‘DISGUSTED and UPSET’! Murdered toddler James Bulger's mother slams Oscar nominated short

I really want to see this now. The short films are my favourite Oscar category and this case horrified me in my youth.

That those young boys killed this baby and that the Home Office released mug shots of the was simply disastrous.

Both killers were given permanent protection upon release via new identities. One had to be given three over time as he was discovered and outed. The same one was discovered with child porn twice, and went back to prison.

This is a trigger case in the UK, and still a source of outrage that the (now) men are being protected. Although there were some other notorious child killers (Mary Bell), this torture murder of a toddler by other young children marked a sort of loss of innocence of the British.

The UK is a joke.

I want to see the short, as well.

Very stupid to release the mug shot photos due to the public outrage. The authorities regretted almost immediately as they then had to protect them from vigilantes. Jon Venables, the one caught with child porn, had such distinctive eyes that he has been identified many times since. What a shit show. Robert Thomson, the ring leader, is apparently gay and in a long term relationship.

I feel sorry for Bulger’s mother’s pain, but artistic inspirations of events have nothing to do with the events themselves. She simply has to get used to it.

It would help if Jon Venables could keep his gob shut. Or if he would at least learn that being "Jon Venables , the guy who murdered a little boy" is not something to brag about at the pub. Or does he just do that when he's become sick of an identity and wants the public to pay costs for him to be relocated yet again, and given a new name and life, yet again?

[quote]slain UK toddler James Bulger

Whitey, Jr.?

He’s a lost cause.

JESUS that was '93? I remember this case. I didn't know one of those little pricks was caught with child porn. I do remember somehow seeing a photo of one of the guys.

[quote] In hindsight, I think we probably should have got in touch or just let her know that we were going to make it... We never imagined the film was going to get this level of attention when we were setting out to make it.

What kind of clueless idiot would make a film like this and not recognize from the OUTSET that they needed to at least "get in touch" with the victim's family? I am no victims' rights advocate, not by a longshot, but I can't believe that a filmmaker would be so tone-deaf. If the filmmaker doesn't realize something so obvious, then what kind of insight can they really provide into this story?

[quote] Robert Thomson, the ring leader, is apparently gay and in a long term relationship.

I've read that the rumour about Thompson being gay was deliberately spread in order to put people off the scent and minimise the chances of him being identified. Of course, that's a rumour about a rumour, so take it with a pinch of salt - but it's certainly plausible.

R10. Exactly right. What a load of shit coming from the film maker. He's exploiting a murdered child for his own perverse reasons, money, notoriety, voyeurism, who knows? Out of respect for James and his mother I won't be watching this.

Stupid filmmaker. If you're going to be this big an asshole at least make it a feature. Now you've pissed of the world for a fucking short.

Hedging his bets, he was very unlikely to get an Oscar nomination out of a feature!

"I'm incredibly sorry for any upset that the film has caused to them; it was never intended to bring any more anguish to the Bulger family," the filmmaker told RTE.

What utter rot his apology is. How can anyone be sorry for a premediated decision that was months, if not years in the making?

[quote]We never imagined the film was going to get this level of attention when we were setting out to make it.

Nonsense, of course he knew. Even in the unlikely event he hadn't heard much about it previously, he would have found out very quickly while doing his research how notorious and high-profile the case was and still is. The fact is that the parents, who have agreed to be interviewed for documentaries over the years, would not have agreed to a re-enactment, and the director was aware of that.

I'm sure Lambe believes in his project, but I'm not sure I could do that, knowing what the family had gone through.

As sad as it is she needs to leave well alone, it was over 25 years ago and she continues to pop up any time a piece of work appears regarding murdered children. Fair enough this is actually about THE crime itself and not a similar one, but the amount of times she appeared on British TV/papers any time something happened. I'll never forget this bitch actually causing Hollyoaks to cancel an entire storyline because she didn't like it, despite it not being remotely similar to what happened to her son.

The family doesn't have a monopoly on the fact that the murders happened and the subsequent shitshow, over two decades ago. It was a major news event. If you considered what "the family" of any event had to say about it, very little would be published at all.

Enough time has passed, I think it was such a newsworthy item that it deserves to be explored on film.

Hell, they were putting out 9-11 movies within a year of the event.

I hope the short wins in its category.

