Three And Out Debate

Posted on Wednesday 23 April 2008

Who should be allowed to censor films?

Unions?

Commercial organizations?

Public sector bodies?

Is any subject OK for comedy?

“Comedies, even those more grey than black, have always treated serious matters lightly. Mel Brooks’ The Producers made a musical of the Holocaust; M*A*S*H made a mockery of the Korean War. Stand-ups make jokes about 9/11. It is in the nature of comedy that nothing should be taboo.”

spiked-online

And…

…what about Life of Brian? And The Full Monty?

…what about Three And Out?

…what about ASLEF?

…what about London Underground?

Let us know…

Join the debate!

Read what others have to say about the surrounding controversy and add your comments at the bottom of the comments page.

The best contribution to the debate wins 2 Cinema passes for a year worth £600!

Three And Out - In cinemas nationwide from 25th April

www.threeandoutmovie.com

90 Comments for 'Three And Out Debate'

  1.  
    Dave
    April 23, 2008 | 7:07 pm
     

    Having seen the film, I can honestly say that other films have dealt with more controversial or taboo subjects. Look at Agnes of God or even the famous “sister/ daughter” scene in Chinatown. Granted, neither of these were comedies, but pregnant nuns, and incest are far more out there than anything in this film where the suicide element is not even central to the plot. Go and see it, and then decide for yourself. You will be pleasantly surprised.

  2.  
    Steve
    April 24, 2008 | 6:28 am
     

    Please tell me this stuff with ASLEF and London Underground is all a joke! Have the unions got nothing better to do then kick off about a film that is clearly just a make believe story! One second, I’ve got it…..it must be that Keith Norman aka Norman Wisdom now thinks that this three and out rule aint such a bad idea and will no doubt be lobbying Tim O’Toole that it be introduced for all ASLEF members. But they will probably want improved terms on the three and out rule - extend the month to three months in order to give the drivers a better chance of hitting 3 folks…

    Regards this censorship bit, there is no way that films like this should be attacked. Comedy is a integral part of our lives and nothing should be exempt from it’s shadow. I did read somewhere that the producers of this movie allowed a few hunded people to see the film to guage reaction to it. Apparently the overwhelming response is that everyone enjoyed it. I even saw a comment on a Sky News website yesterday from a TRAIN DRIVER who said he HAD seen it and thought it was good. Even said that the film could have played up the comedy more. He wasn’t offended by it….So come on ASLEF, get back to kicking off about real important topics - oops of course that would be virtually impossible!

    That’s it for me for now. I bet the film is a good crack and the reviews seems cool. I will certainly be going to check it out this weekend. Obviously not going by train to the cinema…..

    SM

  3.  
    Helen
    April 24, 2008 | 8:15 am
     

    I think that it’s outrageous that LU are backtracking like this - surely they either liked the film and approved it or they did not. Typical that LU are so keen to bow to the union.

  4.  
    Mike Jones
    April 24, 2008 | 8:20 am
     

    I’m going to see this film just because the unions are kicking off about it.

    Other films that would never have been released?

    The Producers - pissed off Nazis
    Bowling for Columbine - pissed off NRA
    Brokeback Mountain - pissed off homophobes

    If someone’s annoyed about something then it almost certainly is worth watching. At least it’s saying something, or about something.

  5.  
    Stephanie Hakeswell
    April 24, 2008 | 10:10 am
     

    Suicide is never funny, what were the writers thinking making a comedy about this? And then to advertise this on the underground, right next to drivers who may have just experienced a suicide! There’s a death on the underground every other day, and most of those are people ending their own life.

    I can’t believe that anyone could possibly think that this is funny. I would never see this film and it deserves to fail.

  6.  
    Jake G
    April 24, 2008 | 10:15 am
     

    A film without an edge is like Morecambe without Wise or Hinge without Bracket. It just doesn’t work…….
    This movie has clearly hit a nerve but what’s the problem?? There have been SO many movies that have courted controversy and many of them were awesome viewing. If you don’t like the premise of this movie don’t go and see it. I will be seeing it tomorrow night that’s for sure………

  7.  
    Badger
    April 24, 2008 | 10:18 am
     

    Comedy is always victimising someone - every joke is at someone’s expense.

    And it’s a perculiarly british habit to joke about subjects that are too painful or sensitive to talk about in any other circumstance. At least it opens the subject up.

  8.  
    James Whey
    April 24, 2008 | 10:23 am
     

    Stephanie, I don’t know where you’re getting your statistics from, but they’re so very wrong.

    There were 22 deaths on the underground last year. That’s closer to one every 2 weeks, not days. And most of these are not suicide.

    I think a film is awesome if it f***s off idiots like you. Get your s**t straight before you post it publically.

  9.  
    Jessica
    April 24, 2008 | 10:30 am
     

    the LU is s**t.the like the film or not?can they be consistent for even a month?typical-reversing there policy just to suit the unions.are they going to strike over this?lmfao!

  10.  
    Beanie
    April 24, 2008 | 10:35 am
     

    Aslef have every reason to be upset as the story is horrendous. What is funny about people losing their lives under a train? I have to admit that the trailer made me want to jump under one in places.

