Shakeyhands Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 Thoughts on this? Read Article Here In my opinion this is going too far, I understand that perspective on the matter from the families view, but is this not pure blatant censorship? What grounds could the government (Canadian Film Board?) have in preventing the distribution into Canada if it is picked up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fortunata Posted March 24, 2005 Report Share Posted March 24, 2005 The French and Mahaffy families are concerned the film could violate their daughters' memories. I feel sorry for these families. They are not the first, nor will they be the last, to be put through this type of ordeal by people willing to make money off of someone else's pain. But censoring it? That's a slippery slope. Hopefully, people with any kind of sensitivity will not be viewing it and supporting the exploiters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PocketRocket Posted March 24, 2005 Report Share Posted March 24, 2005 I couldn't access the link provided. Requires a login password. Can you post some of the article??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fortunata Posted March 24, 2005 Report Share Posted March 24, 2005 A lawyer representing the families of two slain Ontario schoolgirls has demanded an advance screening of a new Hollywood movie about Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka to determine whether he will try to block its release. "We have very serious concerns about the film because transcripts (the producers) have... include what went on inside the house (and) what was on the videotapes and it's very disturbing information," said Tim Danson. skip ...they intend to simulate what occurred inside the Bernardo-Homolka home," said Danson. "On that basis, we have requested an advance viewing of the tape." Danson said he is "very, very concerned" the film's depiction of those gruesome events could be construed as child pornography. skip The province has no legal power to prevent the film being shown in Ontario, conceded McGuinty. But if the film makes its way into the province, the Ontario Film Review Board can forward it to police if it feels the Criminal Code has been breached. The film's website suggests the story is somewhat sympathetic to Homolka, skip Sellers said he's keenly aware of the concerns the movie raises. "I... made a commitment to myself to do nothing to dishonour the memory of the victims," reads the statement. "All of the people involved in creating the film have gone through similar soul-searching." The producers based the film on court transcripts, information that was subject to a media ban in Canada. "I guess someone took the view that they were part of the public record and were entitled to it - skip "When we destroyed the videotapes and other sensitive material - (the families) really did believe they had purged this evil - that their daughters were now free from further violation," said Danson. "The thought of a Hollywood production simulating what had happened to their daughters is something that's excruciating and incomprehensible to them." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Terrible Sweal Posted March 24, 2005 Report Share Posted March 24, 2005 They should get real. The idea of a Hollywood movie actually 'simulating' what happened to those girls is completely implausible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 They should get real. The idea of a Hollywood movie actually 'simulating' what happened to those girls is completely implausible. On what basis do you say that? Do you object to the word "simulating", as opposed to (for instance) "re-enacting"? Or is there something else that makes it implausible that I'm just not seeing right now? -kimmy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Terrible Sweal Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 On what basis do you say that? Do you object to the word "simulating", as opposed to (for instance) "re-enacting"? Yes, it's the idea that Hollywood would show anything substantially simulating the actual experiences of the victims I find implausible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 I'm not sure I agree. While I'm sure that the movie wouldn't show the explicit penetration or graphic dismemberment of the actresses, that's about all I'm sure of. I don't think it would be very surprising if the film puts the viewer on the scene during the rapes, though I'm sure anything explicit will have a quick cut-away to Karla as she holds the camcorder... -kimmy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Miss Trudeau Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 Anyone that makes a buck through the exploitation of such horrendous suffering (not to mention increasing the suffering of the families) has a very questionable moral position, to say the least. Do I think it should it be censored? No. Do I think any decent person should pay to see it? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 I do think it should be censored - as in banned. Let's not see censorship in the context of "Free Speech" with respect to this kind of obscene exploitation of suffering. Something like this should perhaps be treated in the same way as copyright and there should be no possibility of writing books about it or making films for 50 years or so. I have a problem with the books since there could be valid reasons for non-exploitative research. But, until I can think that through, I will stick with a ban. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Miss Trudeau Posted March 26, 2005 Report Share Posted March 26, 2005 Is it possible that makers of this movie could be charged under the child porn law? 163.1 (1) In this section, "child pornography" means(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means, (i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or (ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years; or Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted March 27, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2005 So what is the difference between (any combination of factual or fantasy) this and say "Summer of Sam" or "Silence of the Lambs" or "to Catch a Killer"? Why is it so much more abhorrent than the others? I think because the French and Mahaffey families have been very very vocal (via DeVilliers Group) And rightly so, victims rights have been overlooked for ever. BUT..... ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted March 27, 2005 Report Share Posted March 27, 2005 I think you answer yourself when you bring in the victim's families. Put yourself in their place. If it were me, I would go to where this film was made and force feed the negatives down the makers' throats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Terrible Sweal Posted March 27, 2005 Report Share Posted March 27, 2005 OUR society produced these monsters. OUR police forces arrested them. OUR courts convicted them. OUR society lost the lives of these young victims. As tragic as it was, the "families" (whoever that means) cannot own this ugly piece of social reaity in perpetuity, and it's absurd for them to think they can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted March 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 I think you answer yourself when you bring in the victim's families.Put yourself in their place. If it were me, I would go to where this film was made and force feed the negatives down the makers' throats. oh I agree to a point, but now re-read Sweals comment... I have to think that he is correct in that this doesn't belong to just them. Is it right for the victims families or the courts to decide what we should know about what happened???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted March 28, 2005 Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 The crime belongs to society; the suffering to the families. I would not care how it was publicized in the interests of prevention but I will never countenance its use for entertainment. Entertainment is what any film will be. An appeal to the pocketbooks of ghouls. There is also the psychological phenomenon of increase in certain types of crimes that - sexual crimes are the common ones - through exposure and publicity. It seems as I recall from readings long ago, that even the threat of retribution increases the tensions in deviants of this nature and can lead to an increase in the numbers of these offences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shackwacky Posted March 28, 2005 Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 Anyone willing to pay to watch this shit being re-enacted in all its' sordid detail is in it for the entertainment value and nothing else. There is nothing new we can learn from a hollywood treatment that we haven't alreadly read about ad nauseum; from experience we know that a hollywood version will be factually lacking and sensationalistic. So where in all this is any redeeming factor, any tidbit that suggests "hey, this should be a movie?" These were real people and they did real ugly sick shit. There is no way the French's and Mahaffeys should have to deal with someone elses voyeuristic sadistic twitches and have to watch their daughters become victims one more time. IMHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 28, 2005 Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 Anyone willing to pay to watch this shit being re-enacted in all its' sordid detail is in it for the entertainment value and nothing else. There is nothing new we can learn from a hollywood treatment that we haven't alreadly read about ad nauseum; from experience we know that a hollywood version will be factually lacking and sensationalistic. So where in all this is any redeeming factor, any tidbit that suggests "hey, this should be a movie?" These were real people and they did real ugly sick shit. There is no way the French's and Mahaffeys should have to deal with someone elses voyeuristic sadistic twitches and have to watch their daughters become victims one more time. IMHO Maybe youj'd like to give us the socially redeeming value of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, or Friday the 13th, part ninety seven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted April 2, 2005 Report Share Posted April 2, 2005 I think someone's desire to make a movie of this is just a continuation of a trend that's been growing for a number of years. Some of the most popular TV shows for the past several years have been, as eureka phrased it, "An appeal to the pocketbooks of ghouls." For years the show "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" has been among the most watched shows on TV, and often #1. The show's formula is not so different from detective dramas of the past. You have a corpse, and a number of likely suspects... a few red herrings along the way, but finally the good-guys catch the murderer. What is different from the days of Murder She Wrote or Columbo is that the investigation examines gory medical evidence up close, often resulting in grotesque imagery. There's an autopsy every week as the corpse's wounds are examined in great detail. There is often a sexual aspect to the cases: in most episodes, either the corpses or the killers are beautiful women, and more often than not the murder came about through/because of/after some kind of taboo sexual hijinks. In the course of 5 or 6 seasons of CSI, they've either autopsied or incarcerated every blonde in Las Vegas, and have therefore had to launch spinoffs in Miami and New York, which are also among TV's most popular shows. If it sounds like I've watched the show entirely too often to complain about it, yes, that's true. I have been a loyal viewer for a long time. After all, it has a very good cast, the mysteries are often intriguing, and I like the idea of a show where the good-guys win using science instead of fists. I've been tiring of the show this season, but that's because of declining quality of the writing, not because of the gore and violence. But, I was thinking, if I'd watched something like this when I was a little kid, I'd have had nightmares about it. The things I saw on TV that gave me nightmares when I was little seem positively quaint in comparison. And while CSI airs at either 9 or 10 depending where you live, the show is now in sindication and episodes can be found mid-afternoon on some channels... so parents who think letting their kids watch TV after school is harmless might be in for a bit of a shock. In my opinion, the change in TV's permissiveness toward gore and violence over the past 10 years has been rather profound. I don't know how I'd respond if I were a parent. Having a TV-free home has some appeal... I think that kids are more and more exposed to images that are shocking and graphically violent. Movies, TV, video games... I think we are probably raising a generation that is numb to pain and suffering. -kimmy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted April 2, 2005 Report Share Posted April 2, 2005 Good post, Kimmy. I have never seen CSI but something similar could be said of many not so well written or intelligent shows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted April 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 Hmmm.... Who will step up? Canada's major theatre chains say they won't consider showing the controversial movie depicting the horrific murders by Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka unless the producers sign a contract with a Canadian distributor. Because.... "I think there should be an appetite for this movie," Sellers said. "It's not like it's the first true-crime movie made. In fact, this is probably one of the top 10 true-crime stories that hasn't been on screen yet." While activists want to stop theatres from showing the movie, which is based on Bernardo and Homolka's kidnapping and murder of teenagers Kristin French and Leslie Mahaffy, the hype that has engulfed the project may backfire and could ultimately broaden the film's prospective audience. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...ol=968705899037 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.