Yes and Broadway producers made bank off the backs of 9/11 victims with Come From Away, a cutesie musical comedy about the attack. Some people, like, Lambe, have no shame.

You need shame for an event that happened over two decades ago? It's historical now.

R18, there have been documentaries made already without any problem. As you say, the parents have no 'right' to prevent the depiction of the event, but the event was so horrifying and the abuse endured by the poor child so extreme that I can't blame them for not wanting it to be replayed in any form.

r21 then they don't have to watch it. Ignoring the event isn't going to bring their child back. Showing what happened might spark some positive change to prevent future events of that nature. Similar to the Savita Halpavanar event that happened in Ireland which helped lead to changing the constitution to make abortions legal.

R4 I feel sorry for Bulger’s mother’s pain, but artistic inspirations of events have nothing to do with the events themselves. She simply has to get used to it.

Artistic Inspirations! Are you Sick? Two feral Children murdered a baby in such a dreadful way that details of the torture were never released in the British press. How would you feel if someone was making money out of the horrific murder of your child or brother

r19 to call Come From Away "a cutsie musical"about 9/11 is pretty facile. The show isn't about 9/11 it is about the impact of grounded planes arrive in a small town.

You beat me to it R19 Jesus Christ there are some heartless cunts on this site.

r23 if it happened the year it occurred I might be upset by it. If it happened 25 years later, I doubt I'd be freaking out like this woman is.

R26 I pray to god this never happens to you!

r27 I pray to god you have better things to worry about than what's going on in my life.

R27 calm down, Mary

Frau outrage thread. Yes, this woman went through hell, but she doesn't get to control every little thing that might be connected to or inspired by the crime. He doesn't "have the right" to make the film? Get a grip, lady.

"Only _I_ may profit from my son's horrible murder!" cries James Bulger's mother, after nominated Oscar short.

I can't believe the posts on this thread......anyone remembers COMPASSION?

Dear Lord in Heaven

You beat me to it [R19] Jesus Christ there are some heartless cunts on this site.

That comment was meant for R23

There are some really sad sick people on this site tonight!

Everyone on this site is a godless heathen!@

I'm telling my congressperson to DESTROY this unholy shrine to heartless cunts!

What if Logan Paul had molested the suicide corpse before filming it?! WHAT THEN to your precious "logical historical event" argument!!!!

[quote]Frau outrage thread. Yes, this woman went through hell, but she doesn't get to control every little thing that might be connected to or inspired by the crime. He doesn't "have the right" to make the film? Get a grip, lady.

Your position is based on things that no one ever said. Frau outrage, indeed.

[quote]Showing what happened might spark some positive change to prevent future events of that nature

Oh come the fuck on. Making up implausible altruistic reasons for making the short just to defend the director is fucking ridiculous. There's no reason for you to have this level of emotional attachment to this subject.

If you're the person up thread who is still mad about a soap opera having a plot line changed because of the mother of the little boy who was murdered, you need to seek help.

Those of you saying get a grip, move on etc are full of shit. If this was your family member murdered you'd feel the same way, and this was a baby murdered by evil little psychopaths for shots and giggles. You would never get over that and you know it, frau or no frau.

The positive side is this film will bring the case back in the public’s mind again and make people so upset maybe those two devils will get what they really deserve.

I don't think that would serve any purpose, R42. I don't think they'll ever really get away from their crime as it is.

Mom was shopping baby was lured away with candy. As he was walking these pricks ran into adults who were concerned but didn't do anything.this poor baby was hit kicked punched and made to lay down on railroad tracks with his pants off they put items in his rectum and smashed his head with rocks.Thompson was the ring leader

Some little missies can't even get a People's Choice Award.

Sigh.

Seeem like the mother will never get over her guilt about not attending to her two-year old and allowing him to be kidnapped. Shades of the Madeleine McCann family here.

The director of the film has done nothing wrong. It is nearly 30 years now.

Why films need to be approved by everyone and their mothers now? If you don't like it, don't watch it. I'm sorry for the kid's family, but this crime shocked the entire world. Of course people want to know more about it.

Trust me R23, no one is making coin off a short film.

Is this the case that inspired Child's Play 3 to get banned/edited, because they thought it had inspired the boys to commit the crime? That was pretty stupid. Have you seen that movie? It's about as harmful as a Teletubbies episode.

