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

FrancieBrady

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

The director is a real snake. He is coming out NOW and releasing all these statements about "regretting" not contacting the parents about the movie and how he didn't want to rake it up for them but he doesn't regret it enough to pull the film eh? And if this awful idea for a movie ever wins awards, he will still walk up and collect the award, he will still use it as a platform to progress his career and he will still be making movies. So his "regret" certainly isn't in any way sincere or limiting him. He knew exactly what he was doing by not contacting the parents.
Of all the things out there in the world he could have picked to make a movie from he picks this. Snake is all he is.

What was he 'doing' by not contacting the parents?

Do you think the parents could have stopped it? All they can do and all they can do now is express their anger that somebody might have a differing view to them.

The only reason you are hearing the director now is because the twitteratti got all outraged when the film got nominated for an award. There was neigh a peep out of them when it was doing the rounds of film festival, was in production or pre-production.

Maybe if he had made a bad film he could have avoided all the hoo ha.

Hannibal_Smith

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

The right to make a film does not belong to Jamie's parents. Nothing will bring back their son.

Advances in medical understanding will be made and we have no idea were that will take us. Fact.

How do you know advances in medical understanding haven't already been made based on this crime?

FrancieBrady

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

How do you know advances in medical understanding haven't already been made based on this crime?

I don't know. Has there been? The human race can never stop progressing or trying to progress how we understand and how we work.

Grandeeod

Mrcaramelchoc wrote: »

Does anyone know where this can be seen?

Keep an eye on RTE. They are planning to show it shortly.

Mrcaramelchoc

Grandeeod wrote: »

Keep an eye on RTE. They are planning to show it shortly.

Excellent thanks.
by the way denise fergus( bulger) book on her side of the story etc is incredible if anyone is interested.its really worth a read.

Wanderer2010

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What was he 'doing' by not contacting the parents?

Do you think the parents could have stopped it? All they can do and all they can do now is express their anger that somebody might have a differing view to them.

The only reason you are hearing the director now is because the twitteratti got all outraged when the film got nominated for an award. There was neigh a peep out of them when it was doing the rounds of film festival, was in production or pre-production.

Maybe if he had made a bad film he could have avoided all the hoo ha.

What he was doing was totally disregarding their feelings and any trauma that may have arisen from this film about their sons absolutely brutal death and a film which seems to paint the two little scumbags who killed him in a slightly compassionate light when really they were born evil and their later years haven't been any different between child porn and conviction after conviction. This director guy knew exactly what he was doing so he could come out now and offer crocodile tears about "regretting" not contacting the parents. If he regretted it that much he would pull the film but of course he wont do that.

I wonder if his 2 year old son was battered to death on a lonely railway track with breeze blocks and paint would he be ok with someone making a film about the killers.

FrancieBrady

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

What he was doing was totally disregarding their feelings and any trauma that may have arisen from this film about their sons absolutely brutal death and a film which seems to paint the two little scumbags who killed him in a slightly compassionate light when really they were born evil and their later years haven't been any different between child porn and conviction after conviction. This director guy knew exactly what he was doing so he could come out now and offer crocodile tears about "regretting" not contacting the parents. If he regretted it that much he would pull the film but of course he wont do that.

I wonder if his 2 year old son was battered to death on a lonely railway track with breeze blocks and paint would he be ok with someone making a film about the killers.

No, he knew that they hadn't liked anyone making films or plays or books so were unlikely to give approval. He did consider it and thought it best not to approach them at all. So he did give regard to the matter.

I haven't, like yourself, seen the film, and would never guess and then get outraged by my guess. Sounds kind of a silly way to proceed to me.

And again, why would he pull the film because he had a regret about not contacting the film?
We all have regrets about stuff, seems a bit drastic when the parents approval or lack of it would not have stopped him making the film in the first place.
The parents don't control this process.

Church on Tuesday

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

What he was doing was totally disregarding their feelings and any trauma that may have arisen from this film about their sons absolutely brutal death and a film which seems to paint the two little scumbags who killed him in a slightly compassionate light when really they were born evil and their later years haven't been any different between child porn and conviction after conviction. This director guy knew exactly what he was doing so he could come out now and offer crocodile tears about "regretting" not contacting the parents. If he regretted it that much he would pull the film but of course he wont do that.

