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

[bots]

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

[Ashley.]

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.

[Shaun]

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:

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.

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.

[Smithy]

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.

[Jessica.]

!!!



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.

[Amy Jade]

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.

[Black Dagger]

!!!

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

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.

[Amy Jade]

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

[Kazanne]

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

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.

[Marsh.]

I am sure they do not need to be reminded of what happened to him all the time

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.

[Kazanne]

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.

[bots]

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

[Marsh.]

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.

[Marsh.]

Well it's hard for them to move on from it as something is brought up about it all the time

Primarily by herself.

[Cherie]

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

[Tom4784]

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.

[Niamh.]

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

[Tom4784]

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

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.

[Cherie]

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.

Her book was published in January 2018

[Smithy]

Her book was published in January 2018

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.

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:

[bots]

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.

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.

[Marsh.]

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.

[smudgie]

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.

[Kazanne]

Primarily by herself.

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

[Marsh.]

Not true, she is asked for interviews as one of her babies murderers us 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 ?

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.

[Tom4784]

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.

Lazy dismissive argument which basically translates to 'You can't have a valid opinion because I say so.'

Utter bull****.

[Mystic Mock]

Am I the only one that thinks that the Oscars should only be nominating entertainment for these awards?

How can a Movie about a real life situation where a boy is brutally murdered (short Film or not) be considered quality entertainment by the Oscars?

[joeysteele]

Every time I see Jamie's Mum.
I feel so sorry for her.

Really she has had to battle as best she could to get real justice for the barbaric, merciless unnecessary murder of her young son.

One of the guilty get all sorts of help and protection, with new identities, yet still reoffends.

She is totally right on this issue with this film.
It's awful that financial gain itself is part of it.
However the prestige of award for this barbaric crime, is and should be a disgrace.

I really feel sorry deeply for Jamie's Mum.
This must be an ever present endless run of pain in her life.
That media do little and really nothing to ease.

As for her doing a book.
Jamie was her son.
At least she herself detailing the pain is valid.

She must still wonder what more pain can be foisted on her and Jamie's family.

[bots]

Lazy dismissive argument which basically translates to 'You can't have a valid opinion because I say so.'

Utter bull****.

it's not a lazy dismissive argument, it's a factually accurate statement. I don't see any parents casting a critical eye at the mother in this thread. To suggest that my statement is bull****, is in itself a bull**** argument ... the irony

[Beso]

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

It's absolutely disgusting.

Parents who lose their kids to illness will never ever forget their kids and will grieve for the rest of their lives...so imagine how difficult it is for her when her son was taken so viciously......those condemning her obviously have never lost a child or they would.know that talking about it as much as possible is a way of coping.....Having others talk about it is not.

[Kazanne]

Of course Denise wants her boy to be remembered, but in a positive way,this is why they set up the James Bulger charity in which they have brought a seaside mobile home so that bullied and neglected kids can go on holiday and have a break, that is a charity supported by many people,as for her bringing it up,I believe it was venables re offending that brought it all up again.There was a debate on LBC last night and thankfully the general feeling is that this film will show nothing we don't already know (except for his injuries, well I hope to God not) we have seen it all we all know the backgrounds of them both from several documentaries,files etc,so no reason other than notoriety and gain has this film being made, and to go behind James's parents backs is so wrong and disrespectfull,hell what next graphic pics of his ordeal.As for the books Denise and Ralph wrote, Denise says herself she wants him to be remembered as a little boy who had a happy but short life and not a murder victim all the time and writing her thoughts down on paper helped her keep that memory alive,both books are an insight into James life and their grief.
http://forjames.org/

[Beso]

Just to add that nobody can tell a parent how they should grieve their child's death.

[joeysteele]

Of course Denise wants her boy to be remembered, but in a positive way,this is why they set up the James Bulger charity in which they have brought a seaside mobile home so that bullied and neglected kids can go on holiday and have a break, that is a charity supported by many people,as for her bringing it up,I believe it was venables re offending that brought it all up again.There was a debate on LBC last night and thankfully the general feeling is that this film will show nothing we don't already know (except for his injuries, well I hope to God not) we have seen it all we all know the backgrounds of them both from several documentaries,files etc,so no reason other than notoriety and gain has this film being made, and to go behind James's parents backs is so wrong and disrespectfull,hell what next graphic pics of his ordeal.As for the books Denise and Ralph wrote, Denise says herself she wants him to be remembered as a little boy who had a happy but short life and not a murder victim all the time and writing her thoughts down on paper helped her keep that memory alive,both books are an insight into James life and their grief.
http://forjames.org/


Excellent post.
Superb read Kazanne.

[Cherie]

Just to add that nobody can tell a parent how they should grieve their child's death.

:clap1: some of the judgy comments in here are appalling to say the least

[Cherie]

Of course Denise wants her boy to be remembered, but in a positive way,this is why they set up the James Bulger charity in which they have brought a seaside mobile home so that bullied and neglected kids can go on holiday and have a break, that is a charity supported by many people,as for her bringing it up,I believe it was venables re offending that brought it all up again.There was a debate on LBC last night and thankfully the general feeling is that this film will show nothing we don't already know (except for his injuries, well I hope to God not) we have seen it all we all know the backgrounds of them both from several documentaries,files etc,so no reason other than notoriety and gain has this film being made, and to go behind James's parents backs is so wrong and disrespectfull,hell what next graphic pics of his ordeal.As for the books Denise and Ralph wrote, Denise says herself she wants him to be remembered as a little boy who had a happy but short life and not a murder victim all the time and writing her thoughts down on paper helped her keep that memory alive,both books are an insight into James life and their grief.
http://forjames.org/

Exactly, Denise has not courted the limelight but has been forced to get justice for James because of some do gooders who thought he had been rehabilitated and even when it was proven that he was still a danger, they still wouldn't listen, it must be so frustrating for her and her family to have to deal with. Everyone deals with things in their own way, there is no right or wrong way to deal with the death of anyone who was taken before their time in a violent manner

[Toy Soldier]

I'm afraid I have to agree with "the parents" on this one; the whole thing is completely inappropriate, the mother's disgust and anger is completely understandable and justifiable, and the evidence at hand in this thread and others, based on the fact that all or at least the vast majority of people who do have children (and who don't necessarily agree on most topics) do have fairly aligned views on this, is that having children DOES change opinions on stories like these and that some people who don't have children will have a tougher time imagining the struggle of a parent whose child has been killed.

To be quite honest all I can say is... ... ... if one of my children was murdered and then someone decided to make a film about it without permission, the fallout would be significantly more than a little bit of disgust and anger. And that's coming from someone who does in general understand the need and desire to understand and document these situations. By all means, say that it's a shame that she's hurt by it but you think it should be OK anyway... that's one thing... actively condemning her / questioning her being against it or her motivations are totally another.

Either way I do think an Oscar nod is completely inappropriate and disrespectful and the film-makers should reject it, if they have any respect for the sensitivity of their source material.

[Niamh.]

!!!

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

Her 2 year old child was tortured and murdered and you think she "lives for the attention of it" are you for ****ing real? ****ing disgusting.

[Livia]

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.

Sorry Bots, I don't agree with that. Approximately three children are killed by their parents in the UK every week. So please don't imagine that if you don't have a child you're somehow less compassionate than someone who has.

