Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Musicaholic Forums Moderator ForeverAutumn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    9,769

    Should movie-makers profit from violent crimes?

    I realize that this board doesn't usually get controversial, but I have to ask this question. Should movie-makers (or anyone for that matter) be allowed to profit from violent crimes? I'm refering, in particular, to the movie Karla.

    This has become a very sensitive issue in my corner of the world. The crimes depicted in this movie happened less than an hours drive from where I live. The man eventually convicted for the crimes that this movie is based on, was also convicted for many rapes (double digits) that terrorized a neighbourhood in my city, for years prior (I doubt that the movie gets into that, since it seems to focus on the female half of this duo). People here were outraged when it was discovered that a movie was being made from these events. The film was supposed to debut at the Toronto Film Festival. But that created such an angry frenzy that the producers moved it to the Montreal Film Festival. After pressure from the public some the sponsors of the Montreal Festival threated to withdraw their support if the film debuted there, and so it was pulled from there also.

    It opened in theatres here today. Most of the people that I've talked to won't go to see it, myself included. I know that a lot of the difficulty that the film is having here is due to the proximity of the crime. We lived the fear and anger first hand. And while I understand that the story in itself is so sensational that it just begs to be a movie (in fact, if it were just a movie and not based on real life, you could almost believe that it's too unbelievable to ever really happen), it pains me to think that there are people out there profiting from the rape, torture and death of three young girls (one of them was Karla's younger sister!!!!!!).

    So, what's your view? Should movies based on true crimes be made to tell the story no matter how gruesome and no matter who gets hurt by the ongoing media attention (in this case the families of the victims are devastated)? Should movies such as this not be made in order to protect the families of the victims? Should there be a waiting period in force before movies or books about crimes can be released? Perpetraters themselves are not allowed to profit from their crimes...should other people profit?

    Are you planning on going to see it? (I promise not hold it against you if you are)
    Last edited by ForeverAutumn; 01-20-2006 at 03:43 PM.

  2. #2
    Kam
    Kam is offline
    filet - o - fish Kam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,770
    Quote Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn
    I realize that this board doesn't usually get controversial, but I have to ask this question. Should movie-makers (or anyone for that matter) be allowed to profit from violent crimes? I'm refering, in particular, to the movie Karla.

    This has become a very sensitive issue in my corner of the world. The crimes depicted in this movie happened less than an hours drive from where I live. The man eventually convicted for the crimes that this movie is based on, was also convicted for many rapes (double digits) that terrorized a neighbourhood in my city, for years prior (I doubt that the movie gets into that, since it seems to focus on the female half of this duo). People here were outraged when it was discovered that a movie was being made from these events. The film was supposed to debut at the Toronto Film Festival. But that created such an angry frenzy that the producers moved it to the Montreal Film Festival. After pressure from the public some the sponsors of the Montreal Festival threated to withdraw their support if the film debuted there, and so it was pulled from there also.

    It opened in theatres here today. Most of the people that I've talked to won't go to see it, myself included. I know that a lot of the difficulty that the film is having here is due to the proximity of the crime. We lived the fear and anger first hand. And while I understand that the story in itself is so sensational that it just begs to be a movie (in fact, if it were just a movie and not based on real life, you could almost believe that it's too unbelievable to ever really happen), it pains me to think that there are people out there profiting from the rape, torture and death of three young girls (one of them was Karla's younger sister!!!!!!).

    So, what's your view? Should movies based on true crimes be made to tell the story no matter how gruesome and no matter who gets hurt by the ongoing media attention (in this case the families of the victims are devastated)? Should movies such as this not be made in order to protect the families of the victims? Should there be a waiting period in force before movies or books about crimes can be released? Perpetraters themselves are not allowed to profit from their crimes...should other people profit?

    Are you planning on going to see it? (I promise not hold it against you if you are)
    it's kind of a double-edged sword, and always tough to predict anyone's motives. had this been made inside the hollywood system, i would say that their one and only motive was to make a sensational movie and profit from it. but since this was an indie production by a director with an incredibly varied past (from Mighty Morphin Power Rangers to Sweet Valley High to this???) i wouldnt dare to guess as to what are his motives. i thought this was based off of a book that was written about the case/murders. now am just shooting in the dark, but it could be the filmmaker read the book and the story hit home with him and thought this was something that should be told. not as a profit from the deaths as much as to make sure these girls' story is not left unheard. maybe he felt an obligation to bring this story to a larger audience. i certainly hadnt even heard of the book till i looked up the movie. maybe he felt this was an important story the world needed to open its eyes to. maybe not.