I mean...really? It has been almost 30 years. It would've been nice to get her blessing BUT the statute here is WELL past its expiration date.

She hasn't seen it - whose to say if it is disrespectful or not?

I think she's imagining the "Passion of the Christ" with her toddler as Christ.

The reason the other kids aren't dead, bloodthirsty hordes, is because they were also children when it occurred.

A Swedish play from 2009 was similarly based on transcripts. But it was called MONSTERS mother may have been ok with it.

Why did the kids do it? Were they just sociopaths? And were movies, music or video games blamed for the crime back then?

Contacting families concerned should be the very first thing film makers do. The writer/director/whoever is a prick.

“Why did the kids do it? ”

Testosterone kills!!!

Considering what happened with these two imbeciles the last few years, I’m sure the mother has raw emotions all over again. She set up a big foundation in the wake of her son’s death. What happened to her child is a thing of nightmares.

She is not Madeline McCann. She blinked and he was gone. Talk to parents with children sometime. They can disappear in a second. This was the early 90s in Britain. It wasn’t like it is today.

That can absolutely happen, and kids wander off in public places everyday.

But - nonetheless, it is her fault, and her public grief and in this case unreasonable demands is testament to that. And James would be alive today if she hadn’t “blinked”.

[quote] "It's one thing making a film like this without contacting or getting permission from James' family but another to have a child re-enact the final hours of James' life before he was brutally murdered and making myself and my family have to relive this all over again!"

They're somehow forcing her to watch it?

[quote] This is a trigger case in the UK, and still a source of outrage that the (now) men are being protected. Although there were some other notorious child killers (Mary Bell), this torture murder of a toddler by other young children marked a sort of loss of innocence of the British.

"Loss of innocence"? Oh please. How can it be a "loss of innocence" for an entire nation when, as you yourself have admitted, there was an equally sensational case of the eleven year old Mary bell years earlier, in an equally widely publicized case, murdered two small children and mutilated the penis of one of them (a three year-old boy) after his death? That makes no sense. Why would the earlier murder not be the loss of innocence? You can't "lose your innocence" twice.

That stupid frauish language is beyond ridiculous.

No parents "get over" the murder of their baby, no matter how many decades have passed.

This case not only was huge in the UK, but Id say pretty much all over. Im about the same age as the killers and I remember the big news this case made in my own Latin American country. It was unthinkable that such young boys could be capable of such horrible torture and murder.

R60. I don't know the specifics of this case, but some parents are really neglectful, like that family that let their kid fall into a gorilla cage at the zoo (in Ohio?), and the poor gorilla ended up shot.

I feel bad for the mother. At the same time you have to be super VIGILANT when going out with children then and now. Let this be a cautionary tale, if nothing else.

This filmmaker is an absolute prick. Ugh!

R66 Amen. I'm an uncle and have been responsible with my siblings kids, including a very active three year old. Heaven help me if we were out and about and I suddenly couldn't find her. Unfantomable.

It's pretty common not to contact the people involved r10. The recent ACS Versace series didn't contact any of the victims families of Cunanan, they just went ahead and did what they wanted to do.

She's remained in the public eye as an advocate for child safety and to try and ensure the boys, now men, weren't given a pass to offend again, which of course in the case of one at least, he did. She has never profited from it. The parents divorced amidst the grief, as so many do in this situation. Her life was ruined forever by the events of that day and it's a case referenced so often in the public eye, these aren't wounds that are allowed to heal in anyway.

I'm in the industry. The first thing you do when you're tackling a sensitive topic is reach out to advocacy groups and those who have a particular connection with the subject. You do it to ensure you best understand what you're trying to represent to make the best work. You do it to avoid being sued. Mostly, I would hope, you do it because you have something like a moral compass and you don't wish to cause unnecessary hurt.

You know, the world doesn’t exist to make sure Bulger’s guilty mother’s feeling are not hurt.

Filmmakers, writers and anyone else are allowed to make an artistic response to a public event - her activism has ensured that the memory of this event belongs to the public. Complaining that the Academy nominated this film is neither here nor there.

The ringleader wasn't Thompson. But his less "refined" looks prejudiced him more than the super conniving Venables.

