Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Thompson And Venables Have A Human Side? Right Oh!
74 Answers
https:/
This Lambe Geezer wants to have good hard look at himself.
Lambe: "Mr Lambe said: 'I have enormous sympathy for the Bulger family and when I think about what they've been through it breaks my heart.'" - so much so he's going to put them through the ringer again! lowlife.
This Lambe Geezer wants to have good hard look at himself.
Lambe: "Mr Lambe said: 'I have enormous sympathy for the Bulger family and when I think about what they've been through it breaks my heart.'" - so much so he's going to put them through the ringer again! lowlife.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ooo name calling.....Whilst what those boys did was dreadful they were only 10 years old and had not had, from what I have read, the best of upbringings. Truelife stories of abduction and murder crop up on the tv and at cinemas regularly to very little comment...certainly not name calling of the director/producers..... People who think this is in bad taste do not have to see it...indeed if the population as a whole feel the same itwill be boycotted.....but I bet that doesn't happen
Since I've not seen the film I can't comment on whether it's 'sympathetic' or not but I suspect that it simply portrays the two offenders as what they actually were, two ten year old little boys who in at least one case had not had a great start in life. If you portray them as that then elements of it are bound to be considered 'sympathetic' because the whole thing from beginning to end was an utter tragedy.
I was introduced to someone else recently who had a film made about their father (and I by sheer dumb coincidence I had auditioned to play his mother- never been so glad I didn't get something) and he is absolutely cut up about that film, but he does recognise that a film is not a documentary and there are only so many themes you can pick up ( especially in a short film) and horrible though their experience is Jamie Bulger's parents have to respect the public's interest in this and the film maker's decision to not portray things purely from their angle. I do feel awfully sorry for them though.
I was introduced to someone else recently who had a film made about their father (and I by sheer dumb coincidence I had auditioned to play his mother- never been so glad I didn't get something) and he is absolutely cut up about that film, but he does recognise that a film is not a documentary and there are only so many themes you can pick up ( especially in a short film) and horrible though their experience is Jamie Bulger's parents have to respect the public's interest in this and the film maker's decision to not portray things purely from their angle. I do feel awfully sorry for them though.
I've worked with enough ten year olds to know that these two knew exactly what they were doing. They should have stayed in a supervised environment on a permanent basis.
I can't imagine the type of person who would want to make this film but doing so without speaking to the parents because he feared they wouldn't allow him tells me much. I hope this ends his career.
I can't imagine the type of person who would want to make this film but doing so without speaking to the parents because he feared they wouldn't allow him tells me much. I hope this ends his career.
There might (just possibly) be a case for making this film in about 60 years time when all the people who were involved are dead - although I'm not sure that it would serve any useful purpose even then.
The whole thing stinks of meretricious self-publicity on behalf of the film-maker - "If I make this contentious film then people will know who I am and my career is assured".
I hope it backfires in a spectacular way and he sinks without further trace.
I concur with others who have said (here and elsewhere) that the murderers knew exactly what they were doing and as such abdicated all rights to any normal life - for an 'artist' to seek to make money/reputation on the back of such evil is vile.
The whole thing stinks of meretricious self-publicity on behalf of the film-maker - "If I make this contentious film then people will know who I am and my career is assured".
I hope it backfires in a spectacular way and he sinks without further trace.
I concur with others who have said (here and elsewhere) that the murderers knew exactly what they were doing and as such abdicated all rights to any normal life - for an 'artist' to seek to make money/reputation on the back of such evil is vile.
Oddly, despite my often draconian stance in regards to murderers etc I do believe that they egged each other on to a degree and their upbringing played a part.
They were certainly demonised in the press with claims of horrors that simply hadn’t happened(I recall paint being poured into his eyes was one claim that was subsequently shown to be a fabrication).
I’m in no way justifying what they did, far from it, just trying to gain a little understanding.
Furthermore, don’t forget that despite the incomprehensible act they committed they were only just deemed fit for trial by virtue of age, whereby the judge decided on their criminal liability, if memory serves me correctly.
In the eyes of some they were still way short of the age where they assume full responsibility(14 years of age in this country).
They were certainly demonised in the press with claims of horrors that simply hadn’t happened(I recall paint being poured into his eyes was one claim that was subsequently shown to be a fabrication).
I’m in no way justifying what they did, far from it, just trying to gain a little understanding.
Furthermore, don’t forget that despite the incomprehensible act they committed they were only just deemed fit for trial by virtue of age, whereby the judge decided on their criminal liability, if memory serves me correctly.
In the eyes of some they were still way short of the age where they assume full responsibility(14 years of age in this country).
Indeed 'Helter Skelter' is about Charles Manson and Tarantino isdoing 'Once upon a time in Hollywood' about Manson again. I'm assuming out of deference for the way Roman Polanski and the other victims families might feel about it no-one will watch it? People make films about murders and horrific happenings where some of the people concerned are still alive all the time and no-one bats much of an eyelid, why is this different?
Unusually (and I apologise for it), I have to say that I think age is relevant here.
You do need to be over the age of about 40 to have adult memories of what went on at the time and how it scarred the national consciousness - in a way that Shipman and even West didn't.
It was just appalling - an order of magnitude worse than any other single act of evil in my lifetime - but it's quite understandable that younger people just don't have the emotional response that the older generation do.
You do need to be over the age of about 40 to have adult memories of what went on at the time and how it scarred the national consciousness - in a way that Shipman and even West didn't.
It was just appalling - an order of magnitude worse than any other single act of evil in my lifetime - but it's quite understandable that younger people just don't have the emotional response that the older generation do.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.