I wonder if his 2 year old son was battered to death on a lonely railway track with breeze blocks and paint would he be ok with someone making a film about the killers.

A fact which is being conveniently overlooked by certain posters here.

I wonder why :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

A fact which is being conveniently overlooked by certain posters here.

I wonder why :rolleyes:

I haven't overlooked that at all, if that dig was directed at me. This subject matter is not pretty, a lot of films and art isn't. That doesn't for a second mean that they are not illuminating and thought provoking. I know you fear that your trite biblical definition of this event might be eroded but then that really is your's and nobody else's problem to deal with.

Church on Tuesday

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I haven't overlooked that at all, if that dig was directed at me. This subject matter is not pretty, a lot of films and art isn't. That doesn't for a second mean that they are not illuminating and thought provoking. I know you fear that your trite biblical definition of this event might be eroded but then that really is your's and nobody else's problem to deal with.

FrancieBrady

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Notice how nobody is suppressing this film? Your problem with it is your own to deal with.

Wanderer2010

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, he knew that they hadn't liked anyone making films or plays or books so were unlikely to give approval. He did consider it and thought it best not to approach them at all. So he did give regard to the matter.

I haven't, like yourself, seen the film, and would never guess and then get outraged by my guess. Sounds kind of a silly way to proceed to me.

And again, why would he pull the film because he had a regret about not contacting the film?
We all have regrets about stuff, seems a bit drastic when the parents approval or lack of it would not have stopped him making the film in the first place.
The parents don't control this process.

He still went ahead and decided to make a film about a subject which is horrifying and upsetting and he knew the family would be very upset by it but he didn't care, he went ahead and did it anyway. And for what reason? To mince his skills as a director? He cant possibly think the world wanted to see a different side to those two little scuts so I don't trust his reason for making this film at all. Its such a morbid topic to make a film about. All the topics in all the world and he makes one about this crime.
He has very little experience in empathy obviously. If it was his son, he would be up in arms but he only wants the exposure and to climb the ladder. Snake in the grass is all he is.

Mrcaramelchoc

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

What he was doing was totally disregarding their feelings and any trauma that may have arisen from this film about their sons absolutely brutal death and a film which seems to paint the two little scumbags who killed him in a slightly compassionate light when really they were born evil and their later years haven't been any different between child porn and conviction after conviction.

.

You cannot say that anyone is born evil.jon venables went that way for whatever reason and by all accounts had a huge part in leading Robert Thompson on to commit the crime.
by the way Robert Thompson hasn't been convicted of anything since the murder.

FrancieBrady

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

He still went ahead and decided to make a film about a subject which is horrifying and upsetting and he knew the family would be very upset by it but he didn't care, he went ahead and did it anyway. And for what reason? To mince his skills as a director? He cant possibly think the world wanted to see a different side to those two little scuts so I don't trust his reason for making this film at all. Its such a morbid topic to make a film about. All the topics in all the world and he makes one about this crime.
He has very little experience in empathy obviously. If it was his son, he would be up in arms but he only wants the exposure and to climb the ladder. Snake in the grass is all he is.

He was always going to make it, regardless of how the family felt. (and he knew how they would feel.)
He made it because he had something to say about the whole thing. You and I and everyone else is free to make up our minds about the value of that.
It seems his peers in the film business think highly enough of what he made to nominate it for an award.
No film maker or artist is going to NOT make work because somebody somewhere might find it offensive even before they see it. It is ridiculous how the outraged always think they are entitled to a response to their outrage.

I have no idea how he would react if it was his son. Why do you keep up with the emotive nonsense.

Wanderer2010

Mrcaramelchoc wrote: »

You cannot say that anyone is born evil.jon venables went that way for whatever reason and by all accounts had a huge part in leading Robert Thompson on to commit the crime.
by the way Robert Thompson hasn't been convicted of anything since the murder.

Oh would you give me a break, isn't he great for not being convicted of anything since the murder, he sounds a lovely chap, ill buy him a pint. 10 years of age is more than old enough to know the difference between right and wrong and they both had their hand/act to play. Pelting a baby with breeze blocks and paint before leaving him to die on a train track is pure evil no matter what age he was, there are too many bleeding hearts out there wanting to "understand" and figure out these monsters.

Church on Tuesday

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Notice how nobody is suppressing this film? Your problem with it is your own to deal with.