I have been on a website where a woman was working in a type of hostel and she said that Thompson came there to live and she thought it was strange because even though he obviously had a new identity, there was absolutely no detail of background. She said that he looked haunted and that he had a persecution complex and he had a girlfriend.

The "girlfriend" part in her comment triggered the mediating class know it alls that are prevalent on the site and absolutely sneer at working class people any chance that they get said that it couldn't have been Thompson because he has been said to be gay.

Whose to say that that isn't part of a fake identity put out there by media and authorities on his behalf , considering that unlike the manipulative Venables, he has managed to keep his trap shut, has enough conscience to have a persecution complex and stays his arse off of downloading child sex abuse images in his downtime? As for this lean headed filmmaker; the prat done said that the reason that he never even made any mention of his intentions to the Fergus family is because he was afraid that she would say "no". And the prat above who said that they hope that this wins the Oscar....what is at the artistic, social merit of this short documentary that only consists of actors repeating transcript and actually isn't an explorative documentary ( which is just as well, because in interview the filmmaker doesn't skew " particularly intelligent")? Or are yo just pissed off that a working class woman has the temerity to give a "fuck you" to "get over it" white mediating class mores, the mores of whom the overwhelming majority of Data loungers act like they embrace whilst embracing a weird type of classism that always skews "anti poor white" even though they are the type who would expect very person of colour to "pay it forward and don't forget those you left behind".

There's nothing she has to feel guilty about. This event happened at a time before parents had to cleave their child to them 24/7 for fear of stranger danger. She was in a public place in a fairly tight knit community and wouldn't have perceived two nearby children as threats if she took her eyes off him for a second. This is not a Madelaine McCann situation. There was no judgement from the public to her and rightly so.

On any level, due diligence to better understand your subject should have compelled the filmmaker to engage the parents. But an ounce of empathy and compassion would have ensured he at least notified them.

Artists should punch up not down. And his behaviour is not industry standard.

[quote]There's nothing she has to feel guilty about.

She has everything to feel guilty about. And she remains that way.

[quote]This event happened at a time before parents had to cleave their child to them 24/7 for fear of stranger danger.

Bulllll Shiiiitttt

[quote]Artists should punch up not down. And his behaviour is not industry standard.

Someone is confusing “art” with an Amy Schumer comedy sketch.

Oh, of course, Jon Venables @ R74, it's not your fault or anything. Decades later and you're still trying to blame James;' mother for the fact that you and Robert bogged off school, then decided to abduct a two year old (almost three), then torture and murder him. Get a new story dickhead.

"punch up not down" = the latest thought-terminating cliché of the "literal violence" sect

R73 what the fuck are you giving out about? Way to read WAY WAY too much into something. I think you are projecting your own issues on the situation.

She’s lucky the got an Oscar nominated short and not a Lifetime movie.

It's a bit rich for the mother to cry about old wounds being reopened when she has rebuilt her entire life around the event. She's where she is now because of it. How does it not come up for her on a daily basis? If she was smart she'd capitalize on the short to gain attention for her organization because it shows people what could happen if they don't buy her brand of child leashes or whatever.

I think when people do this they are trying to assuage a sense of guilt they have - if they devote their lives to some cause, little Jimmy didn't fall down that well in vain! His accident meant something!

[quote]She blinked and he was gone. Talk to parents with children sometime.

Well I think she's tremendous.

Gee it seems like a bit of child murderer support here.

No one has supported child murderers. Many, however, think her demands are not valid.

Please understand poor r82, logic is hard!!

I hope the lurid publicity around this short film doesn't give it an undeserved edge over the other 4 movies in nomination. I hope the voters take their job seriously and watch the 5 films and chose the better one and don't just lazily vote for the one theynheard the most echo about.. Already on this thread, some wished for this film to win without having seen it. Just to prove a point.

These races are not about talent anymore.

Denise Fergus is the white English female version of Samuel L Jackson. Angriest woman alive

And Robert Thompson's boyfriend is actually quite hot

Lots of movies and shows are released about true crimes, and many of them do have reenactments. We have Zodiac, Helter Skelter, American Crime Story, My Friend Dahmer, Henry: Portrait of A Serial Killer, Monster, The Town That Dreaded Sundown,...the list goes on and on.

The first movie about Sharon Tate's death, The Helter Skelter Murders, was released just 2 years after the fact. Hell, Ed Gein is pretty much cinema royalty with 3 of the most beloved horror movies ever made being inspired by him (Psycho, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Silence of the Lambs).

I know she still must hurt over the crime, but I think her public reaction will only draw extra attention to it and will make more people want to watch it to see what the fuss is about. I'd never have even heard of it of it weren't for her complaints. Without the controversy it would be just another true crime movie like the hundreds of others that came before it.

I think she has a right to express herself and they have the right to make the movie as well.

[quote] No parents "get over" the murder of their baby, no matter how many decades have passed.

Most DL-ers are childless. I am too, but I have parents who lost a son. And while I will never know what that was like for them to lose a child, I know that 25 years later they are not "over it."

R85 Most of us aren't Academy voters, so it doesn't matter what we wished for. But some of us do dislike someone trying to shut down publication of something just because it hurts their feelings.

I understand, R91, but that could be voting with your overwhelmed feelings rather than for the best one. Of course that is if Detainment is not the best film. I haven't seen it yet. I only got to see 2 of the five nominees. I likes Chuchotage also, but it didn't make it out of the short list.

The Academy seems to love the child in distress motive. SPOILERS !!!

SPOILERS!!!!! Fauve, has a child who gets caught in the clay in a an abandonned mine. Mother has a little kid alone on a deserted beach, his father disappeared and he is trying to communicate with his mother but the cell battery is dying . Then you have Detainment about a toddler being tortured and killed and two ten year old being jailed.

Marguerite is about an elederly woman. Well, this is refreshing.

/ I LIKE, obviously.

By the way, anybody has a link for the short lice-action films ? It is easy to find Fauve and Mother, but the 3 others are difficult to find.

Any respected filmmaker would have at least tried to get the cooperation from the immediate family of the victims to give his work authenticity. This filmmaker didn't even try.

"It's a bit rich for the mother to cry about old wounds being reopened when she has rebuilt her entire life around the event. She's where she is now because of it. How does it not come up for her on a daily basis? "

Exactly. Her attitude seems to be that she owns the story, which is not the case. And she has had no issue with "reopening the wounds" when she wanted to appear on TV to comment on other cases involving children over the years. If you're going to exploit yourself like that - and that's her prerogative, is she so chooses - then you can't cry foul over a film depicting the events without having even seen it.

While I agree that the filmmaker should have at least given her a heads up about the film, I suspect he didn't less due to tone deafness than from a concern that she would do whatever she could to derail the project. Yes, she suffered a loss that most here could never imagine experiencing, but at this point she's not entitled to control the narrative unless that narrative contains lies or misleading information.

BTW, there was a film made back in 2007 called BOY A, which is based on a novel but has some parallels with the Bulger case. Andrew Garfield, in his first film, plays one of the boys who - at the age of 10 - kills a female classmate. The film starts with Garfield's character re-entering society with a new identity and his attempts to avoid detection and build his life. It's very uncomfortable viewing, but worth seeing.

[quote]No one has supported child murderers. Many, however, think her demands are not valid.

Her demands? He child was murdered and people have been exploiting it ever since. Go fuck yourself.

Truth

R96 Shut up you dizzy frau. No one has exploited her child. It’s been 25 years. Her guilt and her grief is no one else’s responsibility.

R95 yes, Boy A was based on this case. There was also an episode of a Jimmy McGovern anthology show which covered the same territory. I believe the mother was played by Jodhi May

AMPAS: We ain't droppin' nuthin'.

[quote]“Society needs to condemn a little more,” said John Major, then prime minister, after the crime, “and understand a little less.” Detainment deploys cinema’s expressive tools to argue the opposite. If ever a film deserved to be seen before being judged, this one does.

Without reading that article, I can't decide if the quote is a good thing or a bad thing.

I'm glad someone mentioned Boy A. It was an excellent film and it was based directly on the aftermath of this case. I don't remember if the mother complained about that or had any involvement.

I understand a filmmaker not trying to seek cooperation. For what purpose? The film is based on the historical documents. They don't need the family's cooperation. A short filmmaker isn't going to have much money if the family tries to put up obstacles to filming, etc. So it's nice to suggest they be "nice" and make the family feel better by notifying them in advance but that may have caused difficulties in making the film which would have made the entire project impossible.

I can see a statement that she wished they had given her a heads up - if you really believe she didn't have one, I somehow doubt that - but to proclaim she is "disgusted" is over the top. To lobby for the film to lose an Oscar is just being nasty and petty. She's going after this guy because he has no power and she does. Sadly this is about an historical and public event and she can't control it.

A half hour film? How in God's name can this case and the far reaching ramifications on multiple peoples lives be encapsulated in a half hour film?

This incident destroyed, derailed, affected so many lives. Denise had a stalker for Christ sakes. 5 people went to court in incidents related to this case.

It's poison. It's just going to keep on poisoning the public.. All for a half an hour of film.

Dial down the hysterics, R104. You haven't seen the film. Get back to us when you have.

"built her life around the notoriety of this case"? are you mad? you think she wouldn't trade all the fame and publicity and probably her own life for a chance to bring her son back from the dead? well, unfortunately, that's not possible.

i bet she feels guilty. she's blameless, though. she did not beat a child to death. she didn't do anything wrong. so there was a moment when she wasn't looking at her baby... it wasn't ok for the two sick fucks to essentially steal her child and then torture him to death. let's say i've got some sort of a possession - a car, a purse, you name it... it's not 'wrong' for me to 'blink' on it. it's wrong for others to steal and destroy it, though. and yes, kids are no possessions, i know that.

which one is a misdeed: taking a brief look at something other than your kid or beating a child to death? no, 'both' is not the right answer.

and obviously you may "MARY!" me but this is pretty much victim blaming. i was terribly abused by someone when i was young and inexperienced and in my first relationship, threatened with violence and rape on a regular basis - all these things that were done to me were wrong. in that relationship, i didn't do anything that was wrong i.e. cruel, hurtful, dishonest. yet when i told my friend about this he said, irritated: it's your fault, you let him do this to you! essentially, my friend was laying the blame at my feet for somebody else's choices and actions... that made me feel lonelier that you can imagine. made me feel like if there was fairness in this world i wasn't meant to see or experience it myself.

tl;dr triggered by "mother is entitled and it was her fault anyway" nonsense. and in no way is she comparable to the awful mccanns.

Agree with r106

Denise Fergus has flown to Dublin on anti-DETAINMENT press tour. She is too upset to talk to the director, but read the open letter she wrote him on international TV.

[quote]A half hour film? How in God's name can this case and the far reaching ramifications on multiple peoples lives be encapsulated in a half hour film?

How the the tragedy of stillbirth and the far reaching ramifications on be encapsulated in a six word short story? Poison! Poison!

R106 the film isn't about you, though.

R108 Confirmed, the mother is a drama queen. Did she go through all this for every news story and documentary about the event?

Denise can both be upset about her son’s murder and be a complete famewhore who uses every possible occasion to vent spleen over anybody and everybody to dull the aches of grief and guilt.

I personally do not believe in closure. We have to live with cards we are dealt. Instead of realistically living with trauma - as we ALL must do in life, any many have suffered as bad as her and even worse - she finds forcing to public to grieve with her as she does something she’s owed.

Well, she’s not owed that. And what she and to a lesser extent James’ father have done have is make their son’s murder part of the national fabric, as much as Princess Diana’s death and as much as terrorist attacks. And it’s fine that they do that. But if they do, the public has a right to respond via support in donations to charities she supports, via newspaper columns, or via artistic responses.

This filmmaker has not harmed her in any way. And from what the reviews overwhelmingly state is the suffering of her little boy is not treated glibly, not are the crimes of the murderers forgiven.

I understand her grief. But I do not support the invalid way she uses it now.

r110

no shit

r111

are you sure, though, that there was any way for jimmy's parents to avoid this becoming... well, so big in the UK? or remaining tyat way for the decades that followed..? you compared it to diana's death and i sort of see why... but i'm not sure one can say the parents have made it so. i think regardless of their aspirations and actions, THIS particular story was always going to be this way. someone from latin america posted upthread, saying how this case was a big thing in their home country...

the reason this has become part of the national fabric, as you said, is that a) there were real faces and names of the perpetrators you could hate, since they were revealed (perhaps, unwisely) b) the nature of this horrible crime (i'm not convinced anything worse can happen to somebody than what happened to jimmy and his family - but i don't really want to find out) c) the media was all over it for obvious reasons. i don't think the parents like it or are trying to 'benefit' from this situation... benefit how? their lives are destroyed already. calling either of them a famewhore... well idk. even if you disagree with their behaviour, don't you think there are worse people out there one can criticize?

i mean, the venables idiot has obviously been swimming in kiddie porn for a decade - as if what he did to jimmy wasn't enough.

so anyone can just make a film on any crime etc. They don't have to buy rights? so why do people buy the rights to so and so's life etc?

