Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Really Brief Comments on Bundy (2009)
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Tin Lunchbox
Jan 2, 2012, 10:10:06 PM1/2/12
to
Corin Nemec as mass-murderer Theodore Robert Bundy brings some
early-middle age charisma to the portrayal, and that's what he's
supposed to do, because Bundy is said to have been charismatic. The
other noteworthy thing about this 2009 film "Bundy" (not to be
confused with the 2002 film or any number of television movies that
must've been made) is the use of period music that lulls one in a
blurred transition between Bundy's engaging romance and his deathly
brutalities. If it's not like The Mama's and the Papa's "California
Dreaming" overlay some machete hacking to the bone sequence following
an afternoon picnic with banded Polaroid sunlight defects, it's only
'cause this director Michael Feifer doesn't get the megabucks to do
that, instead it's a question of get up and go with light resources.
I liked the film okay. It wasn't going to win any Oscars or Golden
Globes. My knowledge of Ted Bundy is probably a bit like yours, read
an article here and there, but then there were a couple hours middle
last year where I was engrossed in his Wikipedia article and went over
some of the supporting references. From this I know enough to know
this Bundy film knows a couple things. And it does distill them down,
it simplifies his story, definitely. But it's accurate that Bundy was
rejected by his girlfriend then made it a point to win her back and
then reject her. It's accurate that Bundy was born to an unwed mother.
And that he was from Vermont.
Bundy was a fourth-rate law school student, and either dropped out or
was discarded fast, but Nemec's portrayal of him defending himself
against murder charges in a Florida court room is ballsy and humorous
and perhaps even Shatneresque and I wished it could have gone on for
an half-hour, instead Feifer distills it down to near-dehydration,
dammit. ;) Arggh, Nemec was ready to go, give dude a script with more
pages. In closing, I'm not going to tell you to watch this film. I'm
not going to tell you to avoid it. One doesn't learn that much of
Bundy, but hey I enjoyed it.
TiN[]BoX
early-middle age charisma to the portrayal, and that's what he's
supposed to do, because Bundy is said to have been charismatic. The
other noteworthy thing about this 2009 film "Bundy" (not to be
confused with the 2002 film or any number of television movies that
must've been made) is the use of period music that lulls one in a
blurred transition between Bundy's engaging romance and his deathly
brutalities. If it's not like The Mama's and the Papa's "California
Dreaming" overlay some machete hacking to the bone sequence following
an afternoon picnic with banded Polaroid sunlight defects, it's only
'cause this director Michael Feifer doesn't get the megabucks to do
that, instead it's a question of get up and go with light resources.
I liked the film okay. It wasn't going to win any Oscars or Golden
Globes. My knowledge of Ted Bundy is probably a bit like yours, read
an article here and there, but then there were a couple hours middle
last year where I was engrossed in his Wikipedia article and went over
some of the supporting references. From this I know enough to know
this Bundy film knows a couple things. And it does distill them down,
it simplifies his story, definitely. But it's accurate that Bundy was
rejected by his girlfriend then made it a point to win her back and
then reject her. It's accurate that Bundy was born to an unwed mother.
And that he was from Vermont.
Bundy was a fourth-rate law school student, and either dropped out or
was discarded fast, but Nemec's portrayal of him defending himself
against murder charges in a Florida court room is ballsy and humorous
and perhaps even Shatneresque and I wished it could have gone on for
an half-hour, instead Feifer distills it down to near-dehydration,
dammit. ;) Arggh, Nemec was ready to go, give dude a script with more
pages. In closing, I'm not going to tell you to watch this film. I'm
not going to tell you to avoid it. One doesn't learn that much of
Bundy, but hey I enjoyed it.
TiN[]BoX
Tin Lunchbox
Jan 3, 2012, 9:07:53 AM1/3/12
to
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 22:10:06 -0500, Tin Lunchbox <email clipped>
wrote:
>Corin Nemec as mass-murderer Theodore Robert Bundy brings some
>early-middle age charisma to the portrayal, and that's what he's
>supposed to do, because Bundy is said to have been charismatic. The
<text clipped for brevity>
Following up my own post because I wanted to make the point that
Bundy's awful murders cut short promising lives and inflicted so much
torment and no doubt continuing pain on all the victims' family
members. I commented on the film in something of an irreverent tone
and while I think certainly it's fine to review the film like any
other, it's important to acknowledge that Bundy was a horrible killer
and he did vile and evil acts and he was a loathsome butcher of women
and adopt an appropriate tone for that. I didn't acknowledge that
gravely enough, so I do so now.