Your problem is that you have developed this weird personal agenda against me. Another poster here has described the actions of these thugs as evil in the literal sense (not wrong BTW) and you're not off whinging to that poster.

Thank you for the attention, it's flattering really but you can go play with someone else now. I'm off down pub.

FrancieBrady

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Your problem is that you have developed this weird personal agenda against me. Another poster here has described the actions of these thugs as evil in the literal sense (not wrong BTW) and you're not off whinging to that poster.

Thank you for the attention, it's flattering really but you can go play with someone else now. I'm off down pub.

You have a healthy ego anyhow, I'll grant you that. I'm already in the pub btw. (not the same one, in case you think you are being stalked as well )

donkeykong5

So 200 thousand people have signed a petition against the film. It's not been shown in venues in UK apart from Winchester. BUT RTE WILL be showing it shortly. Says it all!

FrancieBrady

donkeykong5 wrote: »

So 200 thousand people have signed a petition against the film. It's not been shown in venues in UK apart from Winchester. BUT RTE WILL be showing it shortly. Says it all!

What are RTE guilty of this time? Being in league with the d-evil?

Grandeeod

donkeykong5 wrote: »

So 200 thousand people have signed a petition against the film. It's not been shown in venues in UK apart from Winchester. BUT RTE WILL be showing it shortly. Says it all!

Your post is a fookin asshole.

Lirange

Mrcaramelchoc wrote: »

You cannot say that anyone is born evil.jon venables went that way for whatever reason and by all accounts had a huge part in leading Robert Thompson on to commit the crime.
by the way Robert Thompson hasn't been convicted of anything since the murder.

Actually it was the other way around. At least from the point of view of those that worked on the case and particularly those that interviewed them. Venables was characterised as the sexual deviant whilst Thompson was the violent one. Venables was emotional and broke easily under questioning. Thompson, seen as the dominant one, was viewed as arrogant, cold, calculating, and showed no remorse at the time.

Mrcaramelchoc

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Oh would you give me a break, isn't he great for not being convicted of anything since the murder, he sounds a lovely chap, ill buy him a pint. 10 years of age is more than old enough to know the difference between right and wrong and they both had their hand/act to play. Pelting a baby with breeze blocks and paint before leaving him to die on a train track is pure evil no matter what age he was, there are too many bleeding hearts out there wanting to "understand" and figure out these monsters.

Aww Get off the high horse im not defending him or condoning any of it im just pointing out that your factually incorrect.try and do a little research into it and get it right.

donkeykong5

Denise Fergus on claire byrne live tonight on rte1.

RollieFingers

Imagine saying this case needs to be examined to see where they got the idea to abduct and murder a toddler from? Or saying is it not better that he (one of the killers) lives a life than not? Horrible sickos should never have seen the light of day.

donkeykong5

Feel so sorry for denise.

Laois_Man

We hear a lot about Jon Venables - But did you know, there is an English dude who moved from the UK in 2001 to Kilkenny and who was in prison from 2006 to 2016, who claimed while in custody to be the real Robert Thompson





Probably not, - even if his likeness (somewhat), his age and the time of his arrival in Ireland and his scouse accent all do add up!

professore

Well they are human. Humans are capable of great good and great evil. Look at nazi Germany. One of the most civilised countries in the planet at the time.

FrancieBrady

Not sure what purpose was served bringing them over for the CD show. The Academy have already said their piece and it seems to be over - they are not going to cut it.
Denise seemed to be fairly adamant that she wanted editorial control so Lambe is vindicated in not going near them imo.

Nermal

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Advances in medical understanding will be made and we have no idea were that will take us. Fact.

Crime is a moral issue, not a medical one.

RollieFingers

People were saying the director stuck to the facts by only following the transcripts? Denise's husband said the leading detective involved with the case rang him to say it was not a true representation of the interviews, interview room etc.? So that's not true.

Also posters were saying the film isn't about what happened that day, but rather a look at why it happened etc. So why the need to hire a child actor to play James if it's not about what happened that day?

I don't think the film should be banned or censored, but the director showed his true colours by not getting in contact with the family first.

FrancieBrady

RollieFingers wrote: »

People were saying the director stuck to the facts by only following the transcripts? Denise's husband said the leading detective involved with the case rang him to say it was not a true representation of the interviews, interview room etc.? So that's not true.