  11.  
    Raven
    April 24, 2008 | 10:48 am
     

    Make stupid comments like that Beanie and I’m sure someone will take away your option to jump… Don’t be an tw@ - if you haven’t seen the film - you are just another a*seh*le being taken in by the union.

    Lets face it over £40k a year, short working week, more holiday than teachers and they reckon they have to undertake psychological analysis before being able to undertake training. Get real - it’s more a case of - will you strike at the drop of a hat? Are you as thick as pig sh*t? Will you follow your union leader like a lemming? Great you’re in. Aslef are a waste of space - as are you my friend.

  12.  
    Stephanie Hakeswell
    April 24, 2008 | 10:49 am
     

    @ James - I think that you’ll find that there are 240 suicides on the underground a year, not 22. That’s more than one every 2 days.

    And typical to descend into foul language - you’re as classless as this film, clearly.

  13.  
    Jono
    April 24, 2008 | 10:50 am
     

    If you haven’t got a sense of humour step away from the film. Stop bitching about the film - I don’t like the idea of suicide - I personally don’t find it funny - but that is not to say that others can’t. Just get a life.

  14.  
    TinkerBall
    April 24, 2008 | 10:54 am
     

    Stephanie - don’t be fooled by statistics - they change as LU need them to reflect different things. If they want the stats to positive then they muddy the water and change the categories of deaths - the figures they release reflect the number of accidents too. You know - those two things that happen at the start of the film.

    No you wouldn’t - you’re being taken in by the union crap.

  15.  
    Ian
    April 24, 2008 | 10:55 am
     

    The thing I find most repugnant is that you kept up your advertising campaign throughout the recent news of the couple tragically killed by a passing train. No attempt was made to remove these adverts from thelondonpaper throughout the days that followed this terrible accident and the news reporting. This tragedy received huge media coverage, was a big story in London, and must have been viewed as an added bonus to your advertising campaign – one has to conclude. It just makes me think even less of this film. I haven’t seen it, I’m not going to purely as it sounds like a limp wristed comedy of a very forgettable sort and not because of the subject matter, but I make this remark in response to the advertising campaign and the lack of feeling shown towards events happening concurrently. What it must have felt like for anyone who knew this couple to see Mackenzie Crook trying to make money out of death must have been really nice to read – day after day. Nice.

  16.  
    Lovealarf
    April 24, 2008 | 10:59 am
     

    Good on you guys - heard a bloke on the train discussing the “Three and Out Rule” - poor sod thought it was real. It takes all sorts. Can’t wait to see the film on Friday.

  17.  
    James Whey
    April 24, 2008 | 11:04 am
     

    Stephanie, that’s 240 on the entire rail network of the UK.

    Read your s**t before you start spouting it.

  18.  
    Ed
    April 24, 2008 | 11:09 am
     

    Ian - People are killed everyday - it is very sad - but the world doesn’t stop because of it. People that were truly grieving wouldn’t have noticed any advertising - its just PC prats like you that pretend to know what everyone else is thinking or feeling.

  19.  
    Ian
    April 24, 2008 | 11:29 am
     

    Ed - I expect you’ll receive the £600 worth of cinema passes the producers of this film are stumping up for nice words for that gem. All hail free speach.

  20.  
    Simon Edwards
    April 24, 2008 | 11:34 am
     

    £200k paid to LU - Tim O’Toole - you are stuck between a rock and a hard place mate. Can anyone trust LU’s management - I certainly know what I think.

  21.  
    Ed
    April 24, 2008 | 11:39 am
     

    Surely that’s not the reason you joined the debate is it Ian? Tell you what - if I win - I’ll ask them to send them to you instead!

  22.  
    Ian
    April 24, 2008 | 12:05 pm
     

    Absolutely Ed, I’ll trade some fluffy PC flannel for the chance to watch this crap 60 times over - not including sweets I notice! Keep ‘em, you deserve them. They know their audience profile.

  23.  
    Ellie
    April 24, 2008 | 12:12 pm
     

    I have not seen the movie but think these ASLEF guys have just played into the hands of the fat greedy producers, who probably love the fact that everyone will be talking about what looks like a pretty average movie. Personally I think there has been far more controversial movies been made previously, so really can’t see what the fuss is about!

  24.  
    Margerie Roper
    April 24, 2008 | 12:20 pm
     
  25.  
    Ed
    April 24, 2008 | 12:22 pm
     

    Ian - there, there - when you collect your tickets don’t forget to pick your toys up and put them back in the cot from which you’ve thrown them. You really must learn to stop assuming you know and understand things - it gets you in to more and more trouble. And you know that it would be totally inappropriate to include sweets with the tickets as it might be seen to be encouraging obesity. Tut tut - surely you PC mob should know that by now.

  26.  
    Cynic
    April 24, 2008 | 12:27 pm
     

    Would it be too cynical to think that the unions are complaining about the film to boost box office numbers? It does seem to smack of them having a vested interest in the film.

  27.  
    Ian
    April 24, 2008 | 12:32 pm
     

    Ed, Edward, Eddie baby. WTF? Could you be any more Clichéd? I’m sure you can. Prove me wrong.

  28.  
    Ed
    April 24, 2008 | 12:40 pm
     

    Clichéd? Oh dear you are getting stressed.

  29.  
    Matthew
    April 24, 2008 | 12:40 pm
     

    It occurs me as an objective bystander that Stephanie and Beanie have failed to consider their arguments as fully as they might have done. There is little doubt that any treatment of suicide – regardless of its context – is going to offend someone. The friends and families of the luckless 22 – or 240 – who throw themselves in front of trains every year are very probably going to find Three and Out uncomfortable viewing. The same may be said of the drivers of those trains that went over them. Even were there two drivers for every train – which there are not – this would result in fewer than five hundred drivers, and the friends and families of fewer than 250 deceased every year being expected to inform the legislation of all film and TV content.

    The problem with this argument is that any medium conceived for common digestion has necessarily to take little or no account of minority sensibilities. I, for one, was offended profoundly by Mel Gibson’s celebration of Christ’s suffering in The Passion. This gratuitous indulgence of an episode of importance to Christians is otherwise horrific to people for whom torture will never be entertaining. The distinction, therefore, between the Saw and Hostel films and The Passion is simply that some people believe Christ’s via dolorosa has some meaning or significance beyond its virtue as a dramatic narrative. Other than the first Saw film, which was extremely clever, the three sequels have abandoned the wit and intelligence of this imprimatur and opted instead to raise the cringe-stakes for the pleasure of adolescents. And good luck to them! Any other distinction must fail since it is only the context in which these films is viewed – or the perception of the viewer – that validates The Passion as something other than a horror film.

    Consequently, I do not seek – and would never advocate – censorship. I would allow everything that does not harm its protagonists – by which I mean the cast and crew – since every film that takes a stand at some level will inevitably advocate something distasteful to a minority. Christians, Muslims, Paedophiles and Rapists – and I draw no parallels – are all entitled to an opinion, even if we happen not to like it. Why should the sensibilities of one group of people be allowed to dictate the experiences of another? If we allow for that, then homosexuality is as likely to be rendered illegal again by religious zealots, and abortion will return to the back-streets. That western society seeks to maintain the status quo aesthetically by not getting in the way very often is an inevitable consequence of aspirational freedom, but what surprises me is that the likes of Stephanie and Beanie seem to think that intervention will protect the feelings of those harmed or ignored by film-makers.

    You cannot protect people from their feelings, and the majority are going to have these feelings whether film makers concentrate their minds for them or not. If Three and Out had not been pitched as a comedy, would that have made any difference to ASLEF? I imagine it would, and this is perhaps the nub of the issue.

    Laughing at the tragic, and making light of individual or collective suffering, disturbs some people, but this is to misunderstand the psychology of humour. I have seen the film, and I thought it incredibly moving and only sporadically ‘funny’ (in the sense that the Farrelly Brothers might understand the word). I did, however, consider what humour there was to be essential for the lightening of the dark. The filmmakers recognised that laughing at something does not necessitate disrespect; it does not require that the suffering of Tommy (the willing victim) or Paul (the driver) be a source of mockery. Far from it. Laughter is, in many ways, mankind’s most sophisticated defence mechanism, and there should be nothing at which humans should not be able or entitled to laugh.

    I am certain of this, and end my commentary with a true story that may serve to prick the self-righteous and unthinking bubbles of Stephanie and her like.

    A good friend of mine, now in his late 60s, lost 26 members of his family in Auschwitz and Dachau. As a second generation Jewish immigrant he entered Britain during the war from Poland, and became a much respected lawyer. When Schindler’s List came out we went for lunch, and he told me that it would be better had the film been a comedy. I expressed dismay at this sentiment – since he is a wise man, and not given to absurdist comments – but he observed that the immersion in grief at what was done by the Nazis to the Jewish people served to identify the Jews only with their suffering. It painted them into a corner of grief and victimisation from which there is never really any escape.

    (For this reason he loved The Producers – which does not satirise the Holocaust, as someone has suggested on this page).

    To prove his point, he told me about one of his uncles, who survived the camps and made it to the UK. This man was standing in a line of men and women early one morning in Dachau after one of the camp’s prisoners had attacked a guard for beating a friend.

    To punish them, the Commander demanded that two of the prisoners stand forward to die, or ten would be killed instead. His uncle remembered there followed a particularly awkward silence. Then one man put his hand up and asked: “May I be allowed some final words first?” The Commander replied that he would, on condition that another man stood forward also. The Commander then asked the first man what he wished to say.

    The man spoke as follows:

    ‘A Jewish friend of mine was walking home the other day up a long road outside Berlin when a big shiny Mercedes pulled up. In the back was Hitler and Goebbels. Hitler stood and directed the Jew’s attention to a pile of horse manure. He then commanded: “Eat it”. The old man got on his knees and tucked in. Hitler laughed and drove off. When the Jew arrived home, he threw open the door of his house and said to his wife: “Becky, Becky – you’ll never guess who I had lunch with today!”’

    The Commander then shot my friend’s uncle in the face.

    My point is obvious, and doesn’t need spelling out, but I would ask those who seek to restrict what is, and what is not, a reasonable target for comedy to remember that the only truly funny thing in life is someone who takes themselves and their place in the universe too seriously.

    “Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate”

    Matthew

  30.  
    Naomi
    April 24, 2008 | 1:15 pm
     

    Matthew - I agree that comedy is always to be found at people who take themselves too seriously, but, mate, did you have to take so long to say so?

  31.  
    Ian
    April 24, 2008 | 1:18 pm
     

    Now that last comment by Naomi is worth £600!

  32.  
    Matthew
    April 24, 2008 | 1:28 pm
     

    You ungrateful b*stards. Pearls before swine!

  33.  
    James Whey
    April 24, 2008 | 2:23 pm
     

    on the otherhand, matthew, if you win you certainly earned it.

  34.  
    Ian
    April 24, 2008 | 2:33 pm
     

    At least Ed didn’t smother you with cliches.

  35.  
    Why
    April 24, 2008 | 2:36 pm
     

    Why was the prize worked out on 50p a word? Seriously tho’ good points well made Matthew zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ;-p Only kidding

  36.  
    Ed
    April 24, 2008 | 2:44 pm
     

    Oh dear Ian is behaving like a truculent child again!! Seems he was missing out on the attention. Bless

  37.  
    Not Getting Out Enough
    April 24, 2008 | 2:46 pm
     

    Anyone who suggests that a film in which Gemma Arterton gets naked is in “poor taste” is just plain wrong!

  38.  
    Jeff
    April 24, 2008 | 2:48 pm
     

    She does have a fantastic rack - what happened to it at the premiere? I thought her dress was awful! And what a beautiful back. I dream of those dimples.

    Christ, is this getting pornographic…?

  39.  
    Tashi2
    April 24, 2008 | 2:52 pm
     

    That dress was awful - sorry but it did nothing for her. The designer should be shot. Poor choice of style and fabric - it looked cheap. She’s usually such a stunning looking young lady.

  40.  
    Jeff
    April 24, 2008 | 2:57 pm
     

    I know. She’s lost weight as well, so she used to look like something of a filthy (in the best possible way) young lady who knew her way around the bedroom, now she looks like just another “insert pretty girl here” (mmmm, insertion) hollywood type - totally forgettable. Shame, because she looks so hot in three&out.

  41.  
    Tashi2
    April 24, 2008 | 2:59 pm
     

    Let’s hope she doesn’t go down the size zero route.

  42.  
    Ian
    April 24, 2008 | 3:01 pm
     

    I bet Ed could pull that dress off, despite a probably hairy back problem.

  43.  
    Tashi2
    April 24, 2008 | 3:04 pm
     

    Ooh you bitch - so how do you two know each other then?

  44.  
    Anonymous
    April 24, 2008 | 3:05 pm
     

    We all know about organisations that pass judgement on what we can and can’t watch, what is decent, what is moral , what is tasteful and what is appropriate? In fact, one of them is hosting the Olympics this year. They call it preserving public order, standards and decency, but I call it censorship. Remember those protesters during the premiere of “The Last Temptation of Christ”?

    The ASLEF protestors are only fuelling interest in this abysmal comedy which would have otherwise suffered the same fate as most British films.

    LU does not have anything to apologise for. They made a commercial decision which will hopefully help fund the tube’s upgrade programme.

  45.  
    Ian
    April 24, 2008 | 3:09 pm
     

    I make Ed’s dresses.

  46.  
    Tashi2
    April 24, 2008 | 3:12 pm
     

    …best you introduce yourself to Gemma then

  47.  
    Kieth
    April 24, 2008 | 3:54 pm
     

    I was appalled to hear about this film - I do think that everyone has the right to freedom of speech but only so far as is reasonable. I don’t think that a racist joke, for example is ever funny. Nor do I think that suicide is a fair subject to make fun of. From what I’ve read of the film, I think that it’s disgraceful that the BBFC have allowed it to be released, and also for london underground to show such disregard for its imployees by putting the posters on the tube. Suicide is never funny - it’s tragic.

  48.  
    Temptation
    April 24, 2008 | 4:02 pm
     

    You see Kieth - you’ve only heard about the film - which means that you don’t actually know what is really about. Comedy is a release - everything can be seen in an amusing light - and very little is out of bounds. The last thing we need is people telling us what we can and can’t laugh about.

    This film doesn’t laugh at suicide - it is actually a very thought provoking, sensitive and emotional film. However, may be the level of intellect needed to watch this film is too great for many - and they are definitely those that should be encouraged to keep away. After all they might believe that the Three and Out rule actually exists and that all unions speak the truth.

    With regards to the advertising on LU - maybe the pound speaks more loudly than anything else - or perhaps they knew there was nothing wrong with the film - until they were under the cosh of union members complaining about a film they hadn’t seen…

  49.  
    Ian
    April 24, 2008 | 4:12 pm
     

    Temptation - or should I say Bernard Manning.

  50.  
    Matthew
    April 24, 2008 | 4:35 pm
     

    Kieth (sic)

    What is ‘reasonable’ freedom of speech? Who decides what is or is not reasonable? You? I think not.

    Suicide - like everything else - can be funny, even for its subscribers. May I direct your attention to the Darwin Awards? You might find yourself laughing against your instincts at the incredible stupidity of people - even when they are trying to rub themselves out. There should be no boundaries to freedom of speech. Even racists are entitled to their idiotic opinions since it is society’s responsibility - and its privilege - to allow everyone to make foolish and ill-considered comments. Even you! Consequently, and like this website, I shall defend until tedium your right to be wrong. You should extend the same largesse to the people responsible for Three and Out.

  51.  
    Train op
    April 24, 2008 | 4:35 pm
     

    I first want address the comments made by some who have attacked train operators direct about this film.
    We the train operators have not complained about this film. I can’t wait to see it and the fact that some of it was filmed on the line I work on is great, the complaining parties are the director of London Underground Limited and ASLEF every train operator I have spoke to can’t wait to see this film.
    The rude comments about our abilities, salary, and annual leave and training, let’s get the facts straight.
    We receive the salary, annual leave and training because we work shifts though the day and the night, when emergency situations happen we have to take charge of the customers on board and de-train them through tunnels to safety and in the worst situation we have to deal with one-unders (persons under the train) as the driver we are held responsible for the safety everyone on board.
    Your journey on the underground may last up to an hour we operators may be driving for over four hours in one half of a duty and we don’t only drive the trains we keep the trains in service and only when the train is not safe for passenger use do we remove it from service.
    We go through a great deal of intensive training that large numbers of delegates fail and have to return to their previous job and then we are re-tested every year to ensure our skills are maintained, you may not understand the skills required to operate a plus two hundred tonne train with up to a thousand customers on board and stop that train at the correct place at every station time and time again the concentration required is exhausting.
    I do hope this film is a great success and those who watch it gain a bit of respect for those of us who take you from home to work or school or out for the evening, to you we’re just the driver making those annoying announcements. Understand we have a difficult job to do and some of us do it very well and those annoying announcements safe lives and remind you where you are and where you’re going.
    A final thought.
    Those of you who still think of train operators as overpaid lazy thick idiots who walked in to an easy job. Try getting a job as a train operator.

  52.  
    Dave
    April 24, 2008 | 5:15 pm
     

    Well, looks like Train Op could use a cinema pass! Seriously though, I’m glad to hear that the operators are approaching this with an open mind and will hopefully make their own minds up. Of course, I’m sure they’ll all sit there and go “oh yeah, like THAT ever happens (Gemma Arterton, hmm, hmm)” but at least they’re not slating the film without having seen it first.

  53.  
    James Gabb
    April 24, 2008 | 7:30 pm
     

    “Ah Man, I just shot Marvin in the face”

    Anyone remember that scene from Pulp Fiction? Made everyone laugh didn’t it? But did you see anyone picketing about how “Shooting someone in the face isn’t funny”? Look at the rave critical reception that film got. Same applied for many of its scenes. Yet it was still greeted wth open arms and a fantastic reception. Why they’re going mad about this is beyond me. It’s only a film. And looks a fantastic one at that.

  54.  
    Jay Lee
    April 24, 2008 | 9:17 pm
     

    All the drivers at my depot today were talking about this film, talking about going to see it that is.
    The ASLEF ‘leadership’ are simply looking for some cheap publicity because ASLEF is a union going nowhere (apart from the bankruptcy courts). Drivers are deserting in a steady stream to the RMT and ATCU. They’re looking for easy targets.

    Also, Mcenzie Crook’s character is much closer to the truth than the ASLEF leaders are willing to admit. The vast majority of drivers, although they would rather suicides didn’t happen, are quite thankful of the time off and money.

    After a suicide, six weeks off on full pay and a few thousand quid in their back pocket, a driver is not likely to be found laying trembling on a psychiatrist’s couch looking like Pete Doherty. They would more likely to be found with the missus and the kids on a beach in Southend, or if a single driver, off to Thailand for some … er … sightseeing.
    I have a suggestion. I suggest that the ASLEF leaders do us all a favour and commit suicide themselves. I volunteer MY train to dispatch them off to the great Politburo in the sky.

    As I rarely go to the cinema these days, ordinarily I would have waited for this film to come out on video. In this instance however, I am making a deliberate point of going to see it. Stuff the ASLEF miserable bastards, equal rights for senseofhumourists.

    Jay Lee
    London Train Driver

  55.  
    Ray
    April 24, 2008 | 9:44 pm
     

    Hey, why don’t we have film comedies that ridicule disabled people and why not make movies that have a laugh about concentration camps victims? We must protect the rights of the bigots and film makers who make money out of the unfortunate and the oppressed. Never mind the rights of the train drivers who have the terrible experience of a passenger under their train or the family of that person who have to identify the remains.

    The attempt by these purveyers of this smirking ghoulporn to compare their film to the “The Life of Brian” and films of that ilk is quite frankly insulting to satire and comedy. The cynical attitude of these film makers is a product of the cash and notoriety at any cost culture they aspire to.

    These film makers claim that they want to foster free speech and debate but can’t even cope with criticism from train drivers. This debate is a cynical ploy to generate publicity for the film. I’m very happy to contribute to your publicity machine.

  56.  
    anon
    April 24, 2008 | 10:23 pm
     

    Why not make a comedy film about cot death syndrome and slag off anyone who is offended by it?BTW great advert in the London Paper tonight. Bit of union bashing.Good show.

  57.  
    A N Other T/Op
    April 25, 2008 | 12:05 am
     

    It speaks volumes I think, that as a serving LUL Driver I can’t identify myself for fear of being given the “Tin Tack”! In the eight years that I’ve been on the front I’ve had six “near misses”. For those of you who are reading this, this is an incident that could very well have become a “One Under”. My first one was the closet of close shaves and had it not been for another Driver on the other road it would have been a “One Under”. Instead, having been lucky enough to get a five seconds “Heads Up”, I managed to stop ten feet short of killing an old man who was grotting around in the middle of the track.
    This was on my first ever day out on the front whilst in training. For two days it was the most hilarious thing that I’d ever had happend to me, then came the dawning realisation that no matter how well I drove my Train, no matter how carefull and attentive I would be, if Joe Bloggs was in the right place at the right time he, or she, was going to be a gonner.
    For two days I then had the blues about it but persevered and I’ve never looked back. Now though, when I see folks pissing about on the platform I shake my head because this is how so many of our “one unders” start. If it happens out in the open section (not tunnel) you get ripped to shreds, quite literaly. If you fall in the “pit” (tunnel platforms) best case is bruised, dirty and possibly “juiced up” (electrocuted), worst case is a severe “prunning” and non instantaneous death. One of my friends had his “one under” thrashing around under the Train and screaming. That person died….eventualy.
    “one unders” are traumatic, for the driver, for the person who’s “one undering” themselves, for the relatives of the “one undered” and finaly for those who wittnessed it. Three of these four groups then have to relive this in the coroners court, where the Driver more or less has to prove that it wasn’t his / her fault.
    Also,One Unders stink…your shit and piss along with your intestines get liberaly spread about, other people, namely our Station Staff, have to deal with the aftermath in glorious technicolour stinkyvision and that in short, is why the whole subject is not realy fit as a topic for comedy and thats why we were at Leicester Square the other evening.
    I’m open minded and have a black sense of humour, thats why, when I questioned Mr Crook the other evening at LSQ, I didn’t shout at him or abuse him. He has his right to his job as I have the right to mine and the subject matter does require the publicity. Why are people jumping under our Trains?

  58.  
    Matthew
    April 25, 2008 | 8:41 am
     

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy for Train Op to detail the virtue and necessity of his work, but let’s not descend into sentimentality. He claims to do a difficult job. So what? Is it more demanding than the work of a paramedic, who has to scrape jumpers off pavements, and drivers from their cars? Train Op is not responsible for the body beneath his train, but merely the bodies in it. Arguably the ones under the train have more life, of course, but that’s not the point.

    I suspect that no-one would support the Police were the Met to feel wounded by their portrayal as maniacs, or crooks, or poetry-loving misanthropes with a taste for real Ale. In fact, the Police are routinely portrayed as either bent or retarded. Why is their union not up in arms at the Bill, and why did the Ambulance service in the US not seek to ban Bringing out the Dead? As for the armed forces… has anyone seen In the Valley of Elah? One might think the NHS entitled to take offence by any of the dozens of medical comedies and satires broadcast weekly that make them seem absurd - but they don’t, and I shall tell you why.

    It is because Train Op’s job is, when all is said and done, blissfully simple and rarely if ever demanding of more than consciousness. Yes, that’s probably harsh, but it’s true - by reference primarily to Train Op’s description of what he does! People who undertake difficult jobs rarely moan about their circumstances because that is the whole point. Consequently, I fear that Train Op - nameless though he is - risks slipping from reason and into hyperbole; despite the temptation of every commentator on this subject to veer off the tracks, I urge we do our best to remain on them. If not under them.

  59.  
    Matthew
    April 25, 2008 | 8:42 am
     

    Dave,

    Let’s not speak too soon…

    M.

  60.  
    Dave C
    April 25, 2008 | 9:47 am
     

    I’m a train driver who had a fatality last year, will I be going to see this film,,, cause I will. Not my fault someone used my train to end his life. I think you can look way to deep into any subjects used for films and find fault… But come on it’s just entertainment… Time to tell the pc brigade to s*d off, I don’t tell other people what to watch or what to do and don’t listern to anyone telling me wat to do… I’m old enough to make my own decsions… Either go or don’t go, but don’t comment on something you haven’t seen. I wonder if the same people would try to stop films like “The Killing Fields”, “Schinderlers List”, “Philadelphia” or “Scandal”.

  61.  
    Caron
    April 25, 2008 | 10:36 am
     

    The controversy surrounding this film will undoubtedly make it a bigger hit that it would have been without it.Since the dawn of time people have fiound different things funny or appalling thats what makes us individual. personally i wont be seeing the film as I witnessed someone jumping in front of the Gatwick Express two years go and will never get the image of the remains on the track out of my head.the feeling that there should have been something i couldve done to stop him stays with me too.i think its sad to make a comedy out of such a traumatic event but thats because i can relate to it. I guess there are things I find funny that other people wouldnt.At the end of the day we have the choice if your offended do see it.

  62.  
    Caron
    April 25, 2008 | 10:39 am
     

    Oooops clearly my last sentence should read if youre offended DONT see it.

