Oscars 2019: James Bulger's mother 'disgusted' over nomination
 

The mother of murdered toddler James Bulger says she is "disgusted" a film about the boys who killed her son in 1993 has been nominated for an Oscar.

Detainment recreates the police interviews with the two young killers using the original transcripts.

It has made the shortlist for the Academy's best live action short film.

"I cannot express how disgusted and upset I am that this so-called film has been made and now nominated for an Oscar," Denise Fergus tweeted.

The film was made by Irish director Vincent Lambe, who has previously apologised for not making Mrs Fergus aware of it soon enough and "for any upset the film may have caused".

t recreates the moments before and after 10-year-olds Robert Thompson and Jon Venables took Bulger from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside, as well as their police interviews.

More than 90,000 people had signed a petition before the nominations were announced on Tuesday asking the Oscars to disqualify the 30-minute film.

After the Oscar nominations were announced on Tuesday, the President of Ireland, Michael D Higgins, tweeted his congratulations to the Irish nominees, including the team behind Detainment.

Last month, Mrs Fergus told ITV's Loose Women she thought Lambe was using the case to further his career, and said she wanted the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences to remove it from contention.

"I strongly do want it pulling, I don't think it deserves any Oscars and he's just trying to big his career up and big himself up by [using] someone else's grief," she said.

She told the programme: "I'm asking people to boycott it because I just don't think it should have been made in the first place, especially without James's parents being consulted."

Mrs Fergus has been a vocal campaigner over the years, pressing for longer sentences her son's murderers, who were sentenced to a minimum of eight years, and publishing her recent book, I Let Him Go.

Speaking to BBC News before Bulger's family made their views known, Lambe said: "I wouldn't expect them to be comfortable with a film which humanises the boys but I do hope they understand the reason it was made, and it certainly wasn't to bring any more grief to them.

"The reason the film was made was to try and offer more of an understanding as to how these two 10-year-old boys could have committed such a horrific crime because I think if we don't understand the cause of it, it's likely that something similar will happen again in the future."

In a statement released after Mrs Fergus first spoke out, Lambe said: "I have enormous sympathy for the Bulger family and I am extremely sorry for any upset the film may have caused them. With hindsight, I am sorry I didn't make Mrs Fergus aware of the film."

He added: "The film was not made for financial gain and nobody involved in the making of the film intends to profit from it."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-46964691

One of the biggest cases in recent history and one of the most well-known... of course it was for financial gain. They didn't consult the parents because they knew they would protest.

With all due respect to her, she isn't allowed to censor art just because of her personal grief. The story was a huge one that has endured 25+ years after it happened.

It's a short film that I wouldn't have heard about without her protests about it - so I don't really understand the implication that the director is set to profit off of a tragedy. Even if it wins an Oscar, can anyone else name a winner of the Short film category...ever? Besides, if she's so against the idea of people profiting off of her son's death then:

Glass houses.

I can totally see why she's upset, though, and would possibly be of the same mindset had it happened to me, but I just don't think you can censor something of public interest just because of your personal attachment to it.

!!!

Part of me think she lives for the attention she gets everytime she can fake some outrage about something new.

I agree and worse are those who get offended for her.

Shaun I totally agree and said similar in a recent thread.

I feel incredibly sorry for her obviously but it screams hypocrisy to me that she wants this basically shunning but she released a book. Also a lot of protesters who are condemning the film maker haven't even seen it.

Yeah I didn't want to say it and come across as harsh but she has professional griever tendencies. Obviously feel for her. Must have been awful but she's always on Loose Women or This Morning giving a new interview.

I can name a short film winner though, The Silent Child. An incredible short and well deserved Oscar winner. :love:

Quite right James family should be upset about this,and of course it's made for financial gain,why make it otherwise but the most awful thing is that James family were not even consulted or told about it being made, why wouldn't they be upset that the heinous murder of their baby boy,has been made into a film,I am sure they do not need to be reminded of what happened to him all the time, there have been enough documentaries,let the boy rest in peace.

I can think of many valid reasons agains the film but this isn't one.

It's not as if she's trying to move on and away from it otherwise, is she? With her campaigning and book writing. So, to suggest the film is going to rake things up for her is false.

Not to mention, she has the free will to not watch it.

Well it's hard for them to move on from it as something is brought up about it all the time,there have been numerous documentaries, the book was her own way of coming to some kind of closure , as she blames herself which in itself must be crushing,she has campaigned tirelessly for justice for James which has never been sated,maybe it's her way of coping with his loss,and I am sure if that was my son,I'de be watching it as curiosity would get the better of me,some people grieve forever,not everyone would get over something like that very easily.

I don't believe any parent would "get over" something like that. I wonder how many of those casting criticism her way are parents.

Nobody's suggesting she should "get over" it. Read properly instead of jumping to defence.

Primarily by herself.

Who would would be happy to have a movie made out of terrible event in their lives without being consulted

I agree with Shaun.

Nobody earns anything from short films and it's the category that has the least interest for pretty much everyone and this film's nomination would have come and gone with no bother had it not been Fergus kicking up a fuss. She has made it into a story by bringing attention to it, and, although it's going to sound incredibly harsh, I do think the timing is suspect if she's just brought out a book at the same time.

Also, to make out that it's for profit is both petty and wrong on her part, it wasn't a major film, it's not nominated for best picture. Nobody pays to see short films, they don't make money and the director wouldn't have got much attention even if the film did win. She's trying to antagonise the man and stir up a mob mentality against him by spreading falsities based on her own ignorance. She has a lot of people who listens when she speaks without question and the way she's going about this is just irresponsible.

I have sympathy for her, I truly do. No one deserves what Jamie Bulger or his family went through but she doesn't own that story. She can't censor art and she can't dictate who decides to tell the story either or how they tell it.

I don't think any parent could get over it, losing a child would be bad enough but in that way in particular, I just can't even imagine. This case always stuck in my head more than any other over the years, it was so horrific

I don't think anyone is saying but I've also got to say, the whole 'you don't understand if you aren't parents' attitude that often gets thrown around in topics like these is tiresome and lazy, it's just a way for people to devalue an argument they dislike without bothering to come up with a decent counterpoint to what's been said.

Her book was published in January 2018

Specifics don’t really matter, any attention she gets know she knows will lead to a mention of her book, like in this article :shrug:

i think its pretty clear that those pointing a finger at the lady don't have kids, and i'm sorry, you cant understand that unless you are a parent. Its possible to sympathise and show compassion, but there is no substitute to actually being a parent.

Nobody's "pointing the finger". People are sharing their views on the situation.

And, sorry, no. Congratulations on your ability to act on humankind's ability to procreate but it doesn't make your opinions or your feelings more valid than anyone else's.

We could go one step further and say "no one can understand unless you've had a two year old snatched and murdered", it's just thrown around to dismiss contributions.

Used to be a thing called respect.
These stories were held back from films being made about them until the close family had passed.
On a personal level I find it distasteful, I can’t imagine the horror this poor family have been through.
Surely permission should have been asked for, out of common decency.

Not true, she is asked for interviews as one of her babies murderers is still offending and she rightly so wants him locked up where he should have been years ago,what should she do just shrug her shoulders and forget it ? There are plenty of documentaries and crime files on this , no need to make a film and get noted on it's notoriety.They weren't even told about it or even asked , very disrespectful to this boys memory. And you bet it's about money as everything is

Not at all. I was responding to your comment that she tries to move on but then it's brought up all the time. Yes, she rightly wants him locked up, so she willingly and actively brings it up herself by selling interviews and writing books. Yes, that is true. She isn't forced into interviews.