must have been like waiting for a rescue while simultaneously hoping you don't get ripped to pieces.
In terms of the Bulger movie, it might be the same approach. Humanise two ten year olds with their high pitched voices detailing to Police what they have done to a toddler, speaking about the graphic details of the murder and it scaring the **** out of us as we picture their words in our minds and imagining what that poor child endured.0 -
He made it because he's a filmmaker and sometimes stories need to be told from a different perspective, even stories that the masses want to forget about.
He definitely should have consulted the family and it was insensitive not to, but it's got nothing to do with wanting to further his career. People are only saying that because it's quite good. They're overlooking the fact that if it was sh*t then that, combined with the subject matter, would kill his career. It's a flawed argument.
Obviously stories need to be told from varying perspectives and I'm fascinated by what drove these boys to do what they did. I read books about serial killers all the time, I'm so intrigued by what drives this kind of behaviour. I don't want to forget about it and couldn't even if I tried. I've listened to the transcripts multiple times over the years and have read books from the Sergeants point of view and Denise's point of view. I'm all for seeing it from all sides.
He knew, given how high profile a case this was, that it would garner huge attention and controversy whether it was well made or not. Either way he was putting his name on the map. He wanted to further his career and used this case as a way of doing that. It was never going to be boring or a bad film, how could it be, the story is absolutely gripping. He didn't have the decency to ask the familys permission as, in his own words, he knew they'd say no. That makes him an indecent, insensitive opportunistic dickhead in my eyes.0 -
It's based I believe on the police transcripts when they interviewed them. In terms of humanising I would look at the movie Jaws and Quint's famed Indianapolis speech. In four minutes of screen time, this speech humanises Quint. Before he was this one dimensional, irascible salty sea dog but his retelling of his experience forms a much fuller and human character.
In short, he himself, is scared of sharks and has PTSD. He has been so affected by it that he dedicated his life to hunting them. He refuses to wear a life jacket for example and Brody and Hooper empathise with his experience. That changes a person. It helps explain why he is a curmugeonly and cantankerous man. This was a movie with a man eating shark, there are graphic scenes and jump scares aplenty yet for me the scariest scene is Quint, sitting at a table, slightly tipsy, recounting his backstory. Our vivid imaginations filling in the blanks with empathetic dread and the primal fear as we think what it must have been like waiting for a rescue while simultaneously hoping you don't get ripped to pieces.
In terms of the Bulger movie, it might be the same approach. Humanise two ten year olds with their high pitched voices detailing to Police what they have done to a toddler, speaking about the graphic details of the murder and it scaring the **** out of us as we picture their words in our minds and imagining what that poor child endured.
Humanise them??
This is what those 2 evil frakking cvnts did to him. (taken from wiki)
You could torture those 2 pricks for the rest of their lives and it still wouldn't be enough of a sentence.
James Bulger being abducted by Thompson (above Bulger) and Venables (holding Bulger's hand) in an image recorded on shopping centre CCTV
One of the boys threw blue Humbrol modelling paint, which they had stolen earlier, into Bulger's left eye.[21] They kicked him, stamped on him and threw bricks and stones at him. Batteries were placed in Bulger's mouth and,[22] according to police, some batteries may have been inserted into his anus, although none were found.[3] Finally, the boys dropped a 22-pound (10.0 kg) iron bar, described in court as a railway fishplate, on Bulger.[23][24][25] He sustained 10 skull fractures as a result of the bar striking his head. Dr Alan Williams, the case's pathologist, stated that Bulger suffered so many injuries —42 in total— that none could be isolated as the fatal blow.[26] Thompson and Venables laid Bulger across the railway tracks and weighted his head down with rubble, in the hope that a train would hit him and make his death appear to be an accident. After they left the scene, his body was cut in half by a train.[27] Bulger's severed body was discovered two days later on 14 February.[8] A forensic pathologist testified that he had died before he was struck by the train.[27]
Police suspected that there was a sexual element to the crime, since Bulger's shoes, socks, trousers and underpants had been removed. The pathologist's report, which was read out in court, found that Bulger's foreskin had been forcibly retracted.[23][28] When Thompson and Venables were questioned about this aspect of the attack by detectives and a child psychiatrist, Dr Eileen Vizard, Thompson and Venables were reluctant to give details; they also denied inserting some of the batteries into Bulger's anus.[3][17][29] At his eventual parole, Venables's psychiatrist, Dr Susan Bailey, reported that "visiting and revisiting the issue with Jon as a child, and now as an adolescent, he gives no account of any sexual element to the offence0 -
Humanise them??
This is what those 2 evil frakking cvnts did to him. (taken from wiki)
You could torture those 2 pricks for the rest of their lives and it still wouldn't be enough of a sentence.
James Bulger being abducted by Thompson (above Bulger) and Venables (holding Bulger's hand) in an image recorded on shopping centre CCTV
One of the boys threw blue Humbrol modelling paint, which they had stolen earlier, into Bulger's left eye.[21] They kicked him, stamped on him and threw bricks and stones at him. Batteries were placed in Bulger's mouth and,[22] according to police, some batteries may have been inserted into his anus, although none were found.[3] Finally, the boys dropped a 22-pound (10.0 kg) iron bar, described in court as a railway fishplate, on Bulger.[23][24][25] He sustained 10 skull fractures as a result of the bar striking his head. Dr Alan Williams, the case's pathologist, stated that Bulger suffered so many injuries —42 in total— that none could be isolated as the fatal blow.[26] Thompson and Venables laid Bulger across the railway tracks and weighted his head down with rubble, in the hope that a train would hit him and make his death appear to be an accident. After they left the scene, his body was cut in half by a train.[27] Bulger's severed body was discovered two days later on 14 February.[8] A forensic pathologist testified that he had died before he was struck by the train.[27]
Police suspected that there was a sexual element to the crime, since Bulger's shoes, socks, trousers and underpants had been removed. The pathologist's report, which was read out in court, found that Bulger's foreskin had been forcibly retracted.[23][28] When Thompson and Venables were questioned about this aspect of the attack by detectives and a child psychiatrist, Dr Eileen Vizard, Thompson and Venables were reluctant to give details; they also denied inserting some of the batteries into Bulger's anus.[3][17][29] At his eventual parole, Venables's psychiatrist, Dr Susan Bailey, reported that "visiting and revisiting the issue with Jon as a child, and now as an adolescent, he gives no account of any sexual element to the offence
What's worse is, not all of the forensic evidence was read out in court. Some of what they did to James was not disclosed.0 -
Also, just because people don't want to see a film made about the case does not mean that they want it swept under the carpet or are afraid to accept that these boys were human and not just plain evil. Give society some credit. The reason alot of people don't want a film to be made about this case is because it's one of the most deplorable, horrific, sickening cases of all time with one of the killers going on to reoffend as an adult paedophile.
Nobody should make money from this but I bet Vincent lambe isn't short a few bob from it.0 -
Advertisement
-
8.8 on imdb ... typical "liberals", and people wonder why sensible people are leaving the left in droves and why Trump won.0
-
Humanise them??
This is what those 2 evil frakking cvnts did to him. (taken from wiki)
You could torture those 2 pricks for the rest of their lives and it still wouldn't be enough of a sentence.
James Bulger being abducted by Thompson (above Bulger) and Venables (holding Bulger's hand) in an image recorded on shopping centre CCTV
One of the boys threw blue Humbrol modelling paint, which they had stolen earlier, into Bulger's left eye.[21] They kicked him, stamped on him and threw bricks and stones at him. Batteries were placed in Bulger's mouth and,[22] according to police, some batteries may have been inserted into his anus, although none were found.[3] Finally, the boys dropped a 22-pound (10.0 kg) iron bar, described in court as a railway fishplate, on Bulger.[23][24][25] He sustained 10 skull fractures as a result of the bar striking his head. Dr Alan Williams, the case's pathologist, stated that Bulger suffered so many injuries —42 in total— that none could be isolated as the fatal blow.[26] Thompson and Venables laid Bulger across the railway tracks and weighted his head down with rubble, in the hope that a train would hit him and make his death appear to be an accident. After they left the scene, his body was cut in half by a train.[27] Bulger's severed body was discovered two days later on 14 February.[8] A forensic pathologist testified that he had died before he was struck by the train.[27]
Police suspected that there was a sexual element to the crime, since Bulger's shoes, socks, trousers and underpants had been removed. The pathologist's report, which was read out in court, found that Bulger's foreskin had been forcibly retracted.[23][28] When Thompson and Venables were questioned about this aspect of the attack by detectives and a child psychiatrist, Dr Eileen Vizard, Thompson and Venables were reluctant to give details; they also denied inserting some of the batteries into Bulger's anus.[3][17][29] At his eventual parole, Venables's psychiatrist, Dr Susan Bailey, reported that "visiting and revisiting the issue with Jon as a child, and now as an adolescent, he gives no account of any sexual element to the offence
The sexual element to the crime was one that was strongly denied by the boys and one which was never proven from the pathologists perspective however the chief investigator kirby upon first visiting the crime scene immediately felt it was a sexual crime committed by an adult/paedophile, with Jon Venables’ conviction as an adult for uploading violent child porn which included rape of toddlers one would strongly suspect that there was indeed a sexual element, great rehabilitation at work there.0 -
He knew, given how high profile a case this was, that it would garner huge attention and controversy whether it was well made or not.
The trailer came out seven months ago, and only now we're talking about it, which should tell you that much of the controversy has stemmed from its success and not the release.
There's honestly zero evidence to say he did it to further his career. You say you're fascinated by what drove the lads to commit the murder, so why is it unthinkable that the filmmaker was also fascinated and that was his primary motivation?0 -
The word “humanizing” keeps popping up here, and I’m wondering if that was the intent of the film maker, or did he just make a film based around the interviews - I read somewhere else that they were verified as completely accurate, which makes me think it may just be that part in people which has instinctive empathy towards kids in trouble, rather than any intent on the filmmakers part to “humanize”.0
-
He knew, given how high profile a case this was, that it would garner huge attention and controversy whether it was well made or not. Either way he was putting his name on the map. He wanted to further his career and used this case as a way of doing that. It was never going to be boring or a bad film, how could it be, the story is absolutely gripping. He didn't have the decency to ask the familys permission as, in his own words, he knew they'd say no. That makes him an indecent, insensitive opportunistic dickhead in my eyes.
The film was released and screened without any 'outrage' and the twitterati outraged didn't notice it. It was only when it was nominated for an award (something he could not have depended on or influenced) that they whipped up the hounds.
It gives the complete lie to your amateur psychology. And whoop de doo, film maker wants to further his career by making the best film he can shocker! Your amateur detective work needs some attention too. :rolleyes:0 -
Hector Savage wrote: »8.8 on imdb ... typical "liberals", and people wonder why sensible people are leaving the left in droves and why Trump won.
You seem to think making a film about an atrocity is the same as condoning the people who committed the atrocity.
Steven Speilberg - Gives a thumbs up to the Holocaust for making Schindlers List
Steve McQueen - Thinks slavery was OK as he made 12 Years A Slave
Can you see how warped your point of view is now?0 -
You seem to think making a film about an atrocity is the same as condoning the people who committed the atrocity.
Steven Speilberg - Gives a thumbs up to the Holocaust for making Schindlers List
Steve McQueen - Thinks slavery was OK as he made 12 Years A Slave
Can you see how warped your point of view is now?
Yeah I do remember how in Schindlers list Spielberg humanised the SS officer who would just pick off jews from his bedroom window... that bastard!!0 -
Hector Savage wrote: »Yeah I do remember how in Schindlers list Spielberg humanised the SS officer who would just pick off jews from his bedroom window... that bastard!!
A good example of 'humanising' a character which happens to be an evil kunt.
Ralph Fiennes spoke about how he was to portray Goth and not reduce it to just being your cardboard cut out Hollywood nazi psycho.
People believe that they’ve got to do a job, they’ve got to take on an ideology, that they’ve got a life to lead; they’ve got to survive, a job to do, it’s every day inch by inch, little compromises, little ways of telling yourself this is how you should lead your life and suddenly then these things can happen. I mean, I could make a judgment myself privately, this is a terrible, evil, horrific man. But the job was to portray the man, the human being. There’s a sort of banality, that everydayness, that I think was important. And it was in the screenplay. In fact, one of the first scenes with Oskar Schindler, with Liam Neeson, was a scene where I’m saying, 'You don’t understand how hard it is, I have to order so many—so many metres of barbed wire and so many fencing posts and I have to get so many people from A to B.' And, you know, he’s sort of letting off steam about the difficulties of the job.
So shooting people from a balcony in and of itself is one dimensional. You know it's horrific. What Fiennes is getting at here, by fleshing out a character, is comparing the idea that some people have high pressure jobs and relieve the stress by say swimming or working out. For Amon Goth, in a high pressured job, shooting prisoners from his balcony was his way of relieving stress. Murdering on a whim is for him as banal as going for a brisk walk. He is humanised and not a one dimensional monster anymore.
[Supervising the incineration of bodies buried near Plaszow] Can you believe this? As if I don't have enough to do, they come up with this? I have to find every rag buried up here and burn it. The party's over, Oskar. They're closing us down, sending everybody to Auschwitz … as soon as I can arrange the shipments, maybe 30, 40 days. That ought to be fun.
So hundreds of Jews have been 'liquidated'. They must be dug up and burned. Goth doesn't see that, he's only concerned about the stress more workload is causing him, pissed off about the paperwork he has to do and wound up about the red tape it will involve all while piles of bodies are burning around him. He's missing the bigger picture and instead focused on hating his job. Just like other people can hate their jobs. He is humanised in that way.
An approach in the Bulger film could be similar where the murderers might conflate torturing and murdering a child as to them being the same as killing an ant or a ladybird on the ground, shooting birds or kicking around a dead kitten i.e. they don't get what the fuss is about whereas the police and the audience recoil in horror thinking wtf? How is their frame of reference so warped? How come they can't grasp the enormity of what they've done? It would most certainly not be a 'telpis' portrayal of them.0 -
Hector Savage wrote: »8.8 on imdb ... typical "liberals", and people wonder why sensible people are leaving the left in droves and why Trump won.
What a daft post.0 -
Advertisement
-
FrancieBrady wrote: »The film was released and screened without any 'outrage' and the twitterati outraged didn't notice it. It was only when it was nominated for an award (something he could not have depended on or influenced) that they whipped up the hounds.
It gives the complete lie to your amateur psychology. And whoop de doo, film maker wants to further his career by making the best film he can shocker! Your amateur detective work needs some attention too. :rolleyes:
What detective work? When did I claim to be a detective? I also haven't added any amateur psychology. I said I'm fascinated by serial killers and have read loads of books about the likes of Dahmer and the Wests. Not claiming that brings me any closer to understanding them or their actions.
Of course he wanted to make a good film and obviously it is very well made, that's got nothing to do with my point. Your post is ridiculous.0 -
What detective work? When did I claim to be a detective? I also haven't added any amateur psychology. I said I'm fascinated by serial killers and have read loads of books about the likes of Dahmer and the Wests. Not claiming that brings me any closer to understanding them or their actions.
Of course he wanted to make a good film and obviously it is very well made, that's got nothing to do with my point. Your post is ridiculous.
The amateur 'detective' deduced that there was sinister intent in wanting to make a film to further his career.
And the amateur 'psychologist' reckons that his only motivation was notoriety and therefore wealth.
BOTH are based on supposition that are not borne out by fact.0 -
Hector Savage wrote: »8.8 on imdb ... typical "liberals", and people wonder why sensible people are leaving the left in droves and why Trump won.
its good so? i might give it a watch0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »The amateur 'detective' deduced that there was sinister intent in wanting to make a film to further his career.
And the amateur 'psychologist' reckons that his only motivation was notoriety and therefore wealth.
BOTH are based on supposition that are not borne out by fact.
It’s your opinion that Lambe didn’t aim to profit or gain notoriety, it’s the posters opinion that it was Lambes aim, you mention the posters opinion is not borne out by fact but you don’t know that, only Lambe does, it’s a board of opinions at the end of the day0 -
Calltocall wrote: »It’s your opinion that Lambe didn’t aim to profit or gain notoriety, it’s the posters opinion that it was Lambes aim, you mention the posters opinion is not borne out by fact but you don’t know that, only Lambe does, it’s a board of opinions at the end of the day
Yes I do know that.
He couldn't have known that he would get a nomination, thousands of short films are made every year.
There is no financial reward to be gained from a short film and the same thousands lose money mostly.
So either he was very stupid in the path he chose or he is just a sincere film maker responding to stories and events that interest him.0 -
Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »"Everyone is essentially good but how they turn out depends on nurture" is a nice idea - and one I believed in for a long time, but it's not true.
I get you, and I agree that some people are incapable of being 'good' for sure despite all the best efforts of those influencing them. I see nature vs. nurture as a hardware vs. software issue. The hardware can only be compensated for so much by good software and bad software can ruin a good machine.
If they're born such that they can't be helped to be 'good' by outside influence I don't think it's any fairer to completely vilify them than if they had been brought up badly.
I'm not saying we shouldn't still condemn bad acts, society's disapproval has its role as a correcting factor and our justice system keeps society safe, orderly and tries to steer people in the right direction.
I think at the point that something like the Bolger killing has happened it makes more sense to try and understand why rather than just point fingers at the evil doers. There's a reason they acted the way they did and be it nature, nurture or more likely a combination of both, I think it's ultimately beyond their control.0 -
Advertisement
-
FrancieBrady wrote: »Yes I do know that.
He couldn't have known that he would get a nomination, thousands of short films are made every year.
There is no financial reward to be gained from a short film and the same thousands lose money mostly.
So either he was very stupid in the path he chose or he is just a sincere film maker responding to stories and events that interest him.
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.0 -
I get you, and I agree that some people are incapable of being 'good' for sure despite all the best efforts of those influencing them. I see nature vs. nurture as a hardware vs. software issue. The hardware can only be compensated for so much by good software and bad software can ruin a good machine.
If they're born such that they can't be helped to be 'good' by outside influence I don't think it's any fairer to completely vilify them than if they had been brought up badly.
I'm not saying we shouldn't still condemn bad acts, society's disapproval has its role as a correcting factor and our justice system keeps society safe, orderly and tries to steer people in the right direction.
I think at the point that something like the Bolger killing has happened it makes more sense to try and understand why rather than just point fingers at the evil doers. There's a reason they acted the way they did and be it nature, nurture or more likely a combination of both, I think it's ultimately beyond their control.
You make good points, your last one however is one point that galls me about this case, I don’t want to veer too far off course but if you look at say the crime which is in the papers and news here at the moment of a foreign lady being brutally murdered allegedly by someone close to her you will see that the suspect in this case is clearly suffering from severe mental health issues, in these types of cases you can say it’s beyond their control however I have never believed that to be in the case of James Bulger, if you look at the two boys, they tried to cover their tracks, denied their actions when questioned, displayed cunning/manipulation etc, imo they knew exactly what they were doing.
I believe there are two ends of the spectrum to this case, on one end the burn them at the stake/execute them mob believing they are evil incarnate and at the other end would be the near apologists/the excuse seekers because of their traumatic childhoods etc. I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle, two bad kids (for various reasons including background) with malice intent who battered and tortured a two year old to death for kicks, at least one of them in all probability was a psychopath albeit a very young one.
Now for me once they commit an act like they did they forfeit sympathy, I don’t care for any deep insightful questions into their childhood such as omg what went wrong in their childhoods must of been horrific, oh the poor things it’s just terrible etc etc etc my only concern from then on is how do we protect society, my kids, your kids, our loved ones etc from individuals like this, what is the fitting punishment that needs to be dealt out to show that there are serious consequences for butchering a toddler, that they would not be coddled in care and probed by shrinks and soothed to ensure they are not upset. Strong punishment is required for horrific crimes like this as it protects all of us, if we skew it too far in the favour of the criminal which I sometimes think the judiciary here do we are failing to protect our communities and society as a whole. In this case I do not believe they received a fitting punishment they were coddled and released far too early, their rehab stint clearly hasn’t worked for Venables. While Lambe’s sentiment in making this film is nice I think it’s bs, there will unfortunately always be thousands upon thousands of kids that have bad upbringings and then there will unfortunately be the one in a million like venables/thompson who have the toxic combination of a bad upbringing and the key, a lack of an empathy switch, all of the documentaries/short films in the world won’t change that and our focus should be on how we protect society from such individuals.0 -
Calltocall wrote: »You make good points, your last point however is one point that galls me about this case, I don’t want to veer too far off here but if you look at say the crime which is in the papers and news here at the moment of a foreign lady being brutally murdered by allegedly someone close to her you will see that the suspect in this case is clearly suffering from severe mental health issues, in these type of cases you can say it’s beyond their control however I have never believed that to be in the case of James Bulger, if you look at the two boys, they tried to cover their tracks, denied their actions when questioned, displayed cunning/manipulation etc, imo they knew exactly what they were doing.
I believe there are two ends of the spectrum in this case, the burn them at the stake/execute them mob believing they are evil incarnate and the other end would be the near apologists/the excuse seekers because of traumatic childhoods etc. I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle, two bad kids (for various reasons including background) with malice intent who battered and tortured a two year old to death for kicks, at least one of them in all probability was a psychopath albeit a very young one.
Now for me once they commit an act like they did they forfeit sympathy, I don’t care for any deep insightful questions into their childhood such as omg what went wrong in their childhoods must of been horrific etc etc etc my only concern from then on is how do we protect greater society, my kids, your kids, our loved ones etc from individuals like this, what is the fitting punishment that needs to be dealt out to show that there are serious consequences for butchering a toddler, that they would not be coddled in care and probed by shrinks to sooth them and ensure they are not upset. Strong punishment is needed for horrific crimes like this it protects all of us, if we skew it too far in the favour of the criminal which I sometimes think the judiciary here do we are failing to protect our communities and greater society. In this case I do not believe they received a fitting punishment they were coddled and let out far too early and their rehab clearly hasn’t worked for Venables, while Lambe’s sentiment in making this film is nice I think it’s bs, there will unfortunately always be thousands upon thousands of kids that have bad upbringings and then there will unfortunately be again the one in a million kids like venables and thompson who have the toxic combination of a bad upbringing and the key lack of the empathy switch, all of the documentaries/short films in the world won’t change that and our focus should be more on how do we protect society from such individuals.
Excellent post and I agree with every word. I think you've very eloquently hit the nail on the head.0 -
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.
Again with the cut rate psychology.:rolleyes: Take a look at his career, he is motivated by interest in stories and people.
Yes, he even says it in the interview. Nobody making a short film is motivated by making money. If you knew what you were talking about you would know that is ridiculous.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.0 -
Calltocall wrote: »... in these type of cases you can say it’s beyond their control however I have never believed that to be in the case of James Bulger, if you look at the two boys, they tried to cover their tracks, denied their actions when questioned, displayed cunning/manipulation etc, imo they knew exactly what they were doing.
Someone with mental health issues can manipulate and plot like a pro, they could plan a murder long in advance, but what leads them down that path is what I believe is beyond their control. Condemn the act and lock them away for the safety of society, but it all stems from something that we should try to understand.
I think we'll eventually understand the proximate causes of human behaviour like this and we'll able to reliably predict or even treat people like them, but not any time soon.
That said, I doubt any documentary is going to shed useful light on anything.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement