Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Sophia Coppola’s latest movie, The Bling Ring, has sparked some interesting conversations.
Based on the real events surrounding a number of teens in LA who actually broke into the homes of celebrities, this film has given audiences and critics a reason to discuss celebrity culture and the zeitgeist around it.
The story came to light in 2010 when Vanity Fair published an article by Nancy Jo Sales, aptly titled “The Suspects Wore Louboutins”.
“The most audacious burglary gang in recent Hollywood history–accused of stealing more than $3 million in clothing and jewelry from Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, and other stars–appears to be a bunch of club-hopping Valley kids, motivated by vanity and celebrity-worship,” Sales wrote.
Even then there was talk of a film in the making, and the resulting production finally opened in the US in June 2013 to a weekend grossing of US$210,000 – the highest opening for a Coppola film since Lost in Translation.
This was a solid achievement since this was a limited release, with The Bling Ring only showing in five US cinemas for that first weekend.
A24 celebrated this success, releasing a statement that said: “Sofia Coppola’s latest and greatest has certainly entered the zeitgeist and we look forward to capitalising on this great success as we expand nationwide next weekend.”
Given the fact that the film is about a group of privileged LA teenagers that rob celebrities, and is based on real events, “capitalising” is an interesting word to choose for such a statement.
There are, after all, real people that have been affected by this story. In fact, many of the original teenagers are currently in court or dealing with sentences.
The Bling Ring members may or may not already be affected by this glamorous film but it has, along with the original article and Nancy Jo Sales’ book, led some commentators to wonder about whether or not it is right to capitalise on this type of true crime.
One very vocal Bling Ring commenter on the Vanity Fair website, going under the name of AndreaArlington, frequently criticises the way the true story has been handled by the media, particularly in regards to the original reporter.
“It is unfortunate that Nancy Jo Sales did not write the story she promised Alexis she would write, which was the truth. Instead she misrepresented the facts, which added more fuel to the fire started by Detective Goodkin. Nancy Jo will soon discover that believing in, and relying on Detective Goodkin, was a big mistake,” she wrote in response to a Q&A with Sales that Vanity Fair published earlier this year.
But whether or not Sales’ reports are true, there is a lot more discretion when it comes to the medium of film.
Coppola acknowledged this at Cannes, stating that while she had tried to stay as true as possible to the story, there were also things that she added to make the film work while retaining the original tone.
True Crime Culture
Film and television has a long history of using real events as a starting point for stories.
The first film over 60 minutes was actually inspired by Australia’s own Ned Kelly – Charles Tait’s The Story of the Kelly Gang (1906).
Since then there have been masses of true crime stories, and those now-familiar words “based on real events” have practically been imprinted on our retinas through films and television.
The popularity of films and television shows inspired by true crime suggests it is something that fascinates a lot of people, all over the world.
But there can be a cost. Take the highly successful Australian drama franchise Underbelly.
The first series – which dealt with Melbourne’s notorious Carlton Crew and rival Carl Williams – came up against a number of legal issues, including staggered airing for Victoria.
The broadcast, however, was still used by Tony Mokbel (who played a key role in the fictionalised series) to fight extradition from Greece. He said there was no way he could get a fair trial in Australia once the series was shown.
Similarly, a lawyer acting for Carl Williams suggested Underbelly could affect his appeal.
The same impact can be seen with big screen equivalents like The Bully (2001), which deals with the murder of American teenager Bobby Kent.
A recent US news report highlighted the impact of the film and media coverage, which continues to affect those involved.
“It’s been nearly 20 years since a pack of wayward friends stabbed Bobby Kent in the neck and gut, beat him with a baseball bat and lead pipe, slit his throat and left the 20-year-old to die in a Weston canal. The given motive: Bobby Kent was a bully,” writes Sun Sentinel reporter Tonya Alanez.
“Three of Kent’s killers are serving life sentences. Willis and three others have regained freedom. Outside prison, they struggle to patch up their lives.” Alanez says all of the killers out of prison are now parents, though three have moved interstate, perhaps to escape more judgment.
“One says he’s a devoted single father who has made peace with his past. Another, now a certified optician, says that while she’s living the American dream, she moves under a constant cloud: the fear of getting in trouble or exposed for who she once was.”
While moral judgements are bound to arise from such a grisly tragedy, it also brings forth the question of whether or not true crime should be used as inspiration for books, films and television shows.
There is clearly profit to be made and, as many journalists have argued, reporting on crime can be “in the public’s best interest”. But it’s a fine line in moral judgement is – how right is it to capitalise on these crimes, which are sometimes mistakes of the young.
The post Bling Ring – capitalising on crime? appeared first on Quid.