She should probably learn to let go by now.

[quote]are you sure, though, that there was any way for jimmy's parents to avoid this becoming... well, so big in the UK? or remaining tyat way for the decades that followed..?

Yes, there is. They chose to be vocal public advocates regarding child abuse, giving thousands of interviews - as is their right.

[quote]you compared it to diana's death and i sort of see why... but i'm not sure one can say the parents have made it so. i think regardless of their aspirations and actions, THIS particular story was always going to be this way.

There have been dozens of vicious child-in-child assaults and murders since, in Britain and abroad. The victims aren’t always as lovely, the criminals aren’t always as shocking, and the victims’ family aren’t always as forthcoming.

[quote]b) the nature of this horrible crime (i'm not convinced anything worse can happen to somebody than what happened to jimmy and his family - but i don't really want to find out) c) the media was all over it for obvious reasons.

Again, we know all the sickening details because the Bulger family, law enforcement and the press have allowed it so. One cannot work without the other three.

[quote]i don't think the parents like it or are trying to 'benefit' from this situation... benefit how? their lives are destroyed already. calling either of them a famewhore... well idk.

They are dealing with their grief by becoming public figures and centre media conversation about many tangentially similar incidents around their experience. That is their choice. Public attention in a small or grand scale wonders for humans emotionally, but it is less a balm than ultimately, snake oil.

[quote]even if you disagree with their behaviour, don't you think there are worse people out there one can criticize?

You’re seeing this thread as people wanting to attack Denise for fun. We’re not. We are criticising her behaviour has manifested in this particular public drama.

[quote]i mean, the venables idiot has obviously been swimming in kiddie porn for a decade - as if what he did to jimmy wasn't enough.

His disgusting behaviour has nothing to do with the film nor the filmmaker.

So lenient. Like Canada. You can eat a guy on a bus and go free after they prescribe you meds.

Remember all involved were children ...

She needs to get over it. It happened, was a huge public issue, and is fair game.

No chilling for freedom of expression that harms nobody.

r116

thanks for taking your time and answering some of my questions. i appreciate it. you made some good points and nothing you said sounds wrong per se... though i still don't see why anyone should care how this lady goes about her grief, public or private (as long as she's not breaking the law or destroying lives). i don't. well, agree to disagree, then, i suppose.

So has anybody seen the film yet? I saw all 5 shorts today and, as someone indicated above, the child-in-distress theme is very prominent this year: four of the five films center on a little boy (or boys) in danger, either physically or emotionally.

As for Detainment, it’s a bit over-directed, with the annoying shaky-cam and flash cuts, but the acting is phenomenal. It’s always hard for me to judge acting by children, but the boy who plays Venables is astonishingly good, heartbreaking and horrifying at the same time, because you’re never sure if he’s being genuine or manipulative.

R121 that’s interesting you found that a common theme this year in the films selected. I wonder if it has to do in part with people’s anger and disgust over the children in cages at the border.

The comments here are making me RAGE

People really suck

read the details of the case before blaming the mother. they were in a mall and the kid was lured away in a minute.

I wish it had won. Those Israelis were fucking obnoxious.

R123 you’re surprised the trolls of DL sympathize with torturous murderers and pedophiles?

Glad it lost. R124 seethe

People make movies about real life murders all the time - why is this one labeled exploitative but not all the other ones?

This is bullshit. The theme of the short is that children are not born evil and that "Yes there is a genetic interplay, yes there are lots of factors, but for the majority of their childhood, it's society's responsibility to make sure that kids grow up okay."

That one fucking guy is evil. People can be born evil

[quote]"Yes there is a genetic interplay, yes there are lots of factors, but for the majority of their childhood, it's society's responsibility to make sure that kids grow up okay."

*shrugs*

That sounds like a perfectly acceptable thesis.