Also posters were saying the film isn't about what happened that day, but rather a look at why it happened etc. So why the need to hire a child actor to play James if it's not about what happened that day?

I don't think the film should be banned or censored, but the director showed his true colours by not getting in contact with the family first.

The detective would say that, would he not? A lawyer present said it was very accurate.

Depends on who you believe, somebody intent on dissing the director and the film (Denise) somebody who doesn't want to admit to any criticism of how the interviews were conducted (the un-named detective) or somebody with nothing much to gain from telling the truth. (the lawyer)

ohnonotgmail

RollieFingers wrote: »

People were saying the director stuck to the facts by only following the transcripts? Denise's husband said the leading detective involved with the case rang him to say it was not a true representation of the interviews, interview room etc.? So that's not true.

Also posters were saying the film isn't about what happened that day, but rather a look at why it happened etc. So why the need to hire a child actor to play James if it's not about what happened that day?

I don't think the film should be banned or censored, but the director showed his true colours by not getting in contact with the family first.

Not a true representation how? The directors claims to be working from the transcripts of the interview. Either they were or they weren't. It should be pretty simple for somebody to say how the film diverges from the transcripts.

gerrybbadd

Laois_Man wrote: »

We hear a lot about Jon Venables - But did you know, there is an English dude who moved from the UK in 2001 to Kilkenny and who was in prison from 2006 to 2016, who claimed while in custody to be the real Robert Thompson





Probably not, - even if his likeness (somewhat), his age and the time of his arrival in Ireland and his scouse accent all do add up!

Ya, that ain't him. Denise Fergus has an idea where he is, I think off in Europe somewhere.

Venables new identify was leaked again there before the xmas, with photos of him doing the rounds. He looks totally different than the first set of leaked photos of him

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Not a true representation how? The directors claims to be working from the transcripts of the interview. Either they were or they weren't. It should be pretty simple for somebody to say how the film diverges from the transcripts.

I think Denise said the detective was talking about the environment the interviews were conducted in, not the transcripts as such.

There is difference of opinion clearly on that. As a lawyer who was present verifies that the film got it spot on.

Again, as well as wanting to have editorial control over the cast, Denise wanted control over how the interviews were depicted. Intolerable interference for any serious film maker to consider going near.

Laois_Man

gerrybbadd wrote: »

Ya, that ain't him. Denise Fergus has an idea where he is, I think off in Europe somewhere.

Venables new identify was leaked again there before the xmas, with photos of him doing the rounds. He looks totally different than the first set of leaked photos of him

Actually, Denise Fergus claimed at the time that she didn't know whether it is him or not, that she couldn't get a straight answer about it rom the UK authoraties, and called for the Irish Government for full disclosure

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/TELL+ME+THE+TRUTH%3B+EXCLUSIVE+Jamie%27s+mum+in+call+for+answers+over...-a0145740874

Another similarity between Thompson and Walsh is, Walsh stabbed his pregnant girlfriend after getting wound up by a movie he had watched the night before. Exactly the same as the attack on little Jamie!

And Ireland counts as "off in Europe somewhere"

py2006

gerrybbadd wrote: »

Venables new identify was leaked again there before the xmas, with photos of him doing the rounds. He looks totally different than the first set of leaked photos of him

I never saw them.

Presumably he has had surgery over the years to alter his appearance.

gerrybbadd

Laois_Man wrote: »

Actually, Denise Fergus claimed at the time that she didn't know whether it is him or not, that she couldn't get a straight answer about it rom the UK authoraties, and called for the Irish Government for full disclosure

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/TELL+ME+THE+TRUTH%3B+EXCLUSIVE+Jamie%27s+mum+in+call+for+answers+over...-a0145740874

Another similarity between Thompson and Walsh is, Walsh stabbed his pregnant girlfriend after getting wound up by a movie he had watched the night before. Exactly the same as the attack on little Jamie!

And Ireland counts as "off in Europe somewhere"

What? How is the exact same? And it's James. Not Jamie

weldoninhio

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

What he was doing was totally disregarding their feelings and any trauma that may have arisen from this film about their sons absolutely brutal death and a film which seems to paint the two little scumbags who killed him in a slightly compassionate light when really they were born evil and their later years haven't been any different between child porn and conviction after conviction. This director guy knew exactly what he was doing so he could come out now and offer crocodile tears about "regretting" not contacting the parents. If he regretted it that much he would pull the film but of course he wont do that.

I wonder if his 2 year old son was battered to death on a lonely railway track with breeze blocks and paint would he be ok with someone making a film about the killers.

Have you seen the film?? Or is the bolded part just waffle and conjecture??

Laois_Man

gerrybbadd wrote: »

What? How is the exact same? And it's James. Not Jamie

Do your own research

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/chucky-films-defended-1468498.html

Sardonicat

Laois_Man wrote: »

gerrybbadd wrote: »

Ya, that ain't him. Denise Fergus has an idea where he is, I think off in Europe somewhere.

Venables new identify was leaked again there before the xmas, with photos of him doing the rounds. He looks totally different than the first set of leaked photos of him

Actually, Denise Fergus claimed at the time that she didn't know whether it is him or not, that she couldn't get a straight answer about it rom the UK authoraties, and called for the Irish Government for full disclosure

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/TELL+ME+THE+TRUTH%3B+EXCLUSIVE+Jamie%27s+mum+in+call+for+answers+over...-a0145740874

Another similarity between Thompson and Walsh is, Walsh stabbed his pregnant girlfriend after getting wound up by a movie he had watched the night before. Exactly the same as the attack on little Jamie!

And Ireland counts as "off in Europe somewhere"

Thompson is known to be gay with a longterm partner.

Mrcaramelchoc

Denise was saying on the claire byrne show( by the way claire its james not jamie) that all she wanted was to be consulted about the film.i seriously doubt she would have agreed to anything in it if she was consulted.

retro:electro

I don’t think it’s too much to ask to be sympathetically contacted pre production to a film which details the gruesome murder of your little boy. Put yourself in her shoes; a film is being made about the death of your little boy, there’ll be another little boy who resembles him playing his part, and yet you haven’t even had as much as a courtesy heads up call from the director to let you know the worst moment of your life is about to resurface again, oh and it might even get Oscar nominated.
I’ve no objections to the film itself being made but I can understand her total annoyance at the ignorance of those involved.

FrancieBrady

Mrcaramelchoc wrote: »

Denise was saying on the claire byrne show( by the way claire its james not jamie) that all she wanted was to be consulted about the film.i seriously doubt she would have agreed to anything in it if she was consulted.

Did you miss the bit where she said she wouldn't have agreed with the child actor and that she didn't agree with the portrayal of the interview environment?

conorhal

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Not a true representation how? The directors claims to be working from the transcripts of the interview. Either they were or they weren't. It should be pretty simple for somebody to say how the film diverges from the transcripts.

You don't have to diverge from a transcript at all to present two very different versions of a story, film is a visual medium, you can stick to a script but imply a lot through the direction of the actors, use of music etc.


Sure here's Mrs Doubtfire.... as a horror movie..

The opposite is also true, sure a skilled enough editor could probably even cut the film to resemble a comedy!

With hours and hours of transcripts, little of which is likely to make it into a short film, it sort of depends on what is left out and what is left in.
You only have to glance at that Covington Catholic school furore to see how selectively editing the facts you choose to present can completely change a story.

fitznyc

There'd be no 'scouse accent' either, as both Venables and Thompson are believed to have been taken far from Merseyside right after the murder, and were under restrictions not to be allowed back to the area....does look a little like how he may have ended up though.

RollieFingers

The acting in the trailer looks awful too, hopefully this gets nowhere near an Oscar.

valoren

I am looking forward to seeing this.

Hermy

Mutant z wrote: »

I have absolutely no hesitation in describing those children now adults as pure scum of the earth and yes they are absolutely evil for brutally torturing a defensless toddler to death in the most horrific way possible which they have never shown an ounce of remorse for so forgive me if I don't follow your advice because the simple fact is they are cold blooded killers who should have rotted in prison for the rest of their lives.

So you think two children should be allowed to rot in a prison cell?
What does that make you?

RollieFingers

Hermy wrote: »

So you think two children should be allowed to rot in a prison cell?
What does that make you?

Someone who thinks a human who murders a toddler in the horrific way they did to James should rot in a cell I'm guessing? I agree totally with the poster.

Hermy

So just like the two murderers you think it's okay to treat children in a horrific way?