I don't have kids. If you want to see real maternal instincts at work... lay a hand on one of my nieces.

All that said... I'm totally on the side of Jamie's parents. How dare anyone make a trivial film without consulting the family of the victim. Has decency just died?

[Livia]

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:

Jezuz... that's cold, even for you.

[Beso]

I think I might just buy her book today after reading a few excerpts from it.

[Niamh.]

I think I might just buy her book today after reading a few excerpts from it.

I don't think I could even read it, it's so upsetting the whole case

[Jordan.]

The fact a film about the torture and murder of a child is something is being applauded and celebrated as "art" is just really disturbing to me. The family have every right to be disgusted.

[Kazanne]

Exactly, Denise has not courted the limelight but has been forced to get justice for James because of some do gooders who thought he had been rehabilitated and even when it was proven that he was still a danger, they still wouldn't listen, it must be so frustrating for her and her family to have to deal with. Everyone deals with things in their own way, there is no right or wrong way to deal with the death of anyone who was taken before their time in a violent manner

Some of the comments are quite upsetting tbh , to think people could actually think Denise somehow enjoys the limelight is repugnant , she is simply unhappy that her sons murder is being exploited in this way,just because it happened 20 odd years ago does not lessen their grief, I admire them for their total loyalty to James.

[Livia]

Even after all these years I can't get my head around it... that poor child.

[Kazanne]

Even after all these years I can't get my head around it... that poor child.

Hi Livia,yes if only people knew the half of it,:wavey: hope you arewell

[Livia]

Hi Livia,yes if only people knew the half of it,:wavey: hope you arewell

Hey Kaz, I'm good thanks. Hope you are...

I thought of you when I heard this story on the news. Is there no decency left in this disgusting, self-centred, money-and-fame-hungry world?

[Cherie]

Some of the comments are quite upsetting tbh , to think people could actually think Denise somehow enjoys the limelight is repugnant , she is simply unhappy that her sons murder is being exploited in this way,just because it happened 20 odd years ago does not lessen their grief, I admire them for their total loyalty to James.

Sad to say I think it has been intentional which is why I wouldn't even bother responding to individuals

[Marsh.]

Am I the only one that thinks that the Oscars should only be nominating entertainment for these awards?

How can a Movie about a real life situation where a boy is brutally murdered (short Film or not) be considered quality entertainment by the Oscars?

Well you've completely misunderstood the Oscars then haven't you?

[Marsh.]

Just to add that nobody can tell a parent how they should grieve their child's death.

Nobody has done that.

[Marsh.]

Sorry Bots, I don't agree with that. Approximately three children are killed by their parents in the UK every week. So please don't imagine that if you don't have a child you're somehow less compassionate than someone who has.

:clap1:

[Marsh.]

Hi Livia,yes if only people knew the half of it,:wavey: hope you arewell

Oh the old "I know more about this than you do" comment.

[Niamh.]

Oh the old "I know more about this than you do" comment.

In this situation I think Kazanne actually does though.

[Marsh.]

In this situation I think Kazanne actually does though.

Of course she does. And she's a mum too so she gets extra powers too.

[Niamh.]

Of course she does. And she's a mum too so she gets extra powers too.

I'm only saying she's spoken about it many times before and I think she actually knows the family. No need for the snarkiness.

[Twosugars]

it is hard on the family, but I'm on the side of the film makers
I doubt the film is trivial as somebody put it or that money was the main reason for making it. The subject is too grim to expect it'll be a commercial success imo. Maybe the director felt he had something to say or that it needed to be made? Idk
I think this is one of those cases that transcend a private tragedy and become a part of our common consciousness and history. And as such it is bound to register in culture and become a tale told and retold.

[Marsh.]

I'm only saying she's spoken about it many times before and I think she actually knows the family. No need for the snarkiness.

I know she has and I don't buy it.

[Niamh.]

I know she has and I don't buy it.

Why would she lie about it? She's spoken about before there was even an argument where it would benefit her "side of the argument"

[Beso]

Nobody has done that.

they are judging her on her grief, thats good enough for me.

[Beso]

I know she has and I don't buy it.

well aint it a shame you cant discuss that on here.:bawling::bawling::bawling:

[Northern Monkey]

This was possibly the worst event I remember in Britain in my lifetime and thinking about it still gives me cold chills.
Couldn’t even imagine how his parents must’ve felt and still do.

Obviously the film maker was allowed to make this.BUT the total lack of respect or empathy in doing so without even asking the parents is astounding.Wtf was he/she thinking?
Was it all about the art?,Trying to make a name for themself or money?
Whatever it was doesn’t make it alright imo.
There’s some **** that you just don’t touch and to me that’s one of them.
I am usually totally against censorship and wouldn’t advocate for it but i think the filmmakers were out of line on this.

[Marsh.]

well aint it a shame you cant discuss that on here.:bawling::bawling::bawling:

What?

[AnnieK]

The James Bulger case marked a changing time in Britain. Before he was abducted and murdered, people left their kids outside shops (not that Denise did that even) and were a little more relaxed about things, this case changed all that and people started to fear more for their children. I don't agree with the points that you have to be a parent to understand the loss, you may feel it more keenly as you go through "what if it happened to mine" scenario but I think most people can understand the absolute devastating heartbreaking and life changing effect losing a child would have.

I'm in two minds about the film - I have read both Ralph and Denise's books and they are heartbreaking but only come from one perspective. I would be interested to see how the murderers handled the police interviews, how the police themselves handled it and to see if there was any indication if they comprehended how horrifically evil the acts they committed that day were.

I suppose the worry is that the watcher would feel some sympathy for them if they are acted by children but the fact is, that is who committed the murder and we all know their ages at the time, I doubt many would feel any sympathy now - especially with the way Venables in particular has turned out after release. In some ways if their evilness is apparent, Denise's campaign to keep him locked up may gain even more support.

So I'm on the fence on this one - although it is fundamentally wrong that the family were not consulted about the film

[Kazanne]

Why would she lie about it? She's spoken about before there was even an argument where it would benefit her "side of the argument"

That's true Niamh,I have no reason to lie ,what would I gain from that ? Disappointed Marsh would think I would lie over that.

[Braden]

I think she has every right to be upset that the film went ahead without being consulted first, but agree that the attention it's been given is primarily as a result of her reaction. On the other hand, I did sign the petition to have it removed from the shortlist and many other people did too. Her reaction was a conviction to have this film removed from the public eye and nothing more, imo. The media have pounced on it, as they do. I don't agree, at all, that she thrives off attention.

I can't imagine how much this situation has affected her life. The number of interviews, books, etc. could be due to the grief and personal blame she puts on herself. Almost like a way of constant reassurance to both herself and the public that she'll always be in a state of regret over what happened that day. It's her way of maintaining the slightest bit of closure.

[The Slim Reaper]

The James Bulger case marked a changing time in Britain. Before he was abducted and murdered, people left their kids outside shops (not that Denise did that even) and were a little more relaxed about things, this case changed all that and people started to fear more for their children. I don't agree with the points that you have to be a parent to understand the loss, you may feel it more keenly as you go through "what if it happened to mine" scenario but I think most people can understand the absolute devastating heartbreaking and life changing effect losing a child would have.

