This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/feb/04/amanda-knox-face-of-an-angel-mi...
Dear God. I don’t think I have the words to express my contempt.
What the f**k is the BBC thinking? Maybe it really is time to disband them if they can’t do any better than this?
jcm
Dear God. I don’t think I have the words to express my contempt.
What the f**k is the BBC thinking? Maybe it really is time to disband them if they can’t do any better than this?
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I'm alright with the BBC doing things I don't agree with, and of course I haven't seen this, but I do have to ask what Winterbottom is doing here. The judicial process hasn't even finished yet!
I'm alright with the BBC doing things I don't agree with, and of course I haven't seen this, but I do have to ask what Winterbottom is doing here. The judicial process hasn't even finished yet!
In reply to toad:
>I'm alright with the BBC doing things I don't agree with
I'm not. Giving airtime for viewpoints I don't agree with, certainly, but this isn't that.
Neither the BBC nor anyone else should be making fictional versions of recent murders, obviously especially when the judicial process hasn't finished, but also in any event. Unless they have the victim's family's blessing, I suppose, and even then I'm not terribly keen.
If they want to make such a film, it isn't hard to imagine how they could do something similar without trumpeting how it's based on the Perugia murder. Why the need to base it on anything? Answer, because it sells, and because it's less strain on the imagination. It sucks. Shame on them.
jcm
>I'm alright with the BBC doing things I don't agree with
I'm not. Giving airtime for viewpoints I don't agree with, certainly, but this isn't that.
Neither the BBC nor anyone else should be making fictional versions of recent murders, obviously especially when the judicial process hasn't finished, but also in any event. Unless they have the victim's family's blessing, I suppose, and even then I'm not terribly keen.
If they want to make such a film, it isn't hard to imagine how they could do something similar without trumpeting how it's based on the Perugia murder. Why the need to base it on anything? Answer, because it sells, and because it's less strain on the imagination. It sucks. Shame on them.
jcm
Post edited at 13:35
In reply to Fraser:
Well, it's clearly disagreeable, and anyone who wants to have a TV has to pay for it. What you do with your knickers is your own business.
> I'll not be getting my nickers in a twist over this tbh.
Well, it's clearly disagreeable, and anyone who wants to have a TV has to pay for it. What you do with your knickers is your own business.
Post edited at 14:14
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Its BBC films part funded and I thought they had freedom to do such work rather than being state controlled. I agree its potentially questionable but we dont know the details of how they will handle the case as yet (much is in the public domain) and they will have to answer to what they do. From a public education perspective the arcane Italian legal system could do with some proper exposure.
It is funny to see you coming over all Mary Whitehouse disgusted (presuming of course you don't know the detailed plot and haven't read the book which the film is linked to).
Its BBC films part funded and I thought they had freedom to do such work rather than being state controlled. I agree its potentially questionable but we dont know the details of how they will handle the case as yet (much is in the public domain) and they will have to answer to what they do. From a public education perspective the arcane Italian legal system could do with some proper exposure.
It is funny to see you coming over all Mary Whitehouse disgusted (presuming of course you don't know the detailed plot and haven't read the book which the film is linked to).
In reply to Offwidth:
You don't think it's at all insensitive towards (the late) Meredith Kercher's family?
I'm not outraged like jcm, but I find myself thinking it's rather soon after the murder.
You don't think it's at all insensitive towards (the late) Meredith Kercher's family?
I'm not outraged like jcm, but I find myself thinking it's rather soon after the murder.
Post edited at 15:27
In reply to Timmd:
Rather soon after the murder (6 years ago) or the recent events?
> You don't think it's at all insensitive towards (the late) Meredith Kercher's family?
> I'm not outraged like jcm, but I find myself thinking it's rather soon after the murder.
Rather soon after the murder (6 years ago) or the recent events?
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
I think recent events had given me the impression that the murder was more recent to be honest, but I don't suppose six years is long after losing somebody in a murder, not if it's a child or sibling.
I think recent events had given me the impression that the murder was more recent to be honest, but I don't suppose six years is long after losing somebody in a murder, not if it's a child or sibling.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
The link you have posted doesn't imply that the film is a fictional version of a recent murder.
Nor, presumably, do you know whether the family have given their blessing or not.
Nor do you have any real clue of how the film is to handle the story if your knowledge is based solely on 4 paragraphs on a newspaper's website.
Were you similarly outraged about United 93, or Zero Dark Thirty, or Into the Wild (not a murder but still a loss to the family) for example?
Your reaction seems a bit histrionic tbh.
> Neither the BBC nor anyone else should be making fictional versions of recent murders, obviously especially when the judicial process hasn't finished, but also in any event. Unless they have the victim's family's blessing, I suppose, and even then I'm not terribly keen.
The link you have posted doesn't imply that the film is a fictional version of a recent murder.
Nor, presumably, do you know whether the family have given their blessing or not.
Nor do you have any real clue of how the film is to handle the story if your knowledge is based solely on 4 paragraphs on a newspaper's website.
Were you similarly outraged about United 93, or Zero Dark Thirty, or Into the Wild (not a murder but still a loss to the family) for example?
Your reaction seems a bit histrionic tbh.
In reply to Edradour:
Beat me to it, but would also add that the BBC is not all paid for by licence fees, they have a huge commercial arm that is unrelated. I can't find proof that BBC films falls into that but it looks likely given their history.
Beat me to it, but would also add that the BBC is not all paid for by licence fees, they have a huge commercial arm that is unrelated. I can't find proof that BBC films falls into that but it looks likely given their history.
In reply to Edradour:
You've lost me. It's true that the actual event is not to be screened as far as we know.
True. Let's call it a guess, shall we? I don't see any mention of their being asked.
I don't, although it's based on a book whose central hypothesis was that AK was indeed involved in the murder. But on the other hand, I don't care. Handling it at all during the legal process is exceptionally questionable, and frankly any time before the parents die would be too soon for me.
No, but given that I've never heard of any of those films (?), that's not surprising.
I can assure you it's visceral rather than histrionic, but honesty is always sweet, of course.
jcm
> The link you have posted doesn't imply that the film is a fictional version of a recent murder.
You've lost me. It's true that the actual event is not to be screened as far as we know.
> Nor, presumably, do you know whether the family have given their blessing or not.
True. Let's call it a guess, shall we? I don't see any mention of their being asked.
> Nor do you have any real clue of how the film is to handle the story if your knowledge is based solely on 4 paragraphs on a newspaper's website.
I don't, although it's based on a book whose central hypothesis was that AK was indeed involved in the murder. But on the other hand, I don't care. Handling it at all during the legal process is exceptionally questionable, and frankly any time before the parents die would be too soon for me.
> Were you similarly outraged about United 93, or Zero Dark Thirty, or Into the Wild (not a murder but still a loss to the family) for example?
No, but given that I've never heard of any of those films (?), that's not surprising.
> Your reaction seems a bit histrionic tbh.
I can assure you it's visceral rather than histrionic, but honesty is always sweet, of course.
jcm
In reply to Timmd:
.....and you've been involved in court proceedings in the glare of the media ever since.
As I see it it's a very simple question of how society should respond to tragic events. My view is that the first thing it should do is seek to comfort the victims. I don't see how society is achieving that by making mass-market films "inspired by" (a nauseating phrase in itself) the murder.
jcm
> I think recent events had given me the impression that the murder was more recent to be honest, but I don't suppose six years is long after losing somebody in a murder, not if it's a child or sibling......
.....and you've been involved in court proceedings in the glare of the media ever since.
As I see it it's a very simple question of how society should respond to tragic events. My view is that the first thing it should do is seek to comfort the victims. I don't see how society is achieving that by making mass-market films "inspired by" (a nauseating phrase in itself) the murder.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Quite. Presumably the title refers to Amanda Knox? In which case it would imply that she is innocent.
> As I see it it's a very simple question of how society should respond to tragic events. My view is that the first thing it should do is seek to comfort the victims. I don't see how society is achieving that by making mass-market films "inspired by" (a nauseating phrase in itself) the murder.
> jcm
Quite. Presumably the title refers to Amanda Knox? In which case it would imply that she is innocent.
In reply to Removed User:
I assume it's come from the book title, "Angel Face: Sex, Murder and the Inside Story of Amanda Knox"
> Quite. Presumably the title refers to Amanda Knox? In which case it would imply that she is innocent.
I assume it's come from the book title, "Angel Face: Sex, Murder and the Inside Story of Amanda Knox"
In reply to galpinos:
Exactly and it could even imply the exact opposite: since when does having an angel face make one an angel? Back to my original point Mary Whitehouse was wrong to lobby strongly against things she hadn't even seen and so is anyone else. The BBC has systems to stop such problems and if they fail in this take them to task then.
Exactly and it could even imply the exact opposite: since when does having an angel face make one an angel? Back to my original point Mary Whitehouse was wrong to lobby strongly against things she hadn't even seen and so is anyone else. The BBC has systems to stop such problems and if they fail in this take them to task then.
In reply to galpinos:
Angels sell strongly. Like misery memoirs, angel books constitute a significant part of the otherwise collapsing book market. Same coin, other side.
> I assume it's come from the book title
Angels sell strongly. Like misery memoirs, angel books constitute a significant part of the otherwise collapsing book market. Same coin, other side.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Indeed, and without having yet found some kind of closure.
> .....and you've been involved in court proceedings in the glare of the media ever since.
Indeed, and without having yet found some kind of closure.
In reply to Offwidth:
>Back to my original point Mary Whitehouse was wrong to lobby strongly against things she hadn't even seen and so is anyone else.
If that's what you really think then you're a moron, but I'm going to pay you the compliment of assuming you're just raising a childish jury point in the course of trolling for some tiresome reason of your own.
As to comparing concern for victims of crime, with MW's anti-porn campaign, I'm not sure I know where to start, so I won't bother.
jcm
>Back to my original point Mary Whitehouse was wrong to lobby strongly against things she hadn't even seen and so is anyone else.
If that's what you really think then you're a moron, but I'm going to pay you the compliment of assuming you're just raising a childish jury point in the course of trolling for some tiresome reason of your own.
As to comparing concern for victims of crime, with MW's anti-porn campaign, I'm not sure I know where to start, so I won't bother.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I'd say its a pretty serious point rather than a childish one and on the subject of childish, name calling isn't very adult. You seem to be making what could be regarded as pompous public accusations about the appropriateness of a film based on no proper research about its content; which is very similar to what Mary did (albeit on a different subject matter and with different motives). If the evidence eventually shows what you suspect to be true I will then be joining you with my own concerns for the victims of this crime, but in the meantime I'll trust the prodction process to be suitably fair and reasonable.
I'd say its a pretty serious point rather than a childish one and on the subject of childish, name calling isn't very adult. You seem to be making what could be regarded as pompous public accusations about the appropriateness of a film based on no proper research about its content; which is very similar to what Mary did (albeit on a different subject matter and with different motives). If the evidence eventually shows what you suspect to be true I will then be joining you with my own concerns for the victims of this crime, but in the meantime I'll trust the prodction process to be suitably fair and reasonable.
In reply to Timmd:
Quite. It's a fascinating (if that's the right word) story with all the ingredients of a blockbuster film, but it's far too soon.
> You don't think it's at all insensitive towards (the late) Meredith Kercher's family?
> I'm not outraged like jcm, but I find myself thinking it's rather soon after the murder.
Quite. It's a fascinating (if that's the right word) story with all the ingredients of a blockbuster film, but it's far too soon.
In reply to Offwidth:
I think to me the title just seems a bit sensationalist for something which is full of facts and is balanced and sensitive in it's production.
Hopefully it'll be a sensitive and balanced production.
I think to me the title just seems a bit sensationalist for something which is full of facts and is balanced and sensitive in it's production.
Hopefully it'll be a sensitive and balanced production.
Post edited at 23:15
In reply to Timmd:
I don't care if it's sensitive or balanced in its production. It's not appropriate at all, whatever its content, to be making films based on, "inspired by", or in any other way cashing in upon, the murder of Meredith Kercher for a considerable number of years yet.
jcm
I don't care if it's sensitive or balanced in its production. It's not appropriate at all, whatever its content, to be making films based on, "inspired by", or in any other way cashing in upon, the murder of Meredith Kercher for a considerable number of years yet.
jcm
In reply to Offwidth:
Fair enough. In that case I retract my previous compliment and conclude that you are a fool. I'm not going to bother pointing out why you're wrong beyond observing that I don't suppose Mary W needed to watch Anal Teen Nurses and the like in order to conclude rightly that she wouldn't approve of them.
jcm
Fair enough. In that case I retract my previous compliment and conclude that you are a fool. I'm not going to bother pointing out why you're wrong beyond observing that I don't suppose Mary W needed to watch Anal Teen Nurses and the like in order to conclude rightly that she wouldn't approve of them.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I don't disagree, it's more that if they are going to make something, I hope it is sensitive and balanced.
I don't disagree, it's more that if they are going to make something, I hope it is sensitive and balanced.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
More sticks and stones I see. Mary was rather more pernicious and mainstream in her influence than in her attacks on what, from your vividly imagined title, would have been an illegal hard core porn vid.
More sticks and stones I see. Mary was rather more pernicious and mainstream in her influence than in her attacks on what, from your vividly imagined title, would have been an illegal hard core porn vid.
Post edited at 07:29
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Does being 'intelligent' and self-opinionated absolve one from displaying any manners? Are you really so obnoxious in real life? There are different types of ignorance and where you display none in one area you deliver rank ignorance in another. Can't you just tone it down a bit? Much of what you write is interesting but the obnoxious character you portray leaves a really sour taste, is really not necessary, lowers the tone, is not the slightest bit amusing and in many cases just plain nasty. It may be a pastiche, an online character you have developed but really don't you think you've gone a bit far with it? Quite honestly it's gone way beyond parody and you just comes across as an arrogant p***k. Any other poster without your 'reputation' would've been banned long ago. Why are you so different?
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...