TiN[]BoX
wrote:
>Corin Nemec as mass-murderer Theodore Robert Bundy brings some
>early-middle age charisma to the portrayal, and that's what he's
>supposed to do, because Bundy is said to have been charismatic. The
Following up my own post because I wanted to make the point that
Bundy's awful murders cut short promising lives and inflicted so much
torment and no doubt continuing pain on all the victims' family
members. I commented on the film in something of an irreverent tone
and while I think certainly it's fine to review the film like any
other, it's important to acknowledge that Bundy was a horrible killer
and he did vile and evil acts and he was a loathsome butcher of women
and adopt an appropriate tone for that. I didn't acknowledge that
gravely enough, so I do so now.
TiN[]BoX
Kishin
Jan 3, 2012, 5:50:09 PM1/3/12
to
--
Kishin
Tin Lunchbox
Jan 4, 2012, 1:18:38 PM1/4/12
to
On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:50:09 -0500, Kishin <email address clipped>
>Tin Lunchbox wrote:
<text clipped for brevity>
>> Following up my own post because I wanted to make the point that
>> Bundy's awful murders cut short promising lives and inflicted so much
>> torment and no doubt continuing pain on all the victims' family
>> members. I commented on the film in something of an irreverent tone
>> and while I think certainly it's fine to review the film like any
>> other, it's important to acknowledge that Bundy was a horrible killer
>> and he did vile and evil acts and he was a loathsome butcher of women
>> and adopt an appropriate tone for that. I didn't acknowledge that
>> gravely enough, so I do so now.
>
>I forgive you. I'm sure none of his victims' family read r.a.h.m.
Thanks, pal. ;)
TiN[]BoX
PS: But you never know!
>Tin Lunchbox wrote:
<text clipped for brevity>
>> Following up my own post because I wanted to make the point that
>> Bundy's awful murders cut short promising lives and inflicted so much
>> torment and no doubt continuing pain on all the victims' family
>> members. I commented on the film in something of an irreverent tone
>> and while I think certainly it's fine to review the film like any
>> other, it's important to acknowledge that Bundy was a horrible killer
>> and he did vile and evil acts and he was a loathsome butcher of women
>> and adopt an appropriate tone for that. I didn't acknowledge that
>> gravely enough, so I do so now.
>
>I forgive you. I'm sure none of his victims' family read r.a.h.m.
TiN[]BoX
PS: But you never know!
ReVulse
Jan 5, 2012, 8:09:27 AM1/5/12
to
film at all. After all, any film about serial killers merely adds to
their notoriety and ensures their infamy lives on - regardless of how
badly the film portrays them.
--
#Andy#
Tin Lunchbox
Jan 5, 2012, 8:53:17 AM1/5/12
to
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:09:27 +0000 (UTC), ReVulse <email address
clipped>
That's not accurate at all. Neither part of it really. A person can
watch a film about a killer and still feel strongly that he or she was
evil. As well, a film can either empathize a killer's infamy and
notoriety or downplay it. You appear to suggest that such things
should be swept under the rug and forgotten, I disagree.
Maybe what you're getting at is not really the concepts of infamy and
notoriety, but rather sensationalism and celebrity. If that's the
case, then yeah, one doesn't want a film that plays to those angles,
which is a genuine risk where you have somebody like Ted Bundy, who
was seen by friends and acquaintances as charming and handsome, or
especially a Charles Manson, who had an hypnotic personality and
developed a cult of personality. Oliver Stone spoke ironically to
these questions in Natural Born Killers.
As to Bundy (2009) I would say that the film-makers portrayed him in a
way that was simplified, but nonetheless captured both the charm and
the horror of him. I discussed the film's weaknesses, and it has some,
but it is not a disrespectful or sensationalistic portrayal in my
view.
TiN[]BoX
clipped>
watch a film about a killer and still feel strongly that he or she was
evil. As well, a film can either empathize a killer's infamy and
notoriety or downplay it. You appear to suggest that such things
should be swept under the rug and forgotten, I disagree.