I'm in two minds about the film - I have read both Ralph and Denise's books and they are heartbreaking but only come from one perspective. I would be interested to see how the murderers handled the police interviews, how the police themselves handled it and to see if there was any indication if they comprehended how horrifically evil the acts they committed that day were.

I suppose the worry is that the watcher would feel some sympathy for them if they are acted by children but the fact is, that is who committed the murder and we all know their ages at the time, I doubt many would feel any sympathy now - especially with the way Venables in particular has turned out after release. In some ways if their evilness is apparent, Denise's campaign to keep him locked up may gain even more support.

So I'm on the fence on this one - although it is fundamentally wrong that the family were not consulted about the film

There are some good docs on YT about it. I watched one ages ago with the police and the boys' solicitors talking about all the stuff you said you're interested in finding out about. You should have a look.


Edit:

Think it was this one

YnLLgUXtJpU

[Tom4784]

it's not a lazy dismissive argument, it's a factually accurate statement. I don't see any parents casting a critical eye at the mother in this thread. To suggest that my statement is bull****, is in itself a bull**** argument ... the irony

Yeah, you're totally not being dismissive....by ignoring what people are saying and dismissing their views based on whether or not they have kids.

[Tom4784]

Sorry Bots, I don't agree with that. Approximately three children are killed by their parents in the UK every week. So please don't imagine that if you don't have a child you're somehow less compassionate than someone who has.

On that at least, we agree.

[RileyH]

Some of y'all are mean wow

[RileyH]

It's her child's murder they made a film on and they didn't even consult her first? Of course she's gonna be pissed

[Cherie]

I know she has and I don't buy it.

You don't buy that Kaz knows the family, someone somewhere must know them, why not Kaz

[Tom4784]

The fact a film about the torture and murder of a child is something is being applauded and celebrated as "art" is just really disturbing to me. The family have every right to be disgusted.

Art isn't always pretty, it's not just a portrait you hang up in the living room but a reflection of humanity both good and bad. You can't just focus on the good things, you've got to take the good with the bad.

The family do have every right to be disgusted, everyone is entitled to their reactions but the truth is that the story doesn't belong to just them. People will always talk about Jamie Bulger because cases like that are rare, there are going to be TV shows and documentaries made about it for years to come and the best thing the family can do in cases like this is to just ignore it since speaking out has the same effect as promoting it and everyone is talking about the film now when before no one would have known it was a thing.

[The Slim Reaper]

#justice4Kaz

[AnnieK]

#ibelievekaz

[Niamh.]

#metoo

[Kazanne]

When I first joined this site in 2009, I joined with an avatar of James in my profile, as I have always been a supporter of the family, as my mom is close to this case,some on here then started to question why I had a picture of a dead baby in my profile,I explained my feelings then and why ,some of the longer standing members may still remember, I took the picture down as some seem offended by it, but I have and always will be behind the Bulger family as they have been through a truly terrible time , and it's not a new thing with me I have been a supporter for years.

[AnnieK]

When I first joined this site in 2009, I joined with an avatar of James in my profile, as I have always been a supporter of the family, as my mom is close to this case,some on here then started to question why I had a picture of a dead baby in my profile,I explained my feelings then and why ,some of the longer standing members may still remember, I took the picture down as some seem offended by it, but I have and always will be behind the Bulger family as they have been through a truly terrible time , and it's not a new thing with me I have been a supporter for years.

:love:

[Matthew.]

Yeah the family definitely should have been asked first

[Marsh.]

#justice4Kaz

#ibelievekaz

#metoo

:joker:

[Marsh.]

When I first joined this site in 2009, I joined with an avatar of James in my profile, as I have always been a supporter of the family, as my mom is close to this case,some on here then started to question why I had a picture of a dead baby in my profile,I explained my feelings then and why ,some of the longer standing members may still remember, I took the picture down as some seem offended by it, but I have and always will be behind the Bulger family as they have been through a truly terrible time , and it's not a new thing with me I have been a supporter for years.

I've been on the forum long enough to know full well you're a long time supporter of the family.

Again, that doesn't make your opinions more valid than anyone else's on Bulger related topics, anymore than someone who has given birth.

[Smithy]

Her 2 year old child was tortured and murdered and you think she "lives for the attention of it" are you for ****ing real? ****ing disgusting.
The point I was trying to make is that hundreds of children are murdered every week in awful ways, none of them have tried to make a living out of it like she has, it’s gross. What happened to her was awful, nobody is denying that, but she will never have closure because all she ever does is talk about it and drag it up.
Jezuz... that's cold, even for you.

Not really sure why you’re making personal comments but can’t say I’m surprised

[Ramsay]

I think it's pretty ****ty they didn't consult the family first

[Livia]

Not really sure why you’re making personal comments but can’t say I’m surprised

Because it was cold. Even for you. But yeah, I wasn't surprised either.

[Toy Soldier]

I've been on the forum long enough to know full well you're a long time supporter of the family.



Again, that doesn't make your opinions more valid than anyone else's on Bulger related topics, anymore than someone who has given birth.I dunno why you have such a chip on your shoulder about the parenting thing Marsh; it's perfectly legitimate (and logical) to say that someone who is a parent and has a child has a more experienced and informed opinion on matters related to being a parent or having children?

Why would that not be the case?

And why make comments like "it's not big or clever to pop out a child! Thick folks can have kids too!"

Like... Thick people learn to drive too. It's not big or clever to learn to drive, basically anyone can do it. But that doesn't mean that the opinion of a driver isn't better informed than a non-driver in a discussion about road etiquette. It's not that other people can't have an opinion or that their opinion might not be correct or valid, or that a driver can't be totally wrong about some topics (God knows, there are plenty of disagreements) it's just pretty obvious that there IS a difference between the opinions. Surely.

I mean you can say it about anything! Building a PC isn't hard. Look at a few YouTube videos and BillyBob with an IQ of 80 can do it but once he's done it, his advice on building one yourself is going to be better than a certified genius who has never even looked inside one?

These are probably crap examples but you can see my point. Surely.

Its ludicrous for people to say "I don't have any kids but I know just as much about how a parent feels for their children as those who do!". Like... How? And how could you possibly know if that statement is true?

I can say with some certainty - as a parent and a self confessed ex-non parent (I spend decades being one of those :worry: ) that while yes as a non-parent it's perfectly possible to empathise with the emotions that a parent feels about their offspring... It's not the same as having them. It just isn't. And you also sort of have to accept that every parent has BOTH perspectives because every parent HAS BEEN a non parent, whereas obviously, those who are not parents only have ONE perspective and can only possibly be guessing about the other.

So no its not big, it's not clever, it's not difficult to have kids, it's not a "moral victory" or any sort of achievement but it does usually result in a shift in perspective. I don't know why so many non-parents take issue with that.

[Braden]

The point I was trying to make is that hundreds of children are murdered every week in awful ways, none of them have tried to make a living out of it like she has, it’s gross. What happened to her was awful, nobody is denying that, but she will never have closure because all she ever does is talk about it and drag it up.


She'll never have closure, full stop. I don't think anyone can truly have closure in this instance, but going on a tv show for an interview where everyone is nice to you, where you're able to tell your story can provide at least a little bit of closure. I don't blame her for using them as platforms, people handle grief differently. Plus, it's her story to tell, after all.

[Marsh.]

I dunno why you have such a chip on your shoulder about the parenting thing Marsh; it's perfectly legitimate (and logical) to say that someone who is a parent and has a child has a more experienced and informed opinion on matters related to being a parent or having children?

Why would that not be the case?

Except... we're not discussing how to raise a child, how formula works, the best brand of nappies or the best education system.

We're discussing a murder. So, no, I won't be told my opinion isn't as valid as someone who has had a child because it's complete bollocks. We can ALL relate to losing loved ones, as Livia said you don't have to be a parent to know or understand or comprehend the loss of a child. It's universal.

But, yeah, maybe the magical superiority that enters a person once they've had sex and conceived a child means the ones murdered by their parents are right too. :hee:

[Marsh.]

So no its not big, it's not clever, it's not difficult to have kids, it's not a "moral victory" or any sort of achievement but it does usually result in a shift in perspective. I don't know why so many non-parents take issue with that.

Has nothing to do with having kids.

A lot of parents don't have that perspective and a lot of non-parents do. Having a child simply isn't a valid argument in this case.

Next you'll be telling me age denotes maturity.

[Toy Soldier]

Except... we're not discussing how to raise a child, how formula works, the best brand of nappies or the best education system.

We're discussing a murder. So, no, I won't be told my opinion isn't as valid as someone who has had a child because it's complete bollocks. We can ALL relate to losing loved ones, as Livia said you don't have to be a parent to know or understand or comprehend the loss of a child. It's universal.

But, yeah, maybe the magical superiority that enters a person once they've had sex and conceived a child means the ones murdered by their parents are right too. :hee:I disagree but I fully accept that you have a different opinion; I just cannot fathom why you're salty enough about it to be unable to even debate it reasonably and without the 'tude.

Maybe becoming a parent makes one more mature in that way, too :shrug:.

[Toy Soldier]

Has nothing to do with having kids.



A lot of parents don't have that perspective and a lot of non-parents do. Having a child simply isn't a valid argument in this case.



Next you'll be telling me age denotes maturity.Again you're stating your opinions as fact; you don't (and can't possibly) know if and how your life perspectives will change if or when you have children. It's literally impossible. It can only be hypothesis?

[Marsh.]

I disagree but I fully accept that you have a different opinion; I just cannot fathom why you're salty enough about it to be unable to even debate it reasonably and without the 'tude.

Maybe becoming a parent makes one more mature in that way, too :shrug:.

Having my opinion on the actual topic of the thread dismissed because I don't have an offspring will make me salty. I can't fathom why I'm being asked to debate a ridiculous notion instead of the actual topic of the thread. It's a diversion tactic, nothing more.

But then as a qualified parent I'm sure you can explain it.

[Beso]

Art isn't always pretty, it's not just a portrait you hang up in the living room but a reflection of humanity both good and bad. You can't just focus on the good things, you've got to take the good with the bad.

The family do have every right to be disgusted, everyone is entitled to their reactions but the truth is that the story doesn't belong to just them. People will always talk about Jamie Bulger because cases like that are rare, there are going to be TV shows and documentaries made about it for years to come and the best thing the family can do in cases like this is to just ignore it since speaking out has the same effect as promoting it and everyone is talking about the film now when before no one would have known it was a thing.

Cept the oscars (the biggest awards ceremony) did.

[Marsh.]

Again you're stating your opinions as fact; you don't (and can't possibly) know if and how your life perspectives will change if or when you have children. It's literally impossible. It can only be hypothesis?

Except.... I didn't say perspectives, opinions etc don't or can't change with life experiences. You've missed the point.

I'm saying having children (or not) doesn't automatically make your perspective more valid or otherwise. Especially on a topic like this.

The action of "having a child" simply does not automatically give anyone a more valid perspective. It's bollocks.

[AnnieK]

The rush of unconditional love that most, not all most, parent's have on the birth of their child in indescribable. However, as a parent we also dont know how we would deal with the brutal horrific murder of that child unless it happens to us (which I hope not one of us ever has to really think about let alone live through) so yes, we can empathise with the Bulgers but we are also the same as any non parent in not knowing how we would deal with it. I always said if anything ever happened and I lost my son, I would want to go with him so he wasn't alone,it just doesn't bear thinking about but unless (god forbid) anything did happen I don't know how I would react to anything

[Marsh.]

Cept the oscars (the biggest awards ceremony) did.

Of course they did. It's basically the point of them.

[Beso]

Except.... I didn't say perspectives, opinions etc don't or can't change with life experiences. You've missed the point.

I'm saying having children (or not) doesn't automatically make your perspective more valid or otherwise. Especially on a topic like this.

The action of "having a child" simply does not automatically give anyone a more valid perspective. It's bollocks.

What about parents who have lost a child, do they?

[Marsh.]

The rush of unconditional love that most, not all most, parent's have on the birth of their child in indescribable. However, as a parent we also dont know how we would deal with the brutal horrific murder of that child unless it happens to us (which I hope not one of us ever has to really think about let alone live through) so yes, we can empathise with the Bulgers but we are also the same as any non parent in not knowing how we would deal with it. I always said if anything ever happened and I lost my son, I would want to go with him so he wasn't alone,it just doesn't bear thinking about but unless (god forbid) anything did happen I don't know how I would react to anything

Exactly.

And also, not every parent feels the same towards their child, some parents feel absolutely nothing towards them so it's a meaningless generalisation for people to make.

[Marsh.]

What about parents who have lost a child, do they?

You mean someone who... has gone through the exact same thing as Denise? Take a wild guess.

[thesheriff443]

Romans used to set lions onto slaves and people would watch.

The internet has made the most horrific scenes viewable at the click of a button.

People would not make these films if no one would watch them and even if you banned them that would only make people want to watch them more.

Humans are closer to animals than we think.

[Beso]

You mean someone who... has gone through the exact same thing as Denise? Take a wild guess.

No, just someone whos kid has passed away, do they have a better percpective on her feelings on the matter?

[Marsh.]

No, just someone whos kid has passed away, do they have a better percpective on her feelings on the matter?

Better than what?

We're discussing the validity of people's opinions and the ability to empathise.

Someone who HAS actually experienced something is a completely different story.

[AnnieK]

No, just someone whos kid has passed away, do they have a better percpective on her feelings on the matter?

Certainly have more of an insight to the pain and suffering parm....:hug:

[Beso]

Certainly have more of an insight to the pain and suffering parm....:hug:

Yeah, that's true.

I can talk as someone who has lost a kid, a 16 yr old boy.

he died in a room surrounded by his new mates, all taking legal highs..sadly for my son out of all of them who fell unwell he was the one who didn't survive..

So let's say the paramedics who worked on him for 2 hours solid had body cams on for one of those tv programmes and they aired that footage without consulting me.


It's bad enough for me imagining my sons last moments, so I can't even begin to think what she goes through as she tries to sleep at night......and that's without having this ****e forced in her face now.

[Amy Jade]

I do wish they had contacted her having read a bit deeper but apparently it is meant to be an unbiased view.

Until I see it can't have much of an opinion really

[Beso]

Better than what?

We're discussing the validity of people's opinions and the ability to empathise.

Someone who HAS actually experienced something is a completely different story.

Marsh, as a parent the first cuddle with your new offspring is an unbreakable bond....people with kids and their opinions on this matter far out way people's without kids due to the fact they imagine their kids as they think about this case.

[GoldHeart]

But why wasn't the family asked first ?? , it is out of order tbh .

