Is this right? - Karla Homolka 'the movie'

[King Chaos]

Based completely upon these events - http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/bernardo/index_1.html?sect=1

This film is being made: http://www.movietome.com/movietome/servlet/MovieMain/movieid-115156/Deadly/

The serial killer in question - Karla Homolka, will be released from prison around the time of the films release, and there is absolutely nothing to stop her from just going to the cinema and watching her truly distrubing actions recreated as entertainment.

All other serial killer movies have been released after the death of the serial killers in question, to try and relinquish the fame they would feel by having a movie about their life's work. This is the only film to be released about a real life serial killer (other than maybe 'chopper', if you can consider him a serial killer) while the serial killer has been walking the streets.

Many people are in fear of what Karla is capable of. Is it right that they are making a film, which could easilly be read as a celebration of gore, tactless to the families, which will feature in the film, that have suffered so much at the hands of this creature and her husbands actions?

 

[rahvin]

i think gandalf should have had a chance to see all the lotr movies.

 

[King Chaos]

I agree... But what would all the urakai think? Gandalf might be encouraged to go another killing spree, or at least Urakai's may fear Gandalf would become enthusiastic about maiming there ugly kind once again. And think of there families? Having to watch uncle Blokjak get cut to pieces by a dwarfe that can't even dress himself. Now that's trauma.

 

[Misanthrope]

Its a film about a person, if said "serial killer" is truly mentally ill watching her ( or is it his? ) own actions wont change his thought patterns or actions one bit: someone who systematically destroys other humans is just not capable of feeling anything for other people.

And so what if the film is coming out? Its a film and it shouldnt be stopped just because it might make people paranoid, alot of movies deal with things that can happen to people at any given time is that reason enough to "shield them" from the horrible truths the cinema brings forth? If someone is that sensitive then said person has a problem much more deeper and simply "protecting" them from a movie wont solve the problem, in fact it might make it worst in the same fashion people with irrational fears should just confront them and realize they are being irrational.

 

[King Chaos]

Although I agree, I cant see many people here disagreeing, so Im gonna argue the other side of the fence.

Everything you said is understandable. I agree that, for instance, films about rape will upset rape victims, but shouldn't be censored because the relating victim can't have some god damn discression. But the situation with this film is, the families of the victims are in absolute disarray over the project. Apparently they don't want a film documenting the reality of their suffering to be made. What added more logs to the fire is the director admitted he hoped to make a good deal of money off of this flick (I present this as third hand information). Without the real life families consent, the production has gone gone ahead, and the videos Karla and her husband made of the torture and rapes they carried out are being used as a stencil for the cinematography. Is this going to be entertainment? There is no way this film should be offered as 'commercial' product, as it is a truly sick concept (just read the crime library link). If the director had of said "This is for artistic purposes, raising awareness of the truly evil deeds man is capable of", then I think the film's place would be more justifiable.

 

[Misanthrope]

Although I agree, I cant see many people here disagreeing, so Im gonna argue the other side of the fence.

Everything you said is understandable. I agree that, for instance, films about rape will upset rape victims, but shouldn't be censored because the relating victim can't have some god damn discression. But the situation with this film is, the families of the victims are in absolute disarray over the project. Apparently they don't want a film documenting the reality of their suffering to be made. What added more logs to the fire is the director admitted he hoped to make a good deal of money off of this flick (I present this as third hand information). Without the real life families consent, the production has gone gone ahead, and the videos Karla and her husband made of the torture and rapes they carried out are being used as a stencil for the cinematography. Is this going to be entertainment? There is no way this film should be offered as 'commercial' product, as it is a truly sick concept (just read the crime library link). If the director had of said "This is for artistic purposes, raising awareness of the truly evil deeds man is capable of", then I think the film's place would be more justifiable.

You think that these stupid idiot "families" would be more worried about the killer being set free as oppossed to fighting a damn movie. Its not the first or the last serial killer movie and im sorry for their lost ( not really but at least i can see how someone could be sorry for their lost ) but no one will force them to watch the movie at gunpoint and force them to relive their experience, so fuck em people has morbid fascinations and said families probably watched silence of the lambs or another serial killer movie in the past.

Censorship is just wrong as a principle, i dont care if the people making this movie are the biggest money grabbing pigs to ever exist on the face of the earth, censoring their work will open the doors to censor other people that might have a legitimate artistic vision and that is just fucking wrong.

 

[Taliesin]

I think there's no point in retelling a story like that, however Im not a friend of banning movies for their contents, so if anyone feels like watching it, they should have the possibility to do so.
I count on people's common sense as to what to think about a film like that.. also that ice might well be quite thin.

