August 16, 2005

And the reviews are in... Karla, the infamous movie about the Bernardo-Homolka killings, is about to come out. Seeing as how its release here in Canada will likely be somewhat limited, particularly in my hometown of St. Catharines, this review is as close as some of us are likely to get. Or are willing to get.

We've discussed the Bernardo-Homolka killings before, but I thought it'd be useful to look at the movie itself -- crass exploitation, or needed rexamination? Boycott because of insensitivity, or attend out of support for free expression? The review suggests something less blunt than I was expecting, and despite the sheer saturation of Karla Koverage, I'd probably go see it -- despite the fact that I know how it ends. In part, I'd see it out of simple curiosity, wanting to see how the real events and places are portrayed, but also because much of the real story was kept hidden from us, it'd be interesting to see how those blank spots were filled by Hollywood. But in a strange way, things have come full circle, with Bernardo and Homolka having committed the murders while obsessed with Hollywood portrayals in the first place, meaning that Tinseltown is once again sucking its own teat. Allright, I've said enough. Your turn.

posted by Capt. Renault 19 years ago
  • Well I'd never heard of these killings until they got mentioned here. I have mixed feelings about 'dramatisation' / filmed versions of terrible things. We in Britain have been promised a TV 'docu-drama' about the Moors Murderers, which I'll probably watch. whereas a big screen treatment of the same thing I wouldn't. Cinema I see more as 'entertainment', TV as also having an educational / informing element (obviously films like Bowling for Columbine etc are different). I don't really think WWII was like Saving Private Ryan, for example, no matter how good those 'first 15 minutes' are. I don't really know what I'm saying here, so I'll just stop.
  • The Boston Strangler, Manson Family, Son of Sam, Ted Bundy. They've all had movies made about them. What's so special about the Bernardo/Homolka murders that they should be immune from this?
  • alt.fan.karla-homolka, Playing on Usenet since 1993.
  • It's understandable that people get upset when a story hits too close to home, but I don't really understand what's to be accomplished by "boycotting" it or putting pressure on festivals not to screen it. Films based on or inspired by true crimes are big business -- hell, Ed Gein's insanity alone spawned a ton of serial killer films that the viewing public adored. Judgment of a film should be based on that film's merits alone, IMO, questions of how/whether it happened "in real life" being quite beside the point. That said, this movie was made for money. I'm sure the director and screenwriter think it's an interesting story, because it is, but they also know that sex and sadism and true crime sell very well. So did Jonathan Demme when he shot "Silence of the Lambs" (one of the Ed Gein-inspired films), yet that film was generally lauded as a brilliant thriller. The only way to judge the film, then, is to watch it. Personally, I think boycotts are fairly useless. You don't want someone to have your money? Don't give it to him. But organizing a boycott, particularly when it comes to a film or album or other work of art, only puts more money in the creator's pocket. Controversy means ticket sales.
  • What's so special about the Bernardo/Homolka murders that they should be immune from this? It's a Canadian murder tragedy. Nothing ever happens here.
  • Considering that Canadians are no strangers to true crime films, , I personally think the boycotters' motivation is nothing more than good ol' anti-American chauvinism of the "Who are they to air our dirty laundry?!?" variety.
  • [Damn, wrong button] What's so special about the Bernardo/Homolka murders that they should be immune from this? It's a Canadian murder tragedy. Nothing ever happens here.
  • There have been lots of great murders in Canada.
  • I don't get the freakout at all. It happened, it was hideous, and the most fascinating part of the story is Karla. Many, many Canadians think she got away with something big and ugly, and if this film can shed some light on how she did that I think it's something a lot of us should watch if it is, in and of itself, a good film. I was seriously gob-smacked at the pulling of the film because of Air fucking Canada...they're a whole 'nother story themselves.
  • Exactly. The fact that the corporate sponsor has artistic control should spell the death of Montreal's World Film Festival.
  • That's scary to me as well. I can't believe they caved in to a sponsor! I read about the festival pulling the film when it happened, but the article I read said it was "because the public demanded it" or something, not because a sponsor said so. I mean, really. It's just a movie, and not a movie called "We love Karla and hope she kills again," for rice cakes.
  • I agree that it's weird to try to censor this movie. Much worse things have been depicted on film than this story, and we ought to see it as refreshing to find a film that (apparently) tries to depict rape and murder without glorifying it.
  • I don't really understand what's to be accomplished by "boycotting" it or putting pressure on festivals not to screen it. Films based on or inspired by true crimes are big business -- hell, Ed Gein's insanity alone spawned a ton of serial killer films that the viewing public adored. There's a difference between a film inspired by someone and a film based on someone's life. Characters in "Silence Of The Lambs" were cobbled together from different sources (Ed Gein, Ted Bundy etc.) to create new characters. A viewer can love or hate a fictional character without consequence because there is no real-world analogue that would at best cause confusion (if the movie version of events deviates from what really happened) or at worst risk glamourising murderers for no apparent reason other than to sell tickets and generate revenue. If the movie-makers had simply wanted to make a good film or an entertaining film they could have fictionalised Karla Homolka and made up a new story with new characters. Instead they chose to do a film about Karla herself, right down to putting her name in the title, and that's what should put the queasiness in the average person's stomach.
  • Mmm, no, I gotta disagree there. There is a difference between a dramatization and a fictional story loosely based on actual events, but I'm not sure it's all that meaningful in this context. If a serial killer skinned my wife and made a suit out of her, "Silence of the Lambs" would turn my stomach just as much as if it were a drama about the actual killer responsible. There is a real-world analogue to these fictional characters, as I bet the friends and family of these victims would attest, no matter how far removed the character from the original source. If they'd made a story "kind of like" the real one with a woman "kind of like" Homolka, everybody would know, the way we know every other real-world inspiration for every major fictional killer. People would say, "Oh, that's the Karla Homolka movie." But these events are still very fresh. The psychic wounds of the survivors have barely begun to scab over, and I suspect this is where the outrage comes from. If they'd waited, say, five or ten years before making this movie, I'd bet you dollars to donuts that there wouldn't be half the reaction.
  • Good point about the passage of time, MCT. The murders occurred many years ago but, unfortunately, the psychic wounds of the survivors were recently reopened (and public outrage was re-awakened) when Karla was released from prison a month or so ago, to much handwringing in the media. From a very cynical point of view, it's the perfect time to release the movie, regardless of it's merits.