Maybe what you're getting at is not really the concepts of infamy and
notoriety, but rather sensationalism and celebrity. If that's the
case, then yeah, one doesn't want a film that plays to those angles,
which is a genuine risk where you have somebody like Ted Bundy, who
was seen by friends and acquaintances as charming and handsome, or
especially a Charles Manson, who had an hypnotic personality and
developed a cult of personality. Oliver Stone spoke ironically to
these questions in Natural Born Killers.
As to Bundy (2009) I would say that the film-makers portrayed him in a
way that was simplified, but nonetheless captured both the charm and
the horror of him. I discussed the film's weaknesses, and it has some,
but it is not a disrespectful or sensationalistic portrayal in my
view.
TiN[]BoX
ReVulse
Jan 5, 2012, 9:28:42 AM1/5/12
to
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 08:53:17 -0500, Tin Lunchbox wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:09:27 +0000 (UTC), ReVulse <email address clipped>
>
>>On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 09:07:53 -0500, Tin Lunchbox wrote:
>
>>> Following up my own post because I wanted to make the point that
>>> Bundy's awful murders cut short promising lives and inflicted so much
>>> torment and no doubt continuing pain on all the victims' family
>>> members. I commented on the film in something of an irreverent tone
>>> and while I think certainly it's fine to review the film like any
>>> other, it's important to acknowledge that Bundy was a horrible killer
>>> and he did vile and evil acts and he was a loathsome butcher of women
>>> and adopt an appropriate tone for that. I didn't acknowledge that
>>> gravely enough, so I do so now.
>>
>>However, if you felt that strongly then you wouldn't have watched the
>>film at all. After all, any film about serial killers merely adds to
>>their notoriety and ensures their infamy lives on - regardless of how
>>badly the film portrays them.
>
> That's not accurate at all. Neither part of it really. A person can
> watch a film about a killer and still feel strongly that he or she was
> evil. As well, a film can either empathize a killer's infamy and
> notoriety or downplay it. You appear to suggest that such things should
> be swept under the rug and forgotten, I disagree.
>
> Maybe what you're getting at is not really the concepts of infamy and
> notoriety, but rather sensationalism and celebrity.
This subject reminds me of a recent (2010) event here in the UK. A serial
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:09:27 +0000 (UTC), ReVulse <email address clipped>
>
>>On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 09:07:53 -0500, Tin Lunchbox wrote:
>
>>> Following up my own post because I wanted to make the point that
>>> Bundy's awful murders cut short promising lives and inflicted so much
>>> torment and no doubt continuing pain on all the victims' family
>>> members. I commented on the film in something of an irreverent tone
>>> and while I think certainly it's fine to review the film like any
>>> other, it's important to acknowledge that Bundy was a horrible killer
>>> and he did vile and evil acts and he was a loathsome butcher of women
>>> and adopt an appropriate tone for that. I didn't acknowledge that
>>> gravely enough, so I do so now.
>>
>>However, if you felt that strongly then you wouldn't have watched the
>>film at all. After all, any film about serial killers merely adds to
>>their notoriety and ensures their infamy lives on - regardless of how
>>badly the film portrays them.
>
> That's not accurate at all. Neither part of it really. A person can
> watch a film about a killer and still feel strongly that he or she was
> evil. As well, a film can either empathize a killer's infamy and
> notoriety or downplay it. You appear to suggest that such things should
> be swept under the rug and forgotten, I disagree.
>
> Maybe what you're getting at is not really the concepts of infamy and
> notoriety, but rather sensationalism and celebrity.
killer was caught after the murder of three prostitutes and when asked
his name in court, he replied "The Crossbow Cannibal" (not exactly a "not
guilty plea"). Unfortunately for him, just after his arrest a major news
story broke (strangely enough, I can't remember what it was) and him and
his subsequent trial were all but forgotten by most of the public. The
irony of it was, that he esssentially admitted that he did it for the
fame and attention.
It is a tragedy of the human condition that it is so much easier to be
remembered for doing something very, very bad rather than something very,
very good. Ted Bundy died in 1989 and 20 years later they are still
making films about him, so even generations who weren't even born when he
was alive will hear about his actions. What's the chances of those
generation ever knowing who Albert Schweitzer was?
--
#Andy#
0 new messages