Warning: This post is about the film ‘Boy A’ and contains spoilers.
Last night I watched, on Channel 4, the film of the book by Jonathon Trigell, “Boy A”.
http://www.channel4.com/video/boy-a/series-1/
It’s the story of a young man, Jack, and his attempt to lead a ‘normal life’ following his release from prison.
First, let me pay tribute to an excellent film.
Every actor was outstanding. Every role believable. The acting abilities of Andrew Garfield (Jack) and Peter Mullen (as his probation officer, Terry) were especially in evidence, but all the characters and performances rang true.
The direction and writing of the film were also magnificent. As the story unfolds the audience is brought on a journey with expertise that films rarely achieve. It was an honour to watch such craft in action. I recommend the film whole heartedly, even allowing for my criticism that follows, it is still a film that deserves to be put on the must-see list.
I haven’t read the book, but will. Perhaps the book is different?
Last chance to avoid any spoilers!
The first half of the film was outstanding, the second half good, but left too many questions unexamined, the later scenes lacked the seering insight that the earlier scenes had in spades.
There can be no doubt that, although entirely fictional, this story was written as a parallel to the case of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, the child killers of Jamie Bulger, a murder that shocked and sickened a nation. I came to the film aware that I would draw parallels and so found myself constantly thinking of the case, in fact it’s better to say that I watched it because of the obvious similarity.
So I was disappointed to see that the murder itself, and Jack’s precise part in it, and lead up to it, was never fully exposed. We were given a good picture of unhappy circumstances, but as many children have such circumstances, it was not enough to help explain a seemingly sudden choice to murder, although Philip’s story seems better explained. I was similarly let down that the fictional family of the victim were afforded no role in the film, and that the victim herself was alloted only unlikable characteristics, as if to mitigate the murder or detract from the atrocity.
The screenwriter has said that he attempted to make the audience sympathetic with Jack before revealing any details of the crime. In this he was successful; aware as I was of the parallel to reality, I found myself caught up in Jack’s often unvocalised pain and Jack’s story. Totally empathetic to Jack at an early point, I was preparing to have the rug pulled from beneath me as I felt sure I was about to be confronted with another reality, that of the victim. This confrontation never really came.
I suspect that this film chickened out. Perhaps the writer had spent too long with Jack, and couldn’t bring himself to open up the unpalatable part of Jack’s history.
Part of me was relieved; I have been pardoned from having to be judge or jury in this case, I was able to leave the film acknowledging, but without being forced to examine, the contradicting moral issues.
And this is where I am angry. How dare such a promising piece let me off the hook?!!
The film was so brilliantly made, the story of Jack so wonderfully told, that I implore all involved to make the next part of the story so that, like a jigsaw, I may piece together the various aspects of this entire tale, and if I dare to, look at the full picture.
In the real life stories of children killing children, a small handful of people have been required to see the whole picture and make decisions that seem impossible to make, and each of them no doubt found themselves having to rely on standard responses to get through the ordeal; responses such as ‘minimum/maximum sentences’, ‘mitigating circumstances’, ‘campaigning for justice’, ‘unconditional love’. Perhaps all of them found that they could take just one or two pieces of the picture and judge them in isolation because there was no other way to respond.
This film had the chance to put the ball in the court of each viewer, to say “Here are all the stories - here is the crime, here is the child, here is the adult, here is the life lost, here is the rehabilitation, here is the future: now what should society, and indeed individuals, do? What is the moral right?”
As it stands, it is an excellent film, examining more than any other film on the subject, brave to take on the story of a killer, and challenging the viewer throughout, just falling at the very last hurdle.
When the producers dare to produce the sequel, perhaps in the form of Boy B’s story, we may just see perfection.
