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

@ShatnersWig This is what I mean. There is a want for it and people will watch them and for varying reasons.

My sister is studying criminology with psychology and will watch anything like this as she uses them as examples and insight with her degree work. My friend watches them as she just finds them interesting

Italiangreyhound no one would want to see a film about my life it's fairly mundane however I don't believe we should censor filmmakers/artists within the constraints of current laws on harassment and libel/slander which I think strike the right balance. I don't believe a film shouldn't get made based on whether it upsets or offends someone. If we applied that to all subjects nothing would ever get made.

@MyOtherProfile the public interest here is how the press and judicial system chose to deal with two ten year olds. Because we DO treat this crime as different, it's made the public react in a far stronger way to this crime than others and remain obsessed with it decades down the line. I believe looking at the reasons why is in the public interest.

I would be more convinced about the producers motives if he’d spoken with Mrs Bulger before the film was made. I get it’s good to get over the horror and consider the why but not at the expense of the poor families peace of mind. Entirely sensational and salacious.

It should be banned in U.K. controversy is fine but knowingly hurting a family who will grieve forever is not.

I notice that people have gone onto IMDB and rated the film one star without having seen it. And said how appalling it is it was even made.

Go and have a look at all the other films and tv dramas about murderers - some of which, unlike this film, recreate some of the killings even if not the more gruesome elements - and see whether that was done with those.

You can of course guess that it it hasn't happened on those.

Selective humanity.

@Cherry James' mother is Denise Fergus, not Mrs Bulger. Even Radio 5 Live were calling her that the other morning FFS.

Shatner I notice that's common among some of the people who are most horrified for the family. They are so angry and appalled but can't get the victim or his mother's name right

There are entire channels on my telly that are devoted to "true crime". Programme after programme, presented in a simplistic, formulaic way that are obviously pitched as undemanding entertainment. About murders and kidnapping. I don't see any petitions about them, despite all of them being about real people who suffered brutal violent attacks.

But when a filmmaker produces something that is by all accounts at least an attempt to seriously and soberly examine one particular murder, suddenly everyone is up in arms. Why?

I think this murder was societally pivotal in that people lost their fucking collective mind about it. You can still see the ripples now with this petition and the toxic outrage behind it, which reminds me of the immediate aftermath with all the mobs baying for the two boys' blood and using words like evil etc.

This latest response, the hysteria around it at the time and the stuff that has come up over the years, whenever there's any new story to do with it at all provoking a 0-60 eruption of what looks much like irrational rage, does not I think show people in their best light.

ShatnersWig why do you keep harping on about other films! If you want to, why not address this one.

Maybe you simply do not get it!

I am a mum. I have young (ish) kids. This is a forum full of mums. One of my worst nightmares would be what happened to that poor child and his family. Equally the families of the perpetrators of this crime have experienced their own nightmare.

Why are you surprised that people, especially parents, ate outraged on behalf of mother and father?

IMHO this is not a suitable topic for a film to be talked over like 'Gone with the Wind' or 'The remains of the day'!

And others agree.

So if you do want to understand why not engage with what people are saying instead of brining up other examples of where people shamelessly used human suffering to further their own ends?

That is s genuine question. It's not the same as your question so feel free to ignore it.

I'm a mum with young children, it doesn't stop me watching episodes of soaps and drama where children go missing or are unfortunately the victim. It would have been much better if the creative team approached his mum, but they don't have to (as wrong as that seems).

If you don't agree with it, then simply don't watch it.

There are literally thousands of podcasts and YouTube videos on true crime. Many of them are about very recent crimes. Again, I don't believe there are people criticising them.

I understand why his mother is upset but the majority of people commenting on the film haven't even seen it. I do find this case is treated as an exception, which is driven by James' mother. The film makers should have notified her but to say the film should never have been made is nonsense.

Also, good point about people getting Fergus's name wrong. I think this illustrates that all the outrage over it isn't really about her but about people's own personal fears and preoccupations.

There is something about this crime that taps into deep rooted and powerful emotions, and people pin those onto all involved. Fergus isn't just a mother who has lost a child, Thompson and Venables aren't just murderers; they have become almost ciphers for the worst anxieties of parenthood, the darkest fears that generally flash quickly through a parent's consciousness and are dismissed or allayed or otherwise unexamined, like fleeting apprehensions of a boogeyman in a dark room.

But this crime forces people to be confronted with those fears, fears that they cannot really deal with, which I suspect is what drives a lot of the visceral and irrational confrontations in public discourse over it.

ShatnersWig Humaity is indeed selectove. Geerally we care more about the deathofthe you than the I'd (all thohs being equal - e.g. a death in the family verses a news report). Some may need recover fully ft the loss of a child bit smelderly relative we lose, feel sad and move on probably. We as husnd probably react differently to extreme violence or poisoning, in questions of death the most common response seems to be 's as it quick', 'did he suffer' etc.

So we do respond differently. Why does this even surprise you?

In the other cases I do not remember news reports of family members still grieving asking for films not to be made.

RageAgainstTheVendingMachine (fabulous user name)

1. What an appalling waste of money. He could have investigated many things with that money. Things happening now, he chose something sensational for his own benefit IMHO.
2. Then why choose the medium of entertainment? It makes something terrible into something shallow. Like the artist who made a picture of Hindly from children's hand prints. I seriously would not give two hoots for the thoughts of people who pick a sensational violent topic for their own benefit.

Does he imagine the perpetrators and their families are delighted to see this in the news again?

He has helped no one and has caused misery. If he wins it will be a travesty, IMHO.

Producing a film should not produce real suffering in others. The producer of this film knew the response he would get from the family. So he never asked them. I sincerely hope people walk put on mass when it is shown. He has chosen this for his fame. Regardless of making no money from it he hopes it will feather his future nest, IMHO.

@Italian And you say I'm obtuse.

The Myra Hindley TV drama. She killed children. Why no outrage for that like this?

I'm amazed that films about my actual murders etc can be made without consulting family first.......all those who claim they wouldn't have an issue with it. Are you really saying you'd be ok with someone profiting off the back of a film based on your child's torture and murder ??

Like hell you would.

It would be different if the child's immediate family were long gone But they aren't. They're still here and have years of suffering ahead. To do this to them is just cruel.

Samcro The Norwegian case is a weird one. I don't think the response was healthy, if I remember rightly. I read about it a long time ago

I sometimes wonder if 'leniency' is actually a kid of denial. It's too awful to accept kind of thing.

I think our feelings about this case are not a 'monster' they are the right response to violence.

ShatnersWig I've never heard of that Hindley TV drama. I've lived abroad and slso not watched constant IL TV so missed some tv in the last 50 years.

People have explained whu this case is so sensitive and some have said other tv dramas should not have been made. Your response, add in another tv drama! None of them are OK in book.

twattymctwatterson so you see no difference between not upsetting someone in the abstract and making a film about the murder of a child against the parents wishes?

HaroldsSocalledBluetits

"There are entire channels on my telly that are devoted to "true crime". Programme after....suffered brutal violent attacks."

Maybe they were made with the victim or families concent.

We do not know.

In this case we do know, no consent from family.

It's very simple really.

And if you feel concerned about the families of these dramas maybe you could see how people feel concerned for the family of James Bulger.

No one is baying for blood.

We have. not collectively lost our minds for being angry at the death of a toddler.

Society should be appalled.

It is the film maker reviving it now. By choice.

The family will live with it for their lives. The film maker has chosen to bring it back into the public arena.

Thesnobbymiddleclassone kids in the soaps don't really go missing or get killed. So it's totally not the same.

"If you don't agree with it, then simply don't watch it." This is not an effective argument for people living in society together. What others do affects us, even if we do not see them doing it.

HaroldsSocalledBluetits you make some excellent and valid points. But I would say they are all point to why the film should not be made. We don't need to rummage around in true crime stories all the time. Our modern obsession with it is, IMHO, quite disturbing.

I must go to work. Interesting debate yet sadly showing how little is cared about the victims of crime and how much we want to hear about the perpetrators IMHO.

ShatnersWig there are so may typos in my post. I am sorry. Don't bother trying to decipher it. Something tells me we will never agree on this!

This has to be one of the most heinous crimes in my lifetime and I have no desire to watch it. You would have thought the producer would have required consent for the film to be made. Shocking.

People seem to assume that because the medium is film, this is entertainment. Unlike the Hindley, Shipman, West, dramas referenced above which were mainstream and free-to-air, this is a film that does not have a bbfc certificate and therefore cannot be distributed in the UK, it can ONLY have invite only and Film Festival screenings. And it is a short film NOT a 'movie'. If you wanted to see it, you would have to make quite a significant effort.

Not all film is made for entertainment, some is social commentary, some is pure art. This film was long listed for the Oscars because it won in one of the qualifying international festivals. Yes, it raises ethical issues. But it's aim is to ask questions of knee-jerk reactions about evil. And at no point does it depict the murder.

And yes, I have seen it in it's entirety.

While I understand that it's upsetting to quite a few people, most especially the child's mother, I can't really find fault in the film being made. Yes, it makes some uncomfortable, but perhaps they need to look at why it does so? This particular crime seems to have had quite an intense reaction from the general public, even years later, likely because it was committed by children. I sometimes wonder if perhaps people are loathe to look at those two boys more closely because it's easier to just think of them as "evil" and not consider that perhaps there was something in their lives that tipped the scales, so to speak. After all, if two young boys can end up doing something like that in part because of their upbringing, then maybe there are other children out there in similar circumstances. It's likely a bit less alarming for some people to just think "oh, they're just evil - born that way - nothing could have changed that!"

@Italian you say *Maybe they were made with the victim or families consent. We do not know. In this case we do know, no consent from family"

Yes, we do know. Had you read the first page properly you will see I said that none of the families of the victims of Harold Shipman's were asked or gave consent for the ITV mainstream drama entertainment about his murderous spree.

And an actual family member confirmed that was the case on this same thread.

@Sweet thank you for clarifying the difference between this short film and those other dramas I mentioned.

I think all of those show some element of the crimes involved. In the film version of 10 Rillington Place you see Richard Attenborough as Christie murder another character and then achieve orgasm.

This film, unlike pretty much all those mainstream dramas and films, does not show the murder. It is about the interrogations, using the exact words of the officers and the killers.

It's not about agreeing or disagreeing with each other.

"Had you read the first page properly"

So I should have said "In one of the other cases (Shipman) we do know that the family were not consulted."

But we also know that the family of James were not asked for consent and have said they would not give it. Why can't you tackle that issue rather than mentioning other films?

Why does it not matter to you about James' family if you are even debating that other families were not consulted? Or maybe you care but you do not understand why the murder of a toddler by children is different to all the other cases. For me the big difference is the mother has said no, that is the big difference.

In the Shipman case a previous posters said:

"dh's aunt was a victim and no they didnt ask.....

A victim of Shipmans I should say. Mind you apart from the very start of the case her name never gets mentioned now."

So not exactly the same as a whole short film about the boys who murdered your child.