Some would argue was there any need for this movie to be made? . But i haven't watched it so i don't know how it's been handled.

But Sometimes even when a crime is still recent & fresh they insist on making a movie about it and i don't understand why .

[Marsh.]

Yeah, that's true.

I can talk as someone who has lost a kid, a 16 yr old boy.

he died in a room surrounded by his new mates, all taking legal highs..sadly for my son out of all of them who fell unwell he was the one who didn't survive..

So let's say the paramedics who worked on him for 2 hours solid had body cams on for one of those tv programmes and they aired that footage without consulting me.


It's bad enough for me imagining my sons last moments, so I can't even begin to think what she goes through as she tries to sleep at night......and that's without having this ****e forced in her face now.

Having actual footage of your son's final moments sold to TV and film companies for profit without your consent is a completely different thing to a dramatisation of police interviews in the form of a piece of drama.

[Marsh.]

Marsh, as a parent the first cuddle with your new offspring is an unbreakable bond....people with kids and their opinions on this matter far out way people's without kids due to the fact they imagine their kids as they think about this case.

And what about parents who form no bonds? Non-parents who form major bonds with children in their life?

It's a ridiculous generalisation which was only brought into the discussion as a means of saying "well I'm right and you're wrong because I have reproduced".

[Beso]

Having actual footage of your son's final moments sold to TV and film companies for profit without your consent is a completely different thing to a dramatisation of police interviews in the form of a piece of drama.

The feelings I would be feeling would be exactly the same as what she is feeling.

[Marsh.]

The feelings I would be feeling would be exactly the same as what she is feeling.

Fair enough. I imagine even stronger if they were using actual footage of your son's death.

[Amy Jade]

When I first joined this site in 2009, I joined with an avatar of James in my profile, as I have always been a supporter of the family, as my mom is close to this case,some on here then started to question why I had a picture of a dead baby in my profile,I explained my feelings then and why ,some of the longer standing members may still remember, I took the picture down as some seem offended by it, but I have and always will be behind the Bulger family as they have been through a truly terrible time , and it's not a new thing with me I have been a supporter for years.

It's unfair you felt you had to remove it, whoever was offended is a bit silly in my opinion - if something is close to your heart it is normal to have a picture of it as an avi surely

[Beso]

And what about parents who form no bonds? Non-parents who form major bonds with children in their life?

It's a ridiculous generalisation which was only brought into the discussion as a means of saying "well I'm right and you're wrong because I have reproduced".

It's not the same, you would get over the death of someone else's kid even if you did have a bond with them, you just don't get over the death of your own.


When it's someone else's kid, other people die as life goes on so they are blurred into the background. When it's your own kid I'm pretty sure it's always at the forefront as life goes on.

[Beso]

See, even me airing this like this helps me...but it's my choice..

I think that's the issue here, it's her grief, her families grief and they should be the ones controlling that..IMO...nobody has the right to interfere in that....

[Amy Jade]

See, even me airing this like this helps me...but it's my choice..

I think that's the issue here, it's her grief, her families grief and they should be the ones controlling that..IMO...nobody has the right to interfere in that....

I don't think anyone is necessarily trying to control her grief

[Beso]

I don't think anyone is necessarily trying to control her grief

A good few are judging her grief though, what business is it of theirs on here?

[Marsh.]

It's not the same, you would get over the death of someone else's kid even if you did have a bond with them, you just don't get over the death of your own.


When it's someone else's kid, other people die as life goes on so they are blurred into the background. When it's your own kid I'm pretty sure it's always at the forefront as life goes on.

You can't speak on behalf of everyone and tell them they don't or can't understand.

I'm not talking about the neighbours kids.

Again, you're generalising.

[Beso]

You can't speak on behalf of everyone and tell them they don't or can't understand.

I'm not talking about the neighbours kids.

Again, you're generalising.

I'm saying they don't understand as much, not that they can't understand.

[Toy Soldier]

Except.... I didn't say perspectives, opinions etc don't or can't change with life experiences. You've missed the point.

I'm saying having children (or not) doesn't automatically make your perspective more valid or otherwise. Especially on a topic like this.

The action of "having a child" simply does not automatically give anyone a more valid perspective. It's bollocks.

No one is telling you that you can't have a valid opinion on perspective on the Bulger case; this disagreement has come almost entirely as a response to a few of the "opinions" on the first page about the mother's grief that could, frankly, only have come from people without children. And did.

[Beso]

So what if the mum makes some money anyway..as long as she's talking about her son she's happy..and for what she's been through we should all be happy for her.

[Marsh.]

No one is telling you that you can't have a valid opinion on perspective on the Bulger case; this disagreement has come almost entirely as a response to a few of the "opinions" on the first page about the mother's grief that could, frankly, only have come from people without children. And did.

Re-read. Non parents CANNOT understand and there is no substitute for having children.

Again, it's bollocks.

[Marsh.]

So what if the mum makes some money anyway..as long as she's talking about her son she's happy..and for what she's been through we should all be happy for her.

Is she suing them or something?

[Toy Soldier]

Re-read. Non parents CANNOT understand and there is no substitute for having children.


There probably isn't.

Again, it's bollocks.

In your opinion. Stop stating opinion as fact.

[Tom4784]

Cept the oscars (the biggest awards ceremony) did.

Do me a favour, without cheating, name me a few short films that have been nominated or have won the short film category, while we're at it, name me a few winners for the foreign film oscar or the hair and makeup oscar

You can't without cheating (or guessing with the latter two) because no one really cares about the short film award. It rarely gets press attention and no one pays attention to it.

I'm pretty sure the only time I can remember a short film getting any real attention before this is last year's and that was because a lot of people liked that the hollyoaks actress that made it used sign language in her speech.

[Tom4784]

I'll say it before and I'll say it again, the whole 'you can't have an opinion, you don't have kids' angle is lazy and bull****. It's purely a move to overcome an opposing opinion, not through sound argument but by denying someone their right to have their opinion and degrade their views without putting any effort into it but bull**** criteria that only happens to exclude opinions that the people who use that argument dislikes.

[Marsh.]

There probably isn't.

I'll tell that to foster carers and adopted kids. :rolleyes:

[Braden]

Do me a favour, without cheating, name me a few short films that have been nominated or have won the short film category, while we're at it, name me a few winners for the foreign film oscar or the hair and makeup oscar

You can't without cheating (or guessing with the latter two) because no one really cares about the short film award. It rarely gets press attention and no one pays attention to it.

I'm pretty sure the only time I can remember a short film getting any real attention before this is last year's and that was because a lot of people liked that the hollyoaks actress that made it used sign language in her speech.

It's the principle, not the attraction the category or the film gets. If I was in the mother's position, I imagine I would also be upset that a film has been created and nominated for an Oscar without being consulted first. It wouldn't matter how many people have or want to see it. She had the right to protest and campaign to have it removed, whether it attracted more people to the film or not. It was the only way of making it clear that she did not approve of it being made and gives the director bad publicity in the process.

[thesheriff443]

Short films, ain’t nobody got time for that.

[Marsh.]

In your opinion. Stop stating opinion as fact.

So, me being told my opinion isn't valid is an acceptable opinion.

Me saying it's bollocks is an opinion presented as fact?

Oh please. :joker:

[Toy Soldier]

I'll tell that to foster carers and adopted kids. :rolleyes:

I haven't mentioned biological relation being necessary?

[Tom4784]

It's the principle, not the attraction the category or the film gets. If I was in the mother's position, I imagine I would also be upset that a film has been created and nominated for an Oscar without being consulted first. It wouldn't matter how many people have or want to see it. She had the right to protest and campaign to have it removed, whether it attracted more people to the film or not. It was the only way of making it clear that she did not approve of it being made and gives the director bad publicity in the process.

So you can't name one which proves my point.

The principle doesn't hold up, the argument is that, by nominating the short film for an oscar, it's going to get a lot of attention and benefit the director but that's not the case. The short film award rarely gets attention and the people who make them don't go on to achieve success purely for it.

There's no such thing as bad publicity in situations, the only thing she's achieved in doing now is getting a lot more people to watch the film then they would have if she didn't say anything. If anything, her actions are probably gonna benefit the film's chances because now there's a narrative going on in an award that nobody pays attention to and the academy loves a good award narrative.

She could have done more damage to the film by staying silent. All she's achieved by speaking out is increase it's chances of winning.

[Tom4784]

So, me being told my opinion isn't valid is an acceptable opinion.

Me saying it's bollocks is an opinion presented as fact?

Oh please. :joker:

Yeah I agree with this and I gotta say TS, I don't think you would ever resort to the whole 'purposely confusing someone's opinion as a fact to make them look bad' tactic. I'm disappointed.

[Mystic Mock]

Well you've completely misunderstood the Oscars then haven't you?

Clearly! I thought they were there to judge entertainment, how is a movie about James Bulger's death considered entertainment.:umm2:

I personally think it's in poor taste for people to make money out of these cases, like I don't like all of the Documentaries/Movies on 9/11 either as again I find it in poor taste, especially when a lot of these Movies try to make themselves styled in a way where they want you to be entertained by the product, ironically the 2nd biggest Film of all-time in the Titanic tried to be “entertaining” which again I found disgusting because of the fact that it was based on a very famous true story.

I apologize for waffling btw, it's just I strongly oppose anyone trying to profit off a tragedy, and the Oscars should definitely be judging on entertainment considering they are an award ceremony for Movies.

[Braden]

So you can't name one which proves my point.

The principle doesn't hold up, the argument is that, by nominating the short film for an oscar, it's going to get a lot of attention and benefit the director but that's not the case. The short film award rarely gets attention and the people who make them don't go on to achieve success purely for it.

There's no such thing as bad publicity in situations, the only thing she's achieved in doing now is getting a lot more people to watch the film then they would have if she didn't say anything. If anything, her actions are probably gonna benefit the film's chances because now there's a narrative going on in an award that nobody pays attention to and the academy loves a good award narrative.

She could have done more damage to the film by staying silent. All she's achieved by speaking out is increase it's chances of winning.


Nobody should be held ransom and name winners of a specific category to validate their point. These award ceremonies all blur into one for me, personally. I couldn't even tell you who won Best Picture last year because there are so many shows and it's all pretentious drivel. tbh, you already counter-acted your point by mentioning the winner of the Short Film award from last year, which now you've mentioned, I remember generated a lot of publicity and recognition on social media.

Almost 100,000 people signed a petition to stop this film from being shown and to revoke the Oscar nomination, so to ignore that and say that all it's done is make more people watch the film...well, you'd need the proof first of all. Also, if it has, it doesn't mean the producer/director will come out of this looking pretty with his cheap and tacky tactic. The Oscar's will be complicit if they do give the film the award for that reason.

Not speaking out would not have damaged the film, per say. The fact that it achieved an Oscar nomination is a feat, regardless of whether you think people don't care about it. However, it would've gnawed at the person at the forefront of this tragedy and she had every right to speak out about this, regardless of the film's position in entertainment and arts or how many people will/have watched it. Especially since the film was so unnecessary and added no value to the case itself.

[Marsh.]

Clearly! I thought they were there to judge entertainment, how is a movie about James Bulger's death considered entertainment.:umm2:

I personally think it's in poor taste for people to make money out of these cases, like I don't like all of the Documentaries/Movies on 9/11 either as again I find it in poor taste, especially when a lot of these Movies try to make themselves styled in a way where they want you to be entertained by the product, ironically the 2nd biggest Film of all-time in the Titanic tried to be “entertaining” which again I found disgusting because of the fact that it was based on a very famous true story.

I apologize for waffling btw, it's just I strongly oppose anyone trying to profit off a tragedy, and the Oscars should definitely be judging on entertainment considering they are an award ceremony for Movies.

It's funny you don't get offended by every movie on the planet then Mock.

[Marsh.]

Especially since the film was so unnecessary and added no value to the case itself.

Have you watched it?

[Braden]

Have you watched it?

No, but I want to believe the family and journalists who commented on this film and said as such. They have no reason to lie. Backed up even further by the fact that the producer didn't consult the family and explain why they were making the film.

[Mystic Mock]

It's funny you don't get offended by every movie on the planet then Mock.

Not every Movie is based on a true story about a tragedy.:laugh:

I don't get why you're taking a funny with my post when I think that most people (including you if someone else had posted it) would agree with my point?

If the Oscars were to nominate these types of Films then they should be in a separate category to fictional Films imo.

[Marsh.]

No, but I want to believe the family and journalists who commented on this film and said as such. They have no reason to lie. Backed up even further by the fact that the producer didn't consult the family and explain why they were making the film.

I never suggested anyone lied.

But the "value" of something is subjective, however.

[Marsh.]

Not every Movie is based on a true story about a tragedy.:laugh:

I don't get why you're taking a funny with my post when I think that most people (including you if someone else had posted it) would agree with my point?

If the Oscars were to nominate these types of Films then they should be in a separate category to fictional Films imo.

Not taken a funny Mock. But every film in someway will depict things happening in the world (Hell, that's what fiction does mostly, mirror the world around us).

Suggesting no true stories should ever be depicted in movies is a rather extreme viewpoint.

And, no, I don't care who posts what. If I agree with something, I agree with it. If I don't, I don't.

[Braden]

I never suggested anyone lied.

But the "value" of something is subjective, however.

No, I don't think you suggested that. Was only justifying my opinion on why I believe them.

I do agree, but it would shock me if people would see value in a piece in which the producer intended for the audience to see the two murderers as "human beings", but then that's also subjective.

[Marsh.]

No, I don't think you suggested that. Was only justifying my opinion on why I believe them.

I do agree, but it would shock me if people would see value in a piece in which the producer intended for the audience to see the two murderers as "human beings", but then that's also subjective.

Well, there you go, I agree that is subjective, as I find that a worthwhile discussion to raise about it. Not to excuse them or absolve them of their actions and responsibility but to go someway to exploring not just how a human being could be that evil, but such young children. Murders happen all over the world all the time, this will always be a fascinating case to explore because of the rarity of it happening in this type of circumstance.

[Tom4784]

Nobody should be held ransom and name winners of a specific category to validate their point. These award ceremonies all blur into one for me, personally. I couldn't even tell you who won Best Picture last year because there are so many shows and it's all pretentious drivel. tbh, you already counter-acted your point by mentioning the winner of the Short Film award from last year, which now you've mentioned, I remember generated a lot of publicity and recognition on social media.

Almost 100,000 people signed a petition to stop this film from being shown and to revoke the Oscar nomination, so to ignore that and say that all it's done is make more people watch the film...well, you'd need the proof first of all. Also, if it has, it doesn't mean the producer/director will come out of this looking pretty with his cheap and tacky tactic. The Oscar's will be complicit if they do give the film the award for that reason.

Not speaking out would not have damaged the film, per say. The fact that it achieved an Oscar nomination is a feat, regardless of whether you think people don't care about it. However, it would've gnawed at the person at the forefront of this tragedy and she had every right to speak out about this, regardless of the film's position in entertainment and arts or how many people will/have watched it. Especially since the film was so unnecessary and added no value to the case itself.

The point was to prove that no one cares about the Short Film Oscar typically and that this wouldn't have been a story if it wasn't for the outrage since most people wouldn't have watched it or knew what it was about otherwise. It's Denise Fergus' reaction that made it a story and will continue to make it a story for the next month or so until the Oscars air. I bought up last year's winner because it was an outlier and I said why so ignoring the context of why I brought it up just to try and cut me down won't do much for your own argument. Mitzee from Hollyoaks got attention, not because of the film but because she had a good speech and people liked how she signed it. That's the long and short of her US coverage and she only made news like she did over here because she's Mitzee from Hollyoaks. Had that film been made by someone who was unknown here, it would have got zero attention in our press.

100,000 people have reacted to a story of someone telling them to be upset and oppose a film they haven't watched, an outrage that will fizzle out when the next thing people are told to be angry about emerges.

[Toy Soldier]

So, me being told my opinion isn't valid is an acceptable opinion.

I've never said that it's an acceptable opinion; it's less informed, that doesn't mean it's invalid. The argument that a non-parent has an equally informed opinion on how a parent might feel in any given situation than another parent is bizarre and I'm just not even sure what it's based in? In what other situation would you argue that you can empathise with a group of people "just as well as" other members of that group?


Me saying it's bollocks is an opinion presented as fact?

Oh please. :joker:

You're stating all sorts of things as facts with little reasoning behind them other than the fact that you personally feel like it should be the truth, even though basically every single person who actually is a parent in this thread has confirmed that there are certain things you just can't fully imagine as a non-parent. Again; this isn't people who were "born parents"... everyone who holds that opinion remembers their thoughts and feelings from when they didn't have children and knows for a fact that it's different.

Is it true for all parents? No but trying to factor abusive or uncaring parents into the equation is a complete strawman in this situation. "Some parents don't care about their kids, so obviously everyone can imagine what having kids is like". Just odd, and completely random, logic.

Also again there's just so much hostility against the idea. I don't know what that's about, really. No discussion, just butthurt dogmatic ranting. "I super DO understand what it's like to have children because of my imagination, so THERE" :laugh:

[Mystic Mock]

Not taken a funny Mock. But every film in someway will depict things happening in the world (Hell, that's what fiction does mostly, mirror the world around us).

Suggesting no true stories should ever be depicted in movies is a rather extreme viewpoint.

And, no, I don't care who posts what. If I agree with something, I agree with it. If I don't, I don't.

I agree with you to an extent that every fictional story will base itself on a case in real life, but I think it's different if a Movie came out saying that Charlie was brutally murdered by two boys or one boy and one girl compared to actually using the real victim's name and location of where he died, or the methods used on James as he was murdered.

[Glenn.]

Has anyone commenting even watched the film?

[Marsh.]

You're stating all sorts of things as facts with little reasoning behind them other than the fact that you personally feel like it should be the truth, even though basically every single person who actually is a parent in this thread has confirmed that there are certain things you just can't fully imagine as a non-parent. Again; this isn't people who were "born parents"... everyone who holds that opinion remembers their thoughts and feelings from when they didn't have children and knows for a fact that it's different.

What have I stated as a fact with no reasoning?

The opinion of 3 or 4 parents on TiBB is regarded as fact because they have "confirmed" I don't understand something? :unsure: Yet, it's ME presenting my opinions as fact?

Would you like to attempt that paragraph again?

As an example, Niamh can certainly illustrate how her viewpoint, perspective, life, opinions have changed with and without children. Is this a factual basis with which to base an entire argument of "parents vs non-parents"? No. No it isn't. (Edit: Not saying this is what Niamh is doing, I'm just using an example).


Is it true for all parents? No but trying to factor abusive or uncaring parents into the equation is a complete strawman in this situation. "Some parents don't care about their kids, so obviously everyone can imagine what having kids is like". Just odd, and completely random, logic.

Actually, I think you'll find it's the exact opposite. :umm2:

The point is anyone can empathise with Denise's plight, her grief, her situation regardless of their parental status. That is anyone, not everyone.

The point of what you're quoting was to illustrate parents can be just as incapable of understanding her grief as non-parents. I.e. some will and some won't but conceiving a child is not a determining factor.


Also again there's just so much hostility against the idea. I don't know what that's about, really. No discussion, just butthurt dogmatic ranting. "I super DO understand what it's like to have children because of my imagination, so THERE" :laugh:

:unsure: It's not about imagining children.

It's about empathising with a woman who's child was abducted by two other children and murdered. Do you have direct experience of that too? Or is you simply having children the only qualifying factor?

When discussing a hypothetical situation and empathising with other human beings, imagination tends to come into play, and we draw on our similar experiences of grief, pain, suffering. It's how compassion works. :thumbs:

[Toy Soldier]

You're deliberately making the situation as specific as possible to avoid even considering the possibility that actually having (or raising) a child might offer an experience (the direct experience of the parent-child bond) that would greatly bolster the ability to empathise with a parent who has lost a child. You should have a look at empathy vs sympathy and the subtle differences, IMO.

Consider; let's say a homosexual couple is attacked in the street and one person is badly beaten and hospitalised. Can any human with a sense of right and justice appreciate their situation and feel awful for them? Yes, of course! And most would. However is it not fair to say that another homosexual couple - with individuals who have NOT ever been physically attacked but have, nonetheless, experienced some general homophobia - probably has more ability to understand and empathise with their anger and frustration than a straight couple who has never been persecuted?

It doesn't mean that the straight couple think it's OK, that it doesn't make them feel sick to the core and furious, but it's still different. Would you dispute that? It also doesn't mean that ALL gay people are more sympathetic to the situation than ALL straight people - anyone can be an unsympathetic arsehole - but we're talking about general trends not specific individuals.

Parents (in general) can better understand the plight of another parent who has experienced the loss of a child, because of direct experience of the parental bond. Shared experience is a major component of empathy. There's literally nothing offensive or controversial about this statement. I still don't understand why it makes you angry.

[thesheriff443]

Marsh knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

You don’t need a child to have an opinion on this subject but having a child gives you a better understanding of what it would be like to lose that child.

It’s far easier to judge than to be judged.

[Beso]

So you can't name one which proves my point.

The principle doesn't hold up, the argument is that, by nominating the short film for an oscar, it's going to get a lot of attention and benefit the director but that's not the case. The short film award rarely gets attention and the people who make them don't go on to achieve success purely for it.

There's no such thing as bad publicity in situations, the only thing she's achieved in doing now is getting a lot more people to watch the film then they would have if she didn't say anything. If anything, her actions are probably gonna benefit the film's chances because now there's a narrative going on in an award that nobody pays attention to and the academy loves a good award narrative.

She could have done more damage to the film by staying silent. All she's achieved by speaking out is increase it's chances of winning.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.mic.com/articles/amp/92951/16-short-films-that-launched-the-careers-of-famous-directors

[Toy Soldier]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.mic.com/articles/amp/92951/16-short-films-that-launched-the-careers-of-famous-directors

Indeed Parm; short films themselves rarely receive much mainstream attention outside of the film industry... but a critically acclaimed short film can certainly lead a film maker on to bigger and better things if they're recognised as skilled by others with the ability to bring them on board for other projects. That's how any career works, surely.

[MTVN]

So the sensible middle ground seems to be that yes, the film maker was insensitive to not even consult the family but the subject matter should not be completely off limits or censored

No, you don't need to be a parent to have an opinion but it's fairly obvious that experiencing parenthood can give you a fresh perspective which is particularly relevant in some things

No, short films are not widely known or viewed by the public but within the industry themselves they can be huge as a springboard for a directors future career and get him recognised by the right people

[Beso]

Indeed Parm; short films themselves rarely receive much mainstream attention outside of the film industry... but a critically acclaimed short film can certainly lead a film maker on to bigger and better things if they're recognised as skilled by others with the ability to bring them on board for other projects. That's how any career works, surely.

Very very true, an old school friend of mine took out a government grant back in the 90s and made a short film about a bookmakers.....he has since had a film on TV and directed shameless and doctor who.

[Toy Soldier]

Very very true, an old school friend of mine took out a government grant back in the 90s and made a short film about a bookmakers.....he has since had a film on TV and directed shameless and doctor who.

:omgno: I honestly believe that if I made a short film about a few of the events I've seen unfold in the bookies, it would be dismissed as "too far fetched" :joker:

[thesheriff443]

So the sensible middle ground seems to be that yes, the film maker was insensitive to not even consult the family but the subject matter should not be completely off limits or censored

No, you don't need to be a parent to have an opinion but it's fairly obvious that experiencing parenthood can give you a fresh perspective which is particularly relevant in some things

No, short films are not widely known or viewed by the public but within the industry themselves they can be huge as a springboard for a directors future career and get him recognised by the right people

And here speaks the voice of reasoning.

[Livia]

:omgno: I honestly believe that if I made a short film about a few of the events I've seen unfold in the bookies, it would be dismissed as "too far fetched" :joker:

I'm thinking of making a film about my time in politics. I'm going to call it, Carry On Conservatives.

[Toy Soldier]

I'm thinking of making a film about my time in politics. I'm going to call it, Carry On Conservatives.

It's true though! Everything political in this country, the conferences are 25% actual discussion of the issues and 75% everyone getting drunk and hooking up. Dirty buggers!

[thesheriff443]

I'm thinking of making a film about my time in politics. I'm going to call it, Carry On Conservatives.

Carry on regardless would be a better title.

[Beso]

:omgno: I honestly believe that if I made a short film about a few of the events I've seen unfold in the bookies, it would be dismissed as "too far fetched" :joker:

I was wrong it's actually about his first job after leaving school in a slaughter house..there's a scene set in a bookies though.
http://film.britishcouncil.org/pan-fried

[Livia]

It's true though! Everything political in this country, the conferences are 25% actual discussion of the issues and 75% everyone getting drunk and hooking up. Dirty buggers!

Yes, and that's why I never went to conference. Ewww can you imagine.

[Toy Soldier]

in a slaughter house..there's a scene set in a bookies though.


Tomayto, tomahto...

[Kazanne]

This is why the family are so pissed off, and to have another child play James part is also pretty sick, we have already seen the police interviews with those two,so I see no reason other than notoriety this has been made.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/james-bulgers-mother-disgusted-at-oscar-nomination-for-film-about-sons-killing-a4045921.html

[Marsh.]

You're deliberately making the situation as specific as possible to avoid even considering the possibility that actually having (or raising) a child might offer an experience (the direct experience of the parent-child bond) that would greatly bolster the ability to empathise with a parent who has lost a child. You should have a look at empathy vs sympathy and the subtle differences, IMO.

Responding to a ridiculous generalisation used simply to shut down my viewpoint is too specific?

Pointing out that "parents" and "non parents" aren't all the same is too specific for you. :joker: Highlighting the fact someone can't simply say "Well I've got a kid so my opinion is worth more" as the situation is far more complex than a pathetic shutdown is too specific?

I appreciate your efforts to defend someone else's attempt to shut down my opinion of this particular Bulger story but I'll end the ridiculous merry go round of you attempting to twist my words here. :)

[Toy Soldier]

Responding to a ridiculous generalisation used simply to shut down my viewpoint is too specific?



Pointing out that "parents" and "non parents" aren't all the same is too specific for you. :joker: Highlighting the fact someone can't simply say "Well I've got a kid so my opinion is worth more" as the situation is far more complex than a pathetic shutdown is too specific?



I appreciate your efforts to defend someone else's attempt to shut down my opinion of this particular Bulger story but I'll end the ridiculous merry go round of you attempting to twist my words here. :)I only see you twisting yourself in knots Marsh, in a rambling attempt to insist that your own view on every topic is worth its weight in gold. I wonder... IS there a topic where you might admit that relevant personal experience might make for a more informed opinion? Or do all people's opinions have to be considered equal across all topics?

[Beso]

Tomayto, tomahto...

:hehe:

[Marsh.]

I only see you twisting yourself in knots Marsh, in a rambling attempt to insist that your own view on every topic is worth its weight in gold.

:umm2: Couldn't be further from the truth. Bait someone else with your personal comments.

[Tom4784]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.mic.com/articles/amp/92951/16-short-films-that-launched-the-careers-of-famous-directors

Sofia Coppola is the daughter of Francis Ford Coppola, that is what launched her career. She's excellent but let's face it, she would have had a career regardless, she was born with a break into the industry as are many children of famous faces who are in the industry.

But good job, you've found 12 examples among thousands whose films wouldn't have made an impact.

People don't make a short film and are instantly handed the director's chair for a major hollywood picture for the most part. They work their way up through different projects and earn their stripes. It's mostly who you know rather than what you do until you get big and then it's 'how well did your last film do?'

Still doesn't really change the fact that the controversy will inevitably help the film's chances and it's director, not hinder them when before they would have liked joined the other short film nominees who failed to make an impact by being nominated (or win).

[Beso]

Still proves that winning this category can leap frog you onto bigger things though.

[Tom4784]

Still proves that winning this category can leap frog you onto bigger things though.

And you can win the lottery if you buy a ticket, doesn't make it likely though.

[Marsh.]

IS there a topic where you might admit that relevant personal experience might make for a more informed opinion?

You haven't read a single one of my posts have you? :joker: This comment says it all.

[Beso]

And you can win the lottery if you buy a ticket, doesn't make it likely though.

But the lottery can't single you out for free tickets.

[Tom4784]

But the lottery can't single you out for free tickets.

That analogy doesn't really work.

[Beso]

That analogy doesn't really work.

Bit like your last 5 replies on this subject.

[Beso]

The lottery thing....like wha!!!!

You can't compare the 2...one is a level playing field, the other is specially selected select few.

[Marsh.]

Just tried to watch Denise' interview on This Morning.

Goodness sake Philip Schofield is annoying.