oioioi wrote:
John Giacobbi

Space Bandit wrote:
Who exactly is John Giacobbi and why do YT give him any authority?

oioioi wrote:
Some fucking jobsworth who works for copywrite stuff on behalf of artists.

So Keith Allen, conspiracy theorist , has got the sheriff out on conspiracy theorists?

Brilliant marketing.

Presumably he'll be wanting some cash from it rather than everybody seeing it free!
Always the same...

Space Bandit wrote:
I wouldn't be so sure with Keith.

He plays the game then pulls a trick like this out. It's probably gone as wide as it could commercially and legally, maybe not.

oioioi wrote:
Financed by one Mr Al-Fayed.

It's never been a secret that Al Fayed bankrolled the film, however I think it would have been a good idea to have announced that in the opening credits. To not do so was not fair to the viewer imo.

financed is financed and murdered is murdered

let us not talk like gossippers in the mall

Agreed mikey, the omission could be seen as a teeny faux pas. In comparison to murder it is unfeasibly small on the scale of wrong doing.
That omission does devalue the film imo though. It rather lends itself to claims of bias etc. As does the interviewing of the republican chap imo. What place does he have in a film which is basically about a suspected murder?

The documentary makes not attempt at impartiality and, to my mind, is clearly presenting Fayed's case.

Howevere, it does make a powerful case, if even half of its claims are true.

Two points I thought weakened its case: the psychological evaluation of P as a psycopath was conjecture , no matter how likely; the mention of P's family background was guilt-by-association.

I personally think the man may indeed be devoid of empathy and have sympathies with fascism: judging from from his public statements, but the documentary should have stuck to the facts of the rather irregular enquiry.

I agree. All things considered, I think the film was something of a missed opportunity. The things we've highlighted give too much room for the detractors to play in.
If they'd said hey look this is Fayed's side of it and he bankrolled it and then stuck to known facts, it would have been much more powerful.

Yes but it is a doco, none the less people will either watch it take in and view it , with stupid tube keep taking it down its just making it more and more popular

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong BD, there's certainly plenty enuff in it to make people go and being hidden away as it has will have the effect of piquing people's interest.

I agree that taking it down is actually lending it validity, even if, Keith Allen or more liekyl Associated-Rediffusion (the studio co-sponsor) may be behind that.

It draws attention to the ban plaed on it in the first place. (dumbest move ever)

Forgive me if I have this wrong but my understanding is that the film is not 'banned' as such.
The distributors require that there is adequate insurance in place to cover them in the (very likely), event of lawsuits being lodged for defamation etc.
That insurance has not been secured, as yet, so no distribution/release.

That would also make sense for Allen himself being seen to actively employ a company to pull unauthorised attempts at distribution, (via the web). Otherwise he could be wide open to any and all suits filed.

I'm happy to be corrected if I've missed something.

Thanks for putting that straight, feather.

So he may still be disposed to protecct the £2.5 million investment. OTOH, it may be that he is more interested in having the film reach as wide an audience as possible. Al Fayed would certainly be very likely to put any thought of a return on his investment aside in order to get to the bottom of his son's death.

This Toryagraph piece is unsuprisingly crritical of the documentary but the comments section scuppers that somewhat!
www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/cannes-...ip-to-Fred-West.html