 

[King Chaos]

However, the truly disturbing nature of these crimes would suggest it's just obligatory that you dont make a film about it. I mean, it's pretty much unspoken. A subject as controversial, and relative as this one should be left alone, at least until 2050. The producers morality must be absolutely obsolete. I really can't imagine how mind numbingly brutal this film is going to be (judging by the article about the crimes). Of course, this generates an element of curiosity for me, and I will most likely as a result of this controversy, be in line for a ticket upon its release. But what is the audience going to be? Silence of the lambs is one thing... it's a thriller, its got a nice twisted Hollywood narrative, a bit of gore here and there, a happy ending... But this is something else. Possibly one of the most Heinous things I have ever had the displeasure of reading about.

After upsetting so many, could you still persist on making a film with such devastating, controversial content? I personally wouldn't touch this with a barge pole.

 

[Misanthrope]

However, the truly disturbing nature of these crimes would suggest it's just obligatory that you dont make a film about it. I mean, it's pretty much unspoken. A subject as controversial, and relative as this one should be left alone, at least until 2050. The producers morality must be absolutely obsolete. I really can't imagine how mind numbingly brutal this film is going to be (judging by the article about the crimes). Of course, this generates an element of curiosity for me, and I will most likely as a result of this controversy, be in line for a ticket upon its release. But what is the audience going to be? Silence of the lambs is one thing... it's a thriller, its got a nice twisted Hollywood narrative, a bit of gore here and there, a happy ending... But this is something else. Possibly one of the most Heinous things I have ever had the displeasure of reading about.

After upsetting so many, could you still persist on making a film with such devastating, controversial content? I personally wouldn't touch this with a barge pole.

So in other words, because of this producers fuck film as subversive art? Lets all go back in time and Stone Luis Buñuel and Salvador Dali for creating Un Chien Andalou because its was so brutal and it had no point!

 

[Taliesin]

However, the truly disturbing nature of these crimes would suggest it's just obligatory that you dont make a film about it. I mean, it's pretty much unspoken. A subject as controversial, and relative as this one should be left alone, at least until 2050. The producers morality must be absolutely obsolete.

I agree there, but it would be hypocritical to intervene and ban the movie, which is why I leave it to societie's "common sense" to get that done.
For the rest, I pretty much agree with Mis.. wow

 

[Misanthrope]

Again people will always like morbid images just because is taboo, if you take a stand on that movie you'll have to go through all the net and eliminate all the gore sites, all those extreme porn and fake snuff sites, all those "faces of death" kind of movies not to mention slashers and b grade gorefest zombie flicks.

If anything this censorship and controversity will only push foward the film and get more people interested in it.

 

[King Chaos]

If anything this censorship and controversity will only push foward the film and get more people interested in it.

Excellent point. I have a feeling that's one of the reasons the Director said he hoped to make a buck from the film... because then the social outrage at his apparent "exploitation" of these events will definately create, perhaps negative press (still good press) in certain regions. Free and easy marketing.

With the Andalucian dog it is clear that the film was about nothing. It was an artistic avantegarde (I guess) joke. The film was about as sureal and unreal as a film could get. The only thing that may upset some audiences justifiably (not just because they are squeemish) would be the anti catholic imagery... but still, the film in question is about yesterdays events, and is dealing with an almost dangerous current issue. It's like loading a gun and giving it to a retard. He's gonna pull the trigger, of course we know a dangerous mind will cause harm anyway... but would you want to be the person laying the mine under the path of the innocent?

 

[Misanthrope]

I dont feel Un Chien Andalou was intended as a joke, nor would i be sure that it is completly pointless and devoid of meaning, it was just a blunt way to bring forth a relatively new method of expression. The nature of said method makes rational explanation most difficult therefore conventional methods to judge it would be futile, or if you want, saying its pointless is pointless.

 

[King Chaos]

this is offtopic now (second time I've been offtopic in a row ) But I wanna know how you read the time titles. I can't remember exactly what it was, but it might have been something like "6 years earlier", then "12 years later" or something similar... it might have been the other way round (6 years later, 12 years earlier).
I have a theory, it's not much, but I figured seen as though not many had dabbled in the idea of surrealism, perhaps they were trying to look for a convention to match the confusing time line of a dream. I mean, personally my dreams have very little chronology. It's alot like that, going back and forth in time rather randomly with nothing really to cohere what goes where how and why. Especially when I try to recall it. Did you think this at all or am I just a stupid motherfucker?

I agree with what you say about homolka the movie btw. Some people need to see, film can only represent reality, and it's not gonna change a damn thing. Please someone disagree so this can escalate into a bout of extreme flamidge.

 

[MagSec4]

I think it's inappropriate, especially at this time. But if they want to make a film about it, then let them. I had enough just reading a bit about the story.

 

[King Chaos]

I think it's inappropriate, especially at this time. But if they want to make a film about it, then let them. I had enough just reading a bit about the story.

Yeah exactly. The fact that a commentary on what the couple did depressed me for a week means if this movie is done right (or very wrong) it's going to be hideous. I have worries that they are gonna try and hollywoodify the concept, and glorify their actions in some ways. The director is not an auteur by any sense of the word, and he could potentially make one of the most offensive films of all time if he doesn't tackle the subject artistically.