  63.  
    Dave
    April 25, 2008 | 11:40 am
     

    Speaking of seeing it, isn’t it out in cinemas today? Who’s going to be the first one to report back on what it’s actually like . . . as opposed to what ASLEF/ LU/ the papers say?

  64.  
    Jack
    April 25, 2008 | 11:42 am
     

    I saw it on a preview screening last night.

    It was not as bad as everyone syas - I thought the ending was very touching, and the comedy wasn’t really aimed at suicide.

  65.  
    George
    April 25, 2008 | 12:16 pm
     

    It’s a film. Not real life. It’s a story - like 99% of films. What’s there to debate?

  66.  
    Placard Hater
    April 25, 2008 | 12:40 pm
     

    I know, @ George. This is such a fuss about nothing. Fiction is supposed to be challenging, it’s supposed to push the boarders of reality, otherwise you may as well just tell a true story. But then there would have been no Dracula, no 2001 Space Oddessy. The truth is that real life is dull, and films have to be fantastical.

  67.  
    Matthew
    April 25, 2008 | 12:51 pm
     

    Placard Hater, I agree with everything you say except that ‘real’ life is dull. Death is a great deal duller, I assure you.

  68.  
    Placard hater
    April 25, 2008 | 12:52 pm
     

    Matthew - how do you know how dull death is?

    It’s been the subject of many films - a matter of life and death (excellent), what dreams may come (terrible), flatliners (so very, very bad), beetlejuice (awesome).

  69.  
    Matthew
    April 25, 2008 | 1:16 pm
     

    Life is too short to explain my reasoning. I shall do so in death, when time is no longer against me.

  70.  
    Ian
    April 25, 2008 | 1:25 pm
     

    Look forward to reading that,

  71.  
    Life life to the full
    April 25, 2008 | 1:51 pm
     

    Matthew - if your “real” life is dull I pity you. Life at work - if work is all you live for - can conceivably be considered as dull at times - but surely you should rectify the rest of your life to enable you to live life to the full and enjoy it. I hope things get better.

  72.  
    Steven
    April 25, 2008 | 3:53 pm
     

    not wacthed it yet but the more complants i hear the more i want to if your so upset dont watch it every film if you take a bit out of it seems sick and bad tasted

  73.  
    Jack
    April 25, 2008 | 6:02 pm
     

    could ian f**k off. ed is right and ian is wrong now stop your Pathetic argument ian. i think the film is great. and as for ASLEF, they havnt even seen the bloody film.

  74.  
    Ella
    April 25, 2008 | 10:17 pm
     

    I will be going to see this film for the soul reason that ASLEF are upset about it. I’ve seen lots of films where people are flinging themselves off buildings and the like. You don’t get the people who have to deal with this in real life standing outside film premiers telling us it’s no laughing matter! Does ASLEF think we’re all daft? Do they think the next time we hear someone has decided it’s all too much we’ll think oh how funny just because we’ve seen a film? It’s just a story, it’s just a film.

    Stick to trying to find your next stupid reason to strike and stay away from film premiers!

  75.  
    Ilya
    April 25, 2008 | 11:01 pm
     

    You are to be congratulated for giving ASLEF/TfL a long overdue chance to bring a smile to people’s faces. I never credited them with such a deeply dry and ironic sense of humour but clearly they are intelligenty sending up the indefensible knee jerk reaction they always have and it’s wonderful that one or two people who should know better are taking them seriously. I think you include some of their statements in a re-release.

  76.  
    unkown
    April 26, 2008 | 8:37 pm
     

    Do you what….. I think anybody that enjoys this film or can justify the release has no compassion. Knowing a number of train drivers few of which have experienced people jumping in front of them. I don’t think that this issue is one that can be classed as entertainment.I have seen first hand what it does to those involved and believe me there is no comedy involved. So i don’t think anybody can stand there and actually feel like they can class this as comedy …… I sugest everybody shuts up and if you think your that big and clever be a train driver and experience this first hand you won’t be laughing then…….

  77.  
    Steve
    April 26, 2008 | 9:42 pm
     

    This movie totally disgust’s me. It totally trivulises what is a horrific situation. I can speak from experience, I was a train driver for BR and firstly found a mutilated body on the line then later had a jumper. You cannot imagine the feeling when you are coming into a station and you see someone jump, you apply the brakes but you know your not going to stop and the woman in my case looked me in the eyes before she went under. You have an overwhelming feeling of inadiquacy because you cannot swerve, your just a passenger but you have to keep it together to get the emergency servicer, get the power off, etc etc. That was in late 1998 and I left the railway in early 1999, I couldnt get back in the cab, it finished my career. So dont trivulise this because the mental scars can be too much to handle.

  78.  
    Chris
    April 27, 2008 | 11:05 am
     

    Steve, that sounds awful, and I’m sorry that you had that experience. From your reaction to the film, I can see that you haven’t seen it, however. Having seen it I can say that it in no way trivialises the subject of suicide. Indeed, it takes it from the crass understanding most commuters have of one-unders, to being about a person. That this film has suicide on the underground as its subject does not mean that it glorifies or trivialises it. In fact, it is a human drama about a man coming to the end of his life, and the man who accompanies him on his way. I thought it was moving and in no way demeaning of train drivers, jumpers, or the human race in general - indeed, it made all much more accessable.