    i feel the same way about the movie Flight 93, that is about the horrible tragedy and heroism of the people on board the flight that rushed the cockpit and did what they could to stop that plane from hitting the pentagon/capital/dc, wherever it was headed. just seeing the trailer to that one made me feel sick and choked up. its the same issue, here's an amazing "story" of bravery and sacrifice. should it be "told" when the world witnessed it first hand just 5 years ago? it's tough to say, who is to say when is the 'right' time to try and retell these stories. obviously hollywood has done their research (with whoever it is that they poll) and found out that an american audience was ready for a 9/11 movie. oliver stone is currently shooting his 9/11 cop movie here in new york right now.

    movies relating to real life events/wars/etc. and depicting them so close in time to the actual event... well its tough to guage them because we cannot divorce ourselves from the reality of it. just like how you have lived through the actual events of Karla and am sure could not find a news channel that wasnt constantly reporting on it, to now see a movie based/retelling those events can not be an easy pill to swallow.

    apocalypse now was made in 1979 incredibly close to the end of vietnam. i dont know how it was received at the time because i was too young. watching it as an adult now i can appreciate an incredible movie. watching it as an adult in 1979 would be a very different thing and something i cant relate to.

    so back to the original point... aside from the movie then, should the book have been written? how much money is made off of the death of others? an incredible amount!! entire industries have been created by 9/11. i cant even guess the amount of revenue generated from the 9/11 report that was published. not to mention all the books and subsequent memoirs of people even remotely related to the incident. how many books have been written about the OJ simpson trial? i thought at one point (anyone correct me if i'm wrong) that every juror had a book deal after the verdict came out. i know every lawyer sure did. everyone in that courtroom made money. (well maybe not oj but i dont know if he's had to pay up the civil lawsuit or has managed to hide his money)

    i read on imdb that the families wanted to see an advance screening of the movie to see if they would want to try and block its release. they chose not to. that's not neccessarily a glowing endorsement of the movie, but they dont seem to actively oppose its release either. the families of flight 93 have supposedly given their support in the making of the movie. should the families of the victims of the crime in question have the last say as to who should profit from it? i would guess, if i lost a family member to a violent crime, that IF a single penny was to be moved in commerce because of that fact, it should come to me and my family and noone else. XYZ wants to make a movie about the events of the death of abc family member? sure, fine. i get 100% of the profits. is that selfish? absolutely. and xyz can make any darn movie they want, but if they want to make THIS movie about MY family member, then they pay the price for it. its a very visceral reation. think of your loved one dying and then seeing president xyz of paramount/columbia/warner bros. etc. reaping in the benefits of a $35mill weekend opening. or watching as director xyz accepts an academy award for the movie that was made based on the events of your loved ones death. if that happenned with your blessing that's one thing. but if it happenned while you tried to stop it from happenning? imagine how that would feel.

    now... the flipside. there's no way that is practical and completely restricts expression and the artistic form. i am a strict advocate of the first amendment. i believe in freedom of expression. and while this doesnt quite fall in that category as no government agency is stepping in to stop it from being made, i also believe in the freemarket place of ideas. throw all the crap of all the minds in the world out there and what is truly "good" will stick with us.

    what about the 'based on events' type stories. what about ancient history? where is the line drawn? i hate slipperly slope arguments as much as they creep into our every day life. nothing is black and white and we constantly have to navigate through shades of gray. should the descendents of General Grant receive a percentage of profits from any movie about his life or his impact on the civil war? how many books have been written about him?

    with life and history, there is a duty, imo, to preserve it and present it to the world. now the manner in which it is presented will be debated by everyone as to what is appropriate. but a powerful movie can be made to tell a message concerning a certain event that is timeless and just as poignant and important now as it was when it was made. i'm not saying Karla is or is not such a movie. does it have a 'right' to be made by these filmmakers? yes, i believe it does. do they have an obligation to those victims of the crimes? yes, i believe they do. i believe they have an incredible obligation. so much so, that if I were to take on a story based on true life events, i would feel an unbelievable obligation to those actually involved to do it "justice." art and entertainment are definitely intertwined and, i believe, incredibly important facets of our lives. entertainment shouldn't be mindless, even at its dumbest, lowest form (ala summer blockbusters), it should always actively engage and challenge you, and there's no reason why it should not do so other than lazyness on the part of its creators.

    so in the spirit of lost, i'm not sure i actually answered anything as much as raised even more questions. but no, i'm not planning on going to see it either. wow, ok, that was really long winded response. that's enough highhorse preaching for the year from me! whew!

    peace
    k2
    /create

  3. #3
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243
    You guys are both on a roll. I can't type that much without a nap halfway through.

    Good points. I was always put off a bit when the Amy Fisher story was done three ways just a few months after it went down. I know, it wasn't as traggic as the events you both brought up. But I felt it was in bad taste.
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  4. #4
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn
    I realize that this board doesn't usually get controversial, but I have to ask this question. Should movie-makers (or anyone for that matter) be allowed to profit from violent crimes? I'm refering, in particular, to the movie Karla.

    This has become a very sensitive issue in my corner of the world. The crimes depicted in this movie happened less than an hours drive from where I live. The man eventually convicted for the crimes that this movie is based on, was also convicted for many rapes (double digits) that terrorized a neighbourhood in my city, for years prior (I doubt that the movie gets into that, since it seems to focus on the female half of this duo). People here were outraged when it was discovered that a movie was being made from these events. The film was supposed to debut at the Toronto Film Festival. But that created such an angry frenzy that the producers moved it to the Montreal Film Festival. After pressure from the public some the sponsors of the Montreal Festival threated to withdraw their support if the film debuted there, and so it was pulled from there also.

    It opened in theatres here today. Most of the people that I've talked to won't go to see it, myself included. I know that a lot of the difficulty that the film is having here is due to the proximity of the crime. We lived the fear and anger first hand. And while I understand that the story in itself is so sensational that it just begs to be a movie (in fact, if it were just a movie and not based on real life, you could almost believe that it's too unbelievable to ever really happen), it pains me to think that there are people out there profiting from the rape, torture and death of three young girls (one of them was Karla's younger sister!!!!!!).

    So, what's your view? Should movies based on true crimes be made to tell the story no matter how gruesome and no matter who gets hurt by the ongoing media attention (in this case the families of the victims are devastated)? Should movies such as this not be made in order to protect the families of the victims? Should there be a waiting period in force before movies or books about crimes can be released? Perpetraters themselves are not allowed to profit from their crimes...should other people profit?

    Are you planning on going to see it? (I promise not hold it against you if you are)

    well the reviews have ripped it http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/karla/ so I don;t want to see it merely for the fact that these reviewers are probably right and that it is a lousy movie.

    As for whether it should be made -- well freedom of speech unfortunately rises above our disatisfaction over the morality of film makers with questionable taste. Like Larry Flint or Pat Robertson or Hugh Hefner -- I don't want a body of individuals to decide what I can and cannot view - or what I can create in the name of art.

    Conversely a community has the right to picket write letters etc to remove such things they don't want to have shown in their theaters. Frankly I think they should just not go.

    There is a theater owner in the States who is not showing Brokeback Mountain because there is Gay content. At first I thought that well if he owns the theater then he should have the right to bring in or NOT bring in any movie he wishes. Upn thinking and discussing with a very smart girl who is way smarter than I -- theaters perform in effect as cultural entertainment and in MOST cases cities and towns provide for and often subsidize movie theater owners and businesses in general -- and they as business owners DO not have the right to impede the society (or the town). She argues the case better than I am right now but if people think it through as a big picture they too, and I, would see the implications.

    Though as a Canadian she and I do not view capitalism as the number one goal of life -- so while we may say hey the whole town paid taxes for the Cultural center (movie theater in today's world) above the interest of the businessmen. In the US bussiness is always put above people. Tht is why ford Motor Company uis still in business -- their entire board of directors in a sane society would have all of them serving liffe in prison with no possibility for parole. But that is for another day.

  5. #5
    Can a crooner get a gig? dean_martin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Lower AL
    Posts
    2,838
    There's a 30+ page article on this on court tv's website. The article's bibliography cites THREE paperback books. It seems there are competing views as to the extent or willingness of Karla's participation in these murders.

    I have to side with freedom of expression here. We can't outlaw bad taste and irreverance. If the film is an attempt to present a particular side of a dispute (like Karla's participation), then I would understand that the filmmaker is trying to "set the record straight" according to his/her point of view. But, unfortunately from what you guys have shared, it seems to be a poor attempt to profit from a tragedy.

    So, the good folks of FA's area are doing exactly what they should do. Hit these slimey bastards where it hurts the most - in the wallet. They're free to follow them and stage boycotts wherever they try to open the film. Free speech vs. free speech instead of free speech vs. censorship.

    Have you ever wandered into the true crime section of a bookstore? I only recently realized what a popular genre this is. I'm not sure what it says about our society. But, if just one "In Cold Blood" comes out of it, or one wrongly convicted person is released because of an author's research and writing, or if publishing the patterns of a serial killer helps catch another, then there is some redeeming social value even if the majority of the genre is crap feeding on our lowest common denominator.

  6. #6
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Great question, FA.

    I'm a little sick of the media's apparent love affair with this story here in Canada. I admit, it is provacative, and I find myself listening or reading about it a lot but, out of respect for the families, I just feel maybe it's none of my business.

    Profiting off the crime does seem to be unethical in some ways. Who owns "the story"? In our society (North America) crimes are public knowledge, so I guess it's fair game.

    If it was a non-profit documentary, there wouldn't be as much of an issue, I don't think. We don't ban movies on war, or crimes of the distant past either. Maybe in the end the responsibility to watch or not rests with the individual.

    A film-maker only profits if you pay to see his or her movie.

  7. #7
    Musicaholic Forums Moderator ForeverAutumn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    9,769
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    Great question, FA.

    I'm a little sick of the media's apparent love affair with this story here in Canada. I admit, it is provacative, and I find myself listening or reading about it a lot but, out of respect for the families, I just feel maybe it's none of my business.

    Profiting off the crime does seem to be unethical in some ways. Who owns "the story"? In our society (North America) crimes are public knowledge, so I guess it's fair game.

    If it was a non-profit documentary, there wouldn't be as much of an issue, I don't think. We don't ban movies on war, or crimes of the distant past either. Maybe in the end the responsibility to watch or not rests with the individual.

    A film-maker only profits if you pay to see his or her movie.
    Just as another small example of how the makers of this movie are capitalizing on the media attention, the movie was originally titled, Deadly (and was marketed that way...posters, trailers, etc). It was changed to Karla at the final hour after a media blitz in the final months of her sentence and being released from prison. It's this type of blatant exploitation of the situation that upsets me. When the director (or whoever) does something like that, it has nothing to do with "the art", it has everything to do with capitalizing on the situation for their own personal agenda.

    I am a huge proponent of free speech and do believe that the people involved do have a right to make the movie. But does that mean that they should make the movie? I have the right to stand on the street and yell the N-word as loud as I can. Does that mean that I should? No, of course not. As a socially responsible person, I know that that's offensive, so I shouldn't do it (and, more importantly, wouldn't do it).

    As some of you have suggested, I guess that I would feel a whole lot better if the profits of this movie were going to charities to help victims of violent crimes, or if something...anything...good could come of this. As I see it now, this is nothing more than one group of people profiting off of the illegal and immoral acts of another group of people. Does that, in turn, make the profiteers immoral since they are exploiting an immoral act? An interesting question that I will have to give some thought to.
    Last edited by ForeverAutumn; 01-22-2006 at 06:52 AM.

  8. #8
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    ultimately it goes back to Larry Flint -- as he argued -- he peddles smut -- but clearly taht is what a very very veyr large chunk of magazine buyers WANT.

    When i go to the movies I want to see a good movie -- I don;t think there is anything inherently WRONG about making a film about a Serial Killer - or even taking a particular side -- a good film, one that is balanced, fair, and intelligent could certainly be made about Karla Homolka --this film from the reviews isn't and therefore will bring up such arguments.

    If you want to see an excellent true story on one of the worst serial killers in history rent Citizen X

    Another recent one is Monster -- Monster is a very strong film -- which I am sure is disturbing to the families who have sufferred through her actions. The filmmakers portray her as sympathetic but not her actions. There is a balance I think they get right and as a society we do not have "clean hands" in the murders that she comits. We spend lots of money on gun control and reactionary policing but we spend little money on improving society in the first place to prevent people from getting into the situations where lives are that bleak that they become the epitome of violence.

    The Canadian Federal election for example has the NDP who would likely use taxes to improve the society and spend on programs that would give youths more outlets to take part in and be more "likely" to avoid the negative stuations and people that get them into crime in the first place. The problem the NDP always has is that they cannot provide hard data or proof of the effectiveness of such implementations. Society likes simple balck and white numbers so the Conservatives can demand sterner punishments and all of these things sound so strong and tough -- which of course does nto stop the initial murder in any real way -- and sterner punishment is proven not to deter criminals. Not that I'm against sterner punishments mind you as I would be far tougher on certain crime than our governement is but the two are spearate issues to a large extent.

    The problem with the NDP is that many of the ideas they promote are idealistic ones -- visions of what they would like to see improve - and voters dislike grey areas and would rather binary answers. Unfortunately Socialism is viewed to be Communistic and yet it is mostly socialitic spending practices that get every society out of recessions and for that matter the great depressions -- it was the minority of the NDP that has given Canada an old age Pension, Veterans pensions and health care and unemployment insurance. Not that these run perfectly or particularly efficiently -- but some is better than none.

    Lefty govenments are always viewed as spend and spend governments - but that is what governments are SUPPOSED to do -- they are supposed to take taxes and put those into services for all citizens. Not take taxes to give their off shore buddies and to oil companies that paid for their elections. The last conservative gov't Canada had for example put the country 42 billion into debt on frivolous crap -- and these guys were supposedly the good spending right wingers -- see GWB for an example of right wing spending. If they spent half their defense budget on home improvement there would not be a single person under the poverty line in the US. And they'd still have the best military by far in the world - of course the presidents of Ford, Haliburton, Lochheed would all have to take 50% paycuts and investors stck would be lower -- but hey money is more important than people after all.

    Since this is a movie forum -- see the film The Third Man -- See the way Welles character views ordinary people -- The slimey people working at the top of some of the biggest companies in the world are the TRUE seriel killers - they make Bundy and the Green River Killer look like punks.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •