Film about James Bulger killers being nominate for an Oscar

[Wigwambam10]

So wrong on so many levels but I think the thing that makes it worse is that the family of James were not asked about the film the the first place.

Hollywood will just see it as a film but for goodness sake there is a family still grieving who will always be grieving for the rest of their lives and someone is making money from it all. Just doesn’t sit well with me

The case was heartbreaking and its notoriety in this country means the outcry would be the same as if there was an Oscar short on Madeleine or Ben.
I can totally understand how James's mum feels but at the same time I do think how the boys were questioned is in the public interest and how we can learn from such cases. Compare here:
www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2010/mar/20/norway-town-forgave-child-killers
I have just seen the trailer and 3 scenes from the short on youtube.
The boys' performances are astonishing.

@twatty No, I haven't either, in eight years, which is why I mentioned the so many of those things earlier. I gather the director himself now says he should have notified the family.

i always wonder about that town in Norway. did the parents forgive? were they ok with their childs killer being unpunished? (off to google)
I don't think this film should have been made, but then I don't watch films about Rl child murders. just not something I would enjoy.

The director keeps saying he didn't wish to upset the family

And yet he made no effort to speak with them.

I think what makes this different from the other plots mentioned above is that it is just one victim's family involved so it would have been very easy to speak with them.

I don't really understand why showing the questioning of the boys is in the public interest. But then I don't go and see any films about real life murders or attacks.

It's different because this is about a tiny child whose mum we all grew to relate to through the media coverage. It is more personal than some of the others.

If you honestly can't imagine at all why mums especially would be upset over this then that's a bit strange.

Also, I'm autistic and have been accused of being very black and white about things - but even I don't see the logic in "if we accept one film about a murder/event then we have to accept them all unquestioningly".

I'm also sure that plenty of people do have opinions on films about the holocaust and other calamities for entertainment's sake. Would you object to them complaining because you know, art and precedent?

Myother do an advanced search and see how many threads there have been on this crime over the years and you'll see the public interest. Ironically the op is perpetuating the public interest that she's upset about (as are many of the other ops over the years). We, the public have created this monster

@NopeNi There are a lot of elderly people who lived through the Moors Murders and while the children weren't as young as James, they were still children. There was huge media coverage of that too. Yet where was all the indignation about the Maxine Peake mainstream drama about Myra Hindley?

Where has anyone on this thread said "if we accept one film about a murder/event then we have to accept them all unquestioningly"? They haven't. They have asked why is it that some people see this one in such a different light?

I remember it all as if it were yesterday. It was lynch mob mentality after those two boys. I can understand that anger. I can't understand why it was felt acceptable to try them as adults. They were not adults.

Is it a good film then?

@twattymctwatterson there's a world of difference between the public being interested in something and it being in the public interest. The two mean very different things.

ShatnersWig and Parthenope 'vitriol'?

The vitriol (bitter criticism or malice)? I see the malice in the man who would choose his subject matter of the film as the violent murder of a toddler by two children. The shock factor is what he wanted, regardless of who he hurt. That's malice to me.

Parthenope "Imoralistic .. reserved for this small-scale indie film (which has already won several prizes)..."

Who give a s fuck that it's a small indie film. 'Moralistic' try using he word human! I can't imagine why any person would choose to profit from another person's suffering in this way. That's a human response not s moralistic one.

ShatnersWig I'm not interested on answering your question. I'm pointing out that I think your question is irrelevant. Two wrongs do it right. Should tgis poor Sam need to engage over the shopmsn's murder and Fred and Rose West to make the point this is utterly appalling and irresponsible film making needlessly causing suffering to benefit some person?

We really are losing our humanity.

For the record I didn't watch the other films you mentioned bit o did know of them and I am disappointed on all actors who shamelessly make entertainment from real life suffering.

You know the reason this is so terrible, ShatnersWig. You are being obtuse. Amy murder is terrible. Of course it will be reported on. Documentaroes are made. The public needs to be informed. But tgis is entertainment, it's sick and I hope actors do stay away and people refuse to go see the film.

twattymctwatterson "I don't believe in censorship" what nome at all?

Anyone can see anything?

If someone followed you around and made a film about your life that would be ok?

Ooopse... Two wrongs do it right!! Epic fail.

Two wrongs do not make a right

Sorry that's a lot of typos!

Should this poor woman need to engage over the Shipman's murders and Fred and Rose West....

"Yet where was all the indignation about the Maxine Peake mainstream drama about Myra Hindley?"

I think it's because we relate differently to one victim than many. Not sure why we do but that's often the way.

I also never watch this type of thing as I'm hypersensitive and find them quite damaging. But to me the very fact that the reaction to this film is different says something and should be listened to.

Society's response shouldn't be "well yes your toddler's been murdered, but we can do whatever we want about their life story, because Midsomer Murders sets a precedent you know."

The right to free speech usually comes along with the unspoken social rule of compassion about what you choose to say.

is it a good film then?

Hard to say with only having seen part of it. It is such an emotive story that it is hard to view it objectively as a piece of film: the actor playing Jon Venables, accent aside, is extraordinary.

These children were ten and so, it does revive debate on:
age of criminal responsibility
how we question/cross examine juveniles
nurture/parental accountability/neglect
how you punish such a crime/rehabilitate young offenders

Lambe said: "The public opinion at the moment now is that those two boys were simply evil and anybody who says anything different or gives an alternate reason as to why they did it or tries to understand why they did it, they get criticized for it.

"I think we have the responsibility to try and make sense of what happened."

The detective in the case is not happy with the film though as he thinks there was an awful lot of aggression depicted in the interviews
and their environment was different.

"The building they used, it looked like some disused warehouse, whereas we went to inordinate lengths to make sure where they were was comfortable. It was closed for prisoners.

"They had drinks, they had crisps...You had solicitors, a social worker with them and the parents. It was all very convivial."

                                                                               (source:bbc)

I am not being obtuse at all.

You say this film is entertainment.

So was the ITV drama about Fred and Rose West. So was the ITV drama about Shipman, So was the ITV drama about Myra Hindley. I seem to think some of those won awards. All of those will be seen by far more people than this film.

You say you didn't watch those films. Oddly enough, nor did I. Nor will I watch this one. But there was not ONE THREAD about the fact that none of those dramas should have been made. Not ONE THREAD saying how disgraceful if was that the directors of those didn't get the approval of the families of the victims. Where was the thought for them on MN? And in the media?

Lots of people - and again, I am not necessarily saying incorrectly - say this film should not have been made. You talk about people's humanity. It seems to me that humanity is very, very selective.

Personally I hate all films that are dramatisations of recent news stories. We all saw it on the news with the real people. Its so easy to twist the story to suit their view of it this way if not change things altogether.

Why is it any different from any other dramatisation of a murder?
Lots of productions are made with relatives still living, I'm sure everyone isn't consulted.
There is an unnatural obsession with this case.

@Xmas I gather the TV ones I mentioned earlier are dramas and obviously create a lot of scenes that are supposition or based on conversations. This film is based solely on the actual transcripts, I believe.

Yes all these films are wrong imo. Using other people's pain and suffering as entertainment and to profit from and those involved have no say in it and get none of the proceeds which to be fair they probably wouldn't even want. If it were possible I would ban the lot.

It's a hard situation to judge.

You can understand why the family are upset and it must be hell watching the events play out again and have to relive it every single day.

But as others have said, what makes it different to other dramas involving notorious crimes? There have been quite a few in recent years as the viewing public clearly want to watch them. We've had shows/films about:

10 Rillington Place
Three Girls
The People Vs OJ (American yes)
Doctor Death (Shipman)
Myra Hindley

And there are more. There are also episodes of shows such as Frost, Midsommer murder and similar that are based on real cases.

NopeNi "I think it's because we relate differently to one victim than many. Not sure why we do but that's often the way."

It's true. That's why charities shoe adverts and feature one sick child or one person malnourished. As humans we relate to another human, especially a child, especially a small child. Pur protective instinct kicks in. I think it is just a human response. Of charities showed us lines and lines of people on need we may feel overwhelmed, what can I do kind of thing.

""I think we have the responsibility to try and make sense of what happened."

I expect there are 100 ways one could try and make sense of what happened', but most would not involve fame (or infamy and an Oscar).

1. The film is based solely on transcripts and shows the interrogation.
2. There have been no profits, it was self-produced at 40000 pounds.
3. The director claims it is not entertainment rather it is an examination of motive to effect social change.

Show not shoe!

@Thesnobby And only yesterday there was a new documentary on serial killer Ted Bundy released on Netflix which uses his actual taped recorded interviews.