  79.  
    Ian
    April 28, 2008 | 2:03 pm
     

    could Jack f*** O**. Sorry - maybe this sort of reply would be deemed pathetic? Look good on the film poster though - ‘Three and out - F*** o**’ I’d give you the £600 voucher Jack mate.

  80.  
    Ian
    April 28, 2008 | 2:07 pm
     

    P.S - would anyone like to come and see T&O with me? My ‘treat’.

  81.  
    Matthew
    April 28, 2008 | 3:41 pm
     

    Steve

    You are an unutterable w*nker. Your pain is yours, and yours alone. Why should you think it qualifies as grounds for universal compassion? Just because you had a sh*tty experience does not require the rest of the world to share in it; as I explained above, there is neither logic in, nor any precedent for, the misery of the few dictating the tolerances of the many. That the persecution of homosexuals resulted in tectonic shifts in law and morality does not mean they were effected without popular consensus. Consequently, and despite its many flaws, the democratic process still requires that 51% of a room drives those changes sought in principle by the other 49%. As such, while you are entitled to post your feelings about something that happened to you – or, more precisely, the crispy shredded f*ck cooked on the lines beneath your train – please do remember that you and your feelings are almost completely irrelevant. I do not mean this harshly – you must matter to someone – but why should you matter to anyone not privileged to know you? Don’t panic, I matter less even than you – I am in no doubt of that – but I do not seek to apply the modest suspicion that my views merit attention to my publishing of them on the internet. Oh, hang on a sec…

  82.  
    Ian
    April 28, 2008 | 4:24 pm
     

    Matt

    I really must applaud you for this bitch slap. I liked the twist at the end. You cheeky little tinker. You had me thinking you were an idiot for a second!

    Ian

  83.  
    Matthew
    April 28, 2008 | 6:21 pm
     

    Ian,

    Always leave them guessing.

    And your peremptory conclusion seems a little harsh, but then I relish the light that floods in through the walls of my glasshouse.

    M.

  84.  
    Ian
    April 29, 2008 | 11:10 am
     

    Amen to that, here end’th the lesson.

    In conclusion.

    Dubious poor quality comedic film of moderate interest gets far more attention than it deserves.
    I’ll have my voucher on cash, if that’s ok Mr Producer.

  85.  
    Dave
    April 29, 2008 | 12:20 pm
     

    Didn’t Callas say that to Caballe?

  86.  
    Bob
    April 29, 2008 | 8:57 pm
     

    I haven’t seen this movie, and based on the synopsis alone I won’t bother.

    Cheap cash in on a sensitive subject. Patronising to the general public who the movie makes think need to be taught to understand that suicide is serious.

    Bad taste - bad idea.

  87.  
    c-l
    May 1, 2008 | 8:57 pm
     

    First let me start by saying that i am a train driver. I have had the unfortunate experience of a person jumping under my train and also the aftermath of a suicide. I will be going to see this film but just out of curiosity. I think that it should be up to the individual as to whether the films subject is acceptable. There are also some questions that i would like to ask of all of the people who seem to be trivialising suicide on the railway….

    1- Have you ever killed a person knowing that there is nothing you can do to prevent it?
    2- Have you ever had to sit in a coroners court in front of the victims loved ones and explain what happened?
    3- Have you ever seen a human body that has been dismembered?

    Yes suicide does have a profound effect on the driver and i have seen too many people lose their career and livelyhood as a result of this act. As regards to Ravens comment earlier on in this forum. Yes most of us do earn £40k with overtime. Yes we do have to undergo psycometric testing before we are even offered a job as a driver. I don’t know how much holiday teachers get but i get 35 days a year. As for a short working week, mine is 35hour averaged over an 8 week period, and no Raven no train driver is forced to join ASLEF we can be in any union we want or not if we don’t want to. So Raven before you start slagging us off do a bit of reseach first and get your facts straight…

    Thanks for reading..

  88.  
    Raven
    May 3, 2008 | 8:52 am
     

    Actually c-l - the facts are straight - no-one said that you had to join ASLEF. All you need to do is listen to the scams the drivers are ALWAYS trying to pull to avoid working - and no before you start getting on your self righteous high horse, I am not someone talking from gossip and rumour - this has all come direct from LU drivers.

    As for your comment regarding people trivalising suicide on the railway… the only person that is doing that is Keith Norman with his asinine comments - an individual who has never seen the film and whilst trying to make himself look big and clever - further demonstrated what a to$$er he actually is.

    At no point does the film trivialise death, suicide or the emotions of people, I only hope that if you do go and see the film you can be grown up enough to watch it with an open mind leaving all prejudice behind.

  89.  
    jodie
    May 3, 2008 | 1:15 pm
     

    ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS GO AND WATCH THE FILM ITS GREAT !!

  90.  
    May 10, 2008 | 12:17 pm
     

    […] bizarre adverts in the London press attempting to summarise the “debate” and screaming censorship every 30 […]

Leave a comment




Information for comment users
Line and paragraph breaks are implemented automatically. Your e-mail address is never displayed. Please consider what you're posting.

Use the buttons below to customise your comment.


RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI