Is a TV series about a living real life serial killer distasteful?

[Clariman]

A new BBC 8 part series tonight dramatises the life of living serial killer, Charles Sobhraj, a man who revelled in his infamy from his killings in the 1970s.

Am I alone in finding it distasteful to portray real life events like this as "entertainment"? I feel uncomfortable with it but I also felt uncomfortable about people making money out of the film Titanic in which 1000s lost their lives.

Serious question.
C

[UncleEbenezer]

A new BBC 8 part series tonight dramatises the life of living serial killer, Charles Sobhraj, a man who revelled in his infamy from his killings in the 1970s.

Am I alone in finding it distasteful to portray real life events like this as "entertainment"? I feel uncomfortable with it but I also felt uncomfortable about people making money out of the film Titanic in which 1000s lost their lives.

Serious question.
C

Do you have the same issue with entertainment going right back to Αἰσχύλος making drama of such tragedies as civil war in Θήβα?

[edit to add] Erm, and BBC8???? How many BBC channels does the BBC fill nowadays?

[XFool]

A new BBC 8 part series tonight dramatises the life of living serial killer, Charles Sobhraj, a man who revelled in his infamy from his killings in the 1970s.

My first reaction is that I've never heard of him.

I further 'confess' I watched and enjoyed the film Zodiac, about the unknown serial killer who terrorized the San Francisco Bay Area during the late 1960s and early 1970s. (One of his messages was recently in the news, after being decoded)

[bungeejumper]

Am I alone in finding it distasteful to portray real life events like this as "entertainment"? I feel uncomfortable with it but I also felt uncomfortable about people making money out of the film Titanic in which 1000s lost their lives.

Do you have the same issue with entertainment going right back to Αἰσχύλος making drama of such tragedies as civil war in Θήβα?

It's an issue that film makers have always had to deal with. It can be really quite hurtful to some people to have recent mass deaths turned into profit-making entertainment for the masses. Others will simply enjoy the thrill, and TBH it's their mental health and judgement I worry about

But how long ago is "recent"? Maybe twenty years? How long did it take after WW2 before European film-makers dared to portray the grim details? (Hollywood was a different matter, not least because so much of America's population was insulated from the goings-on in Europe.) And how long after Vietnam before we got cinematic or fictional portrayals? (I don't actually know, but I'll guess 15 years?)

Some time around 1980, I can recall Alexei Sayle saying of 'Allo 'Allo: "I don't know about you, but I'm not ready for funny nazis yet". I had to agree, although the sheer brilliance of the scripts finally won me over.

How about a 9/11 blockbuster, then? And how long will it be until we get one?

BJ

[swill453]

How about a 9/11 blockbuster, then? And how long will it be until we get one?

Well we had "United 93" in 2006.

Scott.

[servodude]

And how long after Vietnam before we got cinematic or fictional portrayals?

I believe they were being made while it was still going (officially ending in 75 I think)
- the big early movies I can think of though would be The Deer Hunter (78) and Apocalypse Now (79)

Which doesn't seem like a long time at all

I think the important thing for me is the treatment rather than just the subject matter itself

-sd

[UncleEbenezer]

But how long ago is "recent"? Maybe twenty years?

The OP referred back to Titanic. Not exactly recent! And a 1970s serial killer - not so recent either.

How long did it take after WW2 before European film-makers dared to portray the grim details? (Hollywood was a different matter, not least because so much of America's population was insulated from the goings-on in Europe.) And how long after Vietnam before we got cinematic or fictional portrayals? (I don't actually know, but I'll guess 15 years?)

Isn't "Apocalypse Now" (Google says 1979) directly about Vietnam? And googling MASH finds it first existed as a film in 1970.

Some time around 1980, I can recall Alexei Sayle saying of 'Allo 'Allo: "I don't know about you, but I'm not ready for funny nazis yet". I had to agree, although the sheer brilliance of the scripts finally won me over.

Dad's Army was laughing about that war well before 1980.

[servodude]

Some time around 1980, I can recall Alexei Sayle saying of 'Allo 'Allo: "I don't know about you, but I'm not ready for funny nazis yet". I had to agree, although the sheer brilliance of the scripts finally won me over

.


Dad's Army was laughing about that war well before 1980

Hard to believe Alexei Sayle hadn't seen "The Producers"
- I suspect he might just have been being "cool"

-sd

[bungeejumper]

Hard to believe Alexei Sayle hadn't seen "The Producers"
- I suspect he might just have been being "cool"

Fair comment. I loved The Producers (which I think is still the film buff's all-time favourite black comedy?), but let's face it, the Auschwitz side of the funny nazis isn't exactly uppermost, is it? And anyway, The Producers was 22 years after 1945.

I am personally allergic to war films, full stop. Both of my grandfathers got shot in WW1 (and one was also gassed), and one of my uncles was parachuted into Normandy ahead of D-Day to silently "soften up" a farmhouse location - we never asked what he had been required to do, and he never talked about it, but I don't suppose it was very pleasant.

Either way, there was a mile of difference between me and my three nephews, who would all devour Hollywood war films on Christmas mornings while I tried to stay out of the way in the kitchen. It takes all sorts.

BJ

[redsturgeon]

Wasn't there a Fred West drama/documentary a few years ago, I seem to remember personally avoiding it.

Mrs RS who is the most non violent person, you could ever wish to meet loves watching those true crime series that seem to be popular these days. They all seem to be based on violent crimes and murders, some of them quite recent, although they are generally not visually graphic.

Research does show a certain cathartic effect from watching violence which belies the popular notion that watching violence makes you more violent.

Personally I think it is distasteful to make entertainment out of specific people's personal misery but I am perfectly OK with general stuff like war films.

I believe Tarantino's latest film is about the Sharon Tate murder and that doesn't seem to have attracted much controversy.

John

[Clariman]

Wasn't there a Fred West drama/documentary a few years ago, I seem to remember personally avoiding it.

Yes there was. I wouldn't watch it.

Personally I think it is distasteful to make entertainment out of specific people's personal misery but I am perfectly OK with general stuff like war films.

I think that's how I feel about it too. I don't like violence in any films or TV, but for some reasons war films are slightly more acceptable. Perhaps that is illogical.

With this particular series which started last night, the perpetrator is still alive and has lived off his infamy, making money out of appearances, book contracts and, if it is to be believed, film rights. I'm not saying he would make anything out of this, but I suspect he will really enjoy being the centre of attention again.

[XFool]

The OP referred back to Titanic. Not exactly recent! And a 1970s serial killer - not so recent either.

How long did it take after WW2 before European film-makers dared to portray the grim details? (Hollywood was a different matter, not least because so much of America's population was insulated from the goings-on in Europe.) And how long after Vietnam before we got cinematic or fictional portrayals? (I don't actually know, but I'll guess 15 years?)

Isn't "Apocalypse Now" (Google says 1979) directly about Vietnam? And googling MASH finds it first existed as a film in 1970.

MASH was set in the Korean War.

[bungeejumper]

With this particular series which started last night, the perpetrator is still alive and has lived off his infamy, making money out of appearances, book contracts and, if it is to be believed, film rights. I'm not saying he would make anything out of this, but I suspect he will really enjoy being the centre of attention again.

AFAIK, the general run of justice is that a prisoner cannot gain financially from a third-party account of his life and crimes. Nor, for that matter, can he write a book about them and expect to be paid. There have been a few of these test situations in California, I understand.

Of course, if it turns out that he discovers a prison talent for painting, or self-improvement classes, or whatever, then that's a different issue. That seems fair to me.

BJ

[marronier]

The Jack Benny film "To be or not to be " ( 1942 ) might come under criticism for being distasteful.

[UncleEbenezer]

With this particular series which started last night, the perpetrator is still alive and has lived off his infamy, making money out of appearances, book contracts and, if it is to be believed, film rights.

Would you draw a distinction between that and, say, Nick Leeson making a lucrative business of his infamy?

Evidently you would (you posted here about one but not t'other), so why?

[XFool]

The Jack Benny film "To be or not to be " ( 1942 ) might come under criticism for being distasteful.

Well, it was directed by Ernst Lubitsch, a German born Jew. Adapted by Lubitsch and Edwin Justus Mayer from a story by Melchior Lengyel, "a Hungarian writer, dramatist, and film screenwriter of Jewish heritage". So...?

[Clariman]

With this particular series which started last night, the perpetrator is still alive and has lived off his infamy, making money out of appearances, book contracts and, if it is to be believed, film rights.

Would you draw a distinction between that and, say, Nick Leeson making a lucrative business of his infamy?

Evidently you would (you posted here about one but not t'other), so why?

Eh? Did anyone raise anything about Nick Leeson. I have no interest in him. Has he been in the news or on TV recently?

[UncleEbenezer]

Eh? Did anyone raise anything about Nick Leeson. I have no interest in him. Has he been in the news or on TV recently?

Er, yes. He's in the latest (christmas) Private Eye. As I recollect it, charging (and making) good money for his tips on ultra-high-risk investing, but unaccountably coy on the track record of his bets.

The question still stands. What distinction do you draw between your subject and a white-collar convicted criminal?

[mc2fool]

... how long after Vietnam before we got cinematic or fictional portrayals?

Wikipedia has a list. The earliest listed is, "A Yank in Viet-Nam is a 1964 war drama film. It was filmed entirely in South Vietnam during the Vietnam War."

How about a 9/11 blockbuster, then? And how long will it be until we get one?

Well we had "United 93" in 2006.

And, of course, Oliver Stone's World Trade Center, also in 2006.

Wikipedia also has a list of WW2 films and, like the Vietnam films list, there are ones that were made during the war.

One was a British 1940 Battle of the Atlantic drama, Convoy, that had a poster with an "Real Thing" claim on it (of course, "against a background" meant that the actors were in front of screens showing the naval activity, not that they were actually there ), but it is clearly presenting itself as entertainment ...


https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032359/mediaindex

[Clariman]

Eh? Did anyone raise anything about Nick Leeson. I have no interest in him. Has he been in the news or on TV recently?

Er, yes. He's in the latest (christmas) Private Eye. As I recollect it, charging (and making) good money for his tips on ultra-high-risk investing, but unaccountably coy on the track record of his bets.

The question still stands. What distinction do you draw between your subject and a white-collar convicted criminal?

I haven't read the Christmas Private Eye so forgive me for not responding to something that I was completely unaware of. How remiss of me

To be honest, no I don't particularly like the idea of Nick Leeson making money out of his notoriety but I'm less bothered about that than I am about a murderer doing so. Taking someone-else's life in a non-war situation purely for personal greed or personal pleasure is pretty much as bad as it gets in my book.

But my original point wasn't so much about the person profiting from it, but about turning real-life murder into entertainment. I accept that it has always happened, but doesn't mean that I like it. I was just interested to see how other people felt about it.

C