MovieChat Forums > Longford (2006) Discussion > Is Ian Brady worse in real life than the...

Is Ian Brady worse in real life than the Andy Serkis portrayal?


Do you think he's as monstrous as they say? The crimes him and his acolyte commited were absolutely grotesque. I think they both should burn in hell for eternity.

reply

[deleted]

He was/is evil -- but not an idiot. He held down a clerical job and rarely made maths mistakes at work. He was writing a letter a letter saying that he wouldn't be in to work one day (he had been injured in his final murder) and a policeman came to the house after a tip off. He told the cop to look around the house (he found the body wrapped upstairs) and when he came down Brady was still writing his letter totally unconcerned. If that isn't the signature of a psychopath what is?

reply

[deleted]

He is a very intelligent man, very quick witted and sharp. He's utterly frightening because he knows so much. He has educated himself whilst in psychiatric care. He is a skilled manipulator, he can manipulate many of the care staff at his unit. He's truly scary because he goes from cunning, devious and malevolent one minute, to completely unhinged and crazed the next. He's charming and vile at the same time.

Terrible person.

reply

He's a perfect psychopath, or perfectly evil, take your pick. And as we have all learned by sad experience, such people can be quite intelligent, and the smarter they are, the more dangerous they are. Ian Brady is one of the intelligent ones. As a poster before me remarked, during his 40+ years behind bars he has vastly improved his own education (which was essentially at high school level back in the old days), through constant reading. And if he hadn't been caught in 1965 there can be no doubt that he would have kept on murdering for years to come. He loved it. It was beyond a doubt the best fun he ever had. He doesn't even have the excuse of, say, a Jeffrey Dahmer or some other kind of weird schizophrenic with voices in his head telling him to do things.

I don't know what it means to be "worse" that the character as portrayed by Andy Serkis. I mean, Serkis portrayed a sinister, taunting, manipulative, psychopathic monster who could have become top man in the SS if he hadn't been born thirty years too late, and in the wrong country, and who was doing time for multiple kidnappings, rapes and murders of juveniles. How much "worse" can a guy get?

reply

[deleted]

By all accounts from what I've read, he was a monster- described often as psychopathic, the portrayal of him by Serkis was brilliant

I must add that i love that you said "I think they BOTH should burn in hell for eternity" I am sickened reading all these people saying "oh she changed" and "she was just doing what he made her do" which is not good enough- on that tape she was described as being the instigator and coming up with new ways to torture that girl- and keep in mind, that's just what we KNOW- imagine all the things she did when she wasn't being taped!!

Do guys like "the thing"?
They like it better than no thing.

reply

Firstly, 'Evil' is a purely abstract and overly simplistic concept - a hangover from less enlightened times when we could use religion to explain away the less appealing aspects of humanity. Brady is many things; cruel, egotistical, perverted, destructive? Yes. Evil? No more than the next person.

Secondly, although Longford is the better piece of drama, I actually thought Sean Harris's version of Brady was more accurate in See No Evil.

reply

From everything I've read over the years of Brady I'd say Serkis's portrayal was pretty spot on. No one have ever heard Brady speak in public, but he was always painted out to be psychotic, reserved, menacing and very heartless. He also spoke with a great sense of superiority and was quite articulate.

I think thats as close as we're ever going to get to seeing the real deal.





Ashmi any question

reply

Brady is many things; cruel, egotistical, perverted, destructive? Yes. Evil? No more than the next person.


You can't be serious. You just described an evil person and then refused to qualify him as evil due to your dislike for religion and your moral relativism.

He's not more "evil" than the next person?. Only if the next person is also a sadistic kidnapper, torturer, rapist and killer of children.

reply