In 2005 a movie is going to be released entitled "Deadly."
This movie is the true-life story of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka. For anyone who isn't familiar with the case, you can look here. It is the sick and twisted story of a pair of sexual sadists who kidnapped, serial-raped, tortured, and murdered several girls.
This one hits too close to home. We don't need stories like this on film. We don't need to watch it. These girls' families don't need to know that someone is making a profit off of their misery.
These wounds are still fresh. It wasn't long ago. Homolka is scheduled to be released next year, a travesty in itself.
While I realise the selling power of true crime drama, this goes way beyond it. This is exploitation at its worst. This makes me ashamed to be human. It is sick. The scenes being filmed are not movie creations. The sex acts in it are reproductions of the torture these girls endured. (Heck, we have the real ones on video, so why not do a re-make for the public?) The friends and families had to watch these tapes played in court - watch their loved ones being debased in the most humiliating possible ways. And now we tell them that the whole world gets to watch?
I'm serious here. This is a story that happened very close to where I live. I remember it. I remember the trials and I hear the hush that can fall over a room when the name Bernardo is mentioned, even now.
Don't see it. Tell your friends, family, acquaintences not to see it. People make this trash because it supposedly makes money. Don't let them. Please.
[ December 23, 2004, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: Eaquae Legit ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*shudder* Gods. Who in the hell would want to watch something like that? I can't stand things like that. It makes me nauseated.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
EL, I would feel the same way if(When?) they made a movie about the Molly Bish case. Just too sad, too close to home(literally). Unfortunately, we live in a country where "reality" shows are the in thing. I will certainly not even think about seeing that movie, and will encourage anyone I know to avoid it as well.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
Just wondering ... can you make a movie off anyone's life you want to? Or do you have to get permission first?
*agrees not to watch movie*
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Good question. I have always wondered what the rules were.
Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
*feels wretched at the thought of this being made into a film*
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
We should point out that one of the people they raped and murdered was Karla's little sister. She was the virgin present from Karla to Paul. Sick sick sick sick sick.
I completely agree, EL. No way in hell will I ever financially support anything like this. They both deserve to burn in hell for what they did, and no one needs to see a fictionalized version, nor does anyone need to have these images burned in their brain.
I didn't even know a movie was being made about it. That bothers me. I'm also bothered by Karla EVER getting out of jail.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
I think it's a monumentally bad idea to do this kind of thing while the victim's families are still around to see it, BUT on the other hand I don't feel comfortable dismissing it as trash sight unseen. It could turn out to be all about sensationalism and sick thrills, but it might not--just as a thread on a forum about this same topic might be.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
Wasn't this a Law & Order episode already ?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Homolka was sentenced to 12years and is already out.
[ December 23, 2004, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
Nope, not the kind of thing I would see. that's sick.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Just wondering ... can you make a movie off anyone's life you want to? Or do you have to get permission first?
Not completely sure, since I'm not a lawyer, but I think that if the person's story became a news story, then they are considered to be public figures. Their story is in the public domain and you don't have to get permission to make a film or write a book about them. Certainly, the folks who did the Scott and Laci Peterson movie for USA a few months ago didn't have the permission of Laci's family, as I understand it. It seems to me, though, that if the filmmakers don't get the permission of peripheral participants in the story, those folks' names have to be changed in the film.
It's sort of like all those unauthorized biographies of celebrities that are written. Because the celebrities are public figures, they can't stop people from writing about them.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Thanks for telling us. Not that I would watch something like that anyway, but I will spread the word to other people too.
That is really, really sick that anyone would think re-enacting this stuff and putting it out to the public is a good idea. I hope the people who made it lose their shirts on the venture.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I don't think we've lost our humanity -- rather, having a morbid fascination with the horrible and a desire to make a quick buck regardless of who we step on seems pretty ingrained in the character of the human race.
We should rise above it, though. This is really nasty. It's also quite clear that the families of the victims are both dreading and angry about this (a Google shows that easily). What a mess.
Thanks for the heads-up, EL.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Ugh!
I certainly don't want to see it, EL. How horrible!
FG
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Would your opinion be any different if this was a documentary?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Wait a second, 12 years? What the hell is wrong with the judicial system? Some people have been kept in jail for ages for possessing a bit of Marijuana. How does that make any kind of sense?!
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I can't believe this was only 12 years ago. I remember being a kid reading the trial accounts everyday in the newspaper and being both horrified and confused.
Syn, Homolka and her lawyer cheated the system. They told the police and prosecutors that her role was a small one; in the abscence of evidence to the contrary, the prosecutors gave her a deal in order to secure her testimony against Bernardo.
Unforunately, Homolka's lawyer had hidden video tapes that depicted Homolka as being a full and willing participent. I believe he has been disbarred, and the police/prosecution came away looking very, very stupid.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
It's Canada. It's supposed to make sense? The judicial system there sucks.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Yeah, but itsn't it great that in America ours is so much better!
*sigh* Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In the Law and Order episode, the prosecutors used a trick to get the judge to toss the plea agreement.
Dagonee
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
As for a documentary - I doubt many Canadians would need even that to have the details refreshed. This case was all over Canadian news, not just in the east. I lived in Alberta when all this was happening, and we heard all about it there. So for me, nope, I wouldn't watch even the documentary. But then, there's also the explicitness factor. How much information do I need? What kind of images do I need in my brain? Do I really need to add more, even if it is based on reality? How about especially if it's based on reality?
For me, the answer is definitely not. I don't need them. I don't want them. So I won't add them.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Come on, twelve years is plenty. It is not as though they were using or selling or anything.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Ummm... Is my funny radar malfunctioning? Because I can't tell if Dazig is making a funny or not. And that scares me.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
I think he was referencing the marijuana comment above, so yes, it was a joke. I think.
I'm definitely not interested in seeing the movie. Only a perfect review by many sources would get me to see it.
Posted by Tater (Member # 7035) on :
I didn't even know about that story.. Horrible. Is there anyway to stop the movie from being made or shown?
Posted by Tater (Member # 7035) on :
but the name "homolka" sounds familiar. I keep thinking of Congo when I hear it. Did they use the name on Congo? :/
Posted by Tater (Member # 7035) on :
question: "Paul harped continually that Tammy was no longer available to him for his sexual pleasure and blamed Karla for causing her death."
She died before he started raping all these women? What were the police doing to prosecute the killer all this time? Or did they still really think it was an accident?
(how old was Tammy, at the time she was killed.)
Sorry, I had just never heard this story, and I'm trying to understand it. =\
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
You'll find a lot of useful information here. I honestly can't be bothered to look it up and post any of it here. I'm still so sickened by what they did.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I think a clinical, dry discussion of the facts of the case can be useful for further information. However, prurience does no good except to titillate, and that seems to me to be the purpose of a dramatization.
I'd look at discussion of this case to be at the same appropriate level as the details of obtaining a child rape kit. The information itself may be useful and important in some contexts, but a public re-enactment in an entertainment venue is not.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
As I recall, it was Bernardo's lawyer, not Homolka's, who had the tapes.
I think this was linked to in Slash's "Ass-Kicking" thread.
Posted by Tater (Member # 7035) on :
Who is Stephen Williams? Just someone who wrote books about the incidents?
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)