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

PS I did read the first page properly, I just didn't include the comments on Shipman.

Tackle what?

I agree entirely with shatners

ShatnersWig Tackle the issue of the thread, which is the short film made about the boys who murdered James Bulger - is it OK that that man made the film, is so why? Not the questions about other films about other murders that you have introduced?

Is it only OK in your mind to make this film because other films have been made of other murders?

Italiangreyhound 'is it OK that that man made the film?'

Yes it is. It's social criticism, it has sparked debate. That is what the film intended to do.

Is it ok that Denise Fergus is upset? No. But the director has made attempts to engage that have been rejected. And let's not forget that she also wrote a book that is still available and puts the story into the public domain.

Is it ok that people who haven't seen the film pile in and make assumptions? Well, yes and no. It is a public debate, but they should confine themselves to what they know and not what they assume.

This case was/is a matter of public interest and concern for anyone of an age to remember. We won't agree, but censoring discussion would be abhorrent.

But the thread starts off from an erroneous point to begin with @Italian. It clearly assumes, because the OP is responding in a knee jerk fashion to something she's probably heard somewhere. Talks about Hollywood when this is not a mainstream general release film, as we've said, and someone making money out of it, which again, isn't accurate either.

My position is abundantly clear.

I see no reason why it is MORE wrong for this man to make a short film about the interrogation of these two boys which will not be seen by millions or people, using the actual words from the interrogations, than a mainstream film that will be seen by millions and which very often includes some form of recreation of the actual murders.

People have said it's wrong because the family weren't asked.

I reply but that - rightly or wrongly - is seemingly the norm when it comes to these things. Except in those cases, they are dramas and basically set out to dramatise these events and including the actual murders as a form of entertainment.

This film does not dramatise the actual murders. It is not an entertainment.

It examines how the two killers were interrogated using their exact words in the transcripts, to potentially look at why
a) the boys did what they did
b) whether their treatment in the interview room was appropriate bearing in mind their age
c) whether it was then appropriate to try them as adults simply because of the public outrage
d) whether we can learn anything from it.

In many ways, this thread is highlighting something as to why the filmmaker chose to make it. We, as a society, have treated this particular crime, and these particular killers DIFFERENTLY. Huge swathes of the population respond differently to anything concerning this case, even compared with other similar cases. Why?

If people say this film should not have been made, they are perfectly within their rights to do so. I neither agree nor disagree because I have not seen the film. I think it is perfectly valid to ask why people feel such outrage and vitriol about this when in many cases those same people will have absolutely chosen to watch those designed at entertainment. Which is blatantly obvious when there have been no outcries about those other examples I've given.

Excellent post @SweetLathyrus thank you. Just because people may feel intense discomfort at the thought of the film doesn't make you right or the filmmaker wrong. You have an opinion that's all. I have an opinion too but it's just that. Not a fact.

ShatnersWig 'outrage and vitriol' there you go again. Outrage yes, it was a most appalling crime.

But vitriol? The malice is in the film maker not those of us commenting on it.

Yes, this is a serious crime, it has affected the psyche of a nation and will affect the family until they die.

There is no doubt there may be serious issues which could be addressed and looked at by experts. However, IMHO, a film with an Oscar nomination was not the way to go.

The person who produced this, knowing how it would be received has done a shameful thing IMHO.

I'm tired of talking about this appalling case. A serious lack of empathy in our modern world.

"It is not an entertainment." One of the few things we can agree on. I think I will end it there and hide this thread.

Anyone agreeing with me, here is the petition.

www.change.org/p/the-oscars-stop-the-james-bulger-movie-from-being-shown-and-taken-off-the-oscars-short-list

Definition of entertainment "The action of providing or being provided with amusement or enjoyment."

I don't think that is what the director was aiming at with this film and whilst I have huge sympathy with the family it shouldn't be banned. No one is being forced to watch it.

Absolutely, ShatersWig.

I think that the level of moralistic vitriol reserved for this small-scale indie film (which has already won several prizes) is completely and interestingly at odds with the level of breathless prurience shown on the lengthy thread about whether people knew real-life murderers or serial killers

This!

People make films about ‘real life’ events all the time. This is no different.

Italian you seem to be under the impression that the director either asked for or simply gave himself an Oscar nomination! You clearly don't understand the process.

And as for stoping it being shown - IT ISN"T! do you not get that? It can't be publicly distributed in the uk as it currently stands. Of course another Film festival might show it (though I doubt it), you can go and wave your placard then, but you still won't have seen it, and won't actually know what stance it takes.

As I said above, stick to what you know, not what you assume.

I assume @Italian has gone. That petition she and many others are urging people to sign wants to stop the film being shown, have the Academy remove its nomination and then it adds the following:

"If any movie is being made that involves real life stories should always check with the victims families before they start filming and should be law"

How the bloody hell would you bring that into law? How on earth would you police that? What is a "movie" according to the woman that started the petition? Does that include TV documentary series? Why would you not extend it to books? Should newspapers and TV news programmes not cover stories about real life crime unless they have cleared it with the victim's families?

Added to which it only says "check with the families" - check what? Check they are aware it's being made? Or check they are happy with it? Fine - introduce that precise wording. Doesn't say that they can't then MAKE the film once the families have been checked.

This is yet another point - knee jerk, knee jerk. No actual thought about what they are asking for. It's like people forwarding stuff on Facebook without checking the facts.

And if you ban these films, you have to follow through and ban the books. Or would it be that the victims and families are allowed to write book but not the anyone else?

Are you advocating censorship by linking that petition, Italian?

I think people are misunderstanding the type of film this is,and the type of director Vincent Lambe is. I haven't seen it, but I know some of his earlier work. It's a self-financed (because he couldn't get backing) half-hour short -- his other work has been mostly much shorter shorts about troubled boys and bullying. At least one, Broken Things, is available for free online on Vimeo. He's not some bigshot like Spielberg, he's a serious-minded smalltime director whose films have won festival awards but been very obscure.

And this outrage isn't doing him any favours because everyone is screaming about a film they can't actually see, because no TV station has bought it, his contract with his distributor means he can't post it online for free like some of his other shorts, and no UK cinemas will show it, even though all proceeds would go to the James Bulger Memorial Trust.

I mean, I'm not defending a film I haven't seen, and am unlikely to get to see, but the outrage makes no sense, given the extent to which half our TV/fictional entertainment consists of prurient accounts of 'true crime', going out nightly on commercial TV, and generating money off the back of other people's suffering with no thought for the victims and their families.

Excuse me while I just go a little off topic to prevent this thread becoming fodder for the tabloid press:

Fuck off daily Mail, this is what you get when you argue that Media Studies isn't a legitimate subject - people with no media literacy. But that suits you doesn't it?

You are quite right, Parthenope.

I did think Denise Fergus wrote a book about the murder. I had a quick look and only part of the profits went to a memorial fund. I'm in two minds about how I feel about this also being honest as that doesn't feel quite right to my own personal view; I can't imagine doing the same but I also can't imagine the torture of living the nightmare of knowing what happened to her son.

@Justanother You are quite correct. The charity's own website says that "a donation from all book sales will go to the James Bulger Memorial Trust". Not "all proceeds" or "all profits". Very interesting choice of wording isn't it?

But I should say that the level of critical thinking and media literacy on this thread is far superior to the one when the film was first shortlisted.

Chapeau!

I'm another one who can't get too worked up about this.

I read about the murder of James Bulger, and it's really gut-wrenchingly awful, and so for the parents, they will never get over what happened. But, as many others have pointed out, we have films, documentaries and books written about terrible crimes all the time. How many films have been made about 9/11? Or as others have said, Dr Shipman, Rose West. Because the case shook so many people, it inevitably becomes a subject of art such as this.

Its one of those incidents there is absolutely no entertainment or educational value in.

Bet they picked it to make a name for themselves.

the mother of the murdered child writing a book is different. she is a victim and anything she does to help herself should not be judged.
this "film" will not help anyone. it is not "art" its just sick.
I often think that the reason people still feel strongly about this is because they still think of the killers being children, as there are no adult pictures, they remain children and it confuses people. even when they go on to commit new crimes as in one case.
didn't this man use the image of James being taken?

I wasn't judging re the book writing and my post indicated as much. I said I wasn't sure how I felt about the fact that it seems that not all the profits from the writing of the book were donated to the memorial fund. This is true, I'm not fully comfortable, the wording re this is ambiguous as Shatnerswig states. But I don't know the full facts.

Vincent Lambe is hardly Michael Bay, if you look at his body of work Kezzie

I don't think it's a good idea to ban the film.

I feel immense sympathy for James' family.
I grew up in Liverpool, I was about 18 when it happened. The shock and anger at what happened was so strong.
However, as others have said, the film seeks to question what made the two boys do such a terrible thing, their police questioning etc.
I didn't buy Denise's book, but interesting wording regarding the proceeds.