MovieChat Forums > The Last Confession of Alexander Pearce (2009) Discussion > Plese don't make this man into a monster...

Plese don't make this man into a monster!

posted 15 years ago by Gomephrus
17 replies | jump to latest

I have studied the story of Alexander Pearce for many years, and I feel quite defensive about him when some books label him as a serial killer. This really makes my blood boil. As far as I am concerned, when he and the others were lost in the forest what else could they do to survive? They didn't have the tools or the necessary skills to catch animals and they were ignorant in the ways of the aboriginies and how they survived. I believe that Pearce didn't kill all those men, it was Robert Greenwood who was well known as a bully. Pearce killed him in the end to save his own life (self defence). As for Thomas Cox, well poor old Alexander knew that his life would be over now that he had escaped again! And once he found out that Cox couldn't swim he saw red and killed him. The mane went through so much and I hope this movie will see him in an objective light and let the Australian people know what these men went through so they could establish an 'English" colony for all the free settlers.

[–] puirt-a-beul 15 years ago

Well, Gomephrus, I saw this film tonight and I think they did a good job of being objective about Pearce's experience and behaviour. They didn't demonise him or turn him into a looney, which would have been easy for them to do if they just wanted to make it sensational. Instead, it was clear they were trying to tell a good story while still keeping it accurate to the history and attitudes of the time, which I was pleased to see.

I don't want to say too much because, even though there aren't overt plot twists to avoid, I don't like spoiling things about any movie for someone who hasn't seen it. When you get to see it, I hope you're satisfied too.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] danahughes 15 years ago

Then I suggest skipping "Dying Breed".

[–] sonotme 15 years ago

mate he may not of been a "serial killer" but he killed someone because they could not swim he is a murder and he had food the 2nd time around and still ate cox. poor old alexander my ass

[–] rgrant543 15 years ago

He was Evil pure and simple, he made his choices no one forced him to do anything.

you people are ignorant for defending Him.

[–] jufjo 15 years ago

I don't blame him for eating someone during that first trip.
If you are hungry, really hungry like very few today have ever been, you go mad.
And to survive you must eat.
But the last murder was simply murder, perhaps you can understand his motives, his frustrations and how he got where he was, but it still was a murder.
The movie didn't make him a hero or a poor victim, but neither did it make him a monster.
Well done.

[–] Sabassi 15 years ago

My point of view is that he was a man once.. but after his 1st escape and what he had 2 do to survive he sort of became a monster, then when he came back and was tortured some more that mad him an angry monster

Cox can't swim issue was just the breaking point that made him realize what he had become so he decided to be captured and executed in order to stop what he has become.. that's a cold blooded messy monster

*****************

My city screams!

[–] zebrabungle 15 years ago

So your first hand experience comes from.... yea, wait, you were what reincarnated? you have a time machine? or no, more likely you are just a cowed bit*h who believes that he was evil because some history (i.e. fabricated history) says so, and as you can't endure complex thought or do any through research yourself, your happy to just be seen as a short-sighted, small-minded tw8t.

Cheers, now go drown in your beers

[–] shannonphoenix 14 years ago

You can say that because you have not seen Van Diemen's Land. That is more factual regarding the true conditions of that part of Tasmania. This one was good, but made it seem like things weren't so bad. I do not believe anyone is defending him so much as they are saying that in his shoes, they don't know what they would do.

And as far as choices, some have better options than others. You have not been sent to a prison like that one and it was rumored to be the worst place to be sent. He may have done wrong, but the British Empire during that time was not very sympathetic to the poorer people. If this was a higher class man, he wouldn't have been simple. Survival is a basic instinct and if you don't think you have the capability of doing what he did, then you do not know yourself.

Yes, you will respond and either call me a bunch of names and tell me I don't know what I am talking about. But you would be wrong. Or, you can be like other snobby stuck up people and "not dignify that with an answer." Whatever you say, I say that you should go to that area of Tasmania with nothing and see how hungry you would get and what you would be willing to do. You would probably kill your mother if that is what it took. Or better yet, do out into a desert with some of your friends and see how long you would last.

I guess the survivors of the Andes plane crash were evil too, because they had to resort to cannibalism to survive. Watch the movie "Alive" and tell me those people were evil. This is not to suggest that he made a bad choice, but this movie fudges a lot of facts. Unless you are royalty, try living with the CJ system back then.

[–] pollnagollum 14 years ago

Can you please, in concise terms, explain how exactly this film 'fudges a lot of facts?' For you information, I have seen both films and I have been to Tasmania many times.

[–] pollnagollum 14 years ago

Actually, he was forced to do a lot.

Pearce was sentenced to seven years transportation for the theft of six pairs of shoes, in a part of Ireland ravaged with famine and civil disorder. Once in the Australian penal system, he quickly found himself in a place where systematic torture, brutality and deprivation far outweighed his crime. Prior to his escape, Pearce was not a murderer. In fact none of the men who escaped with him were. But the system they had escaped from had stripped them all of any semblance of hope, sanity or humanity.

On Sarah Island, the men were forced to work for hours in freezing water in logging camps, in intolerable conditions.

They were forced to administer punishment to their fellow prisoners.

Pearce was a 30 year old Irish rural farm labourer who had been forced to steal some shoes, probably to buy food. Within two years, he had been forced to commit some of the most heinous acts known to man.

I'd say his choices were absolutely forced on him.

[–] tanster-1 15 years ago

I'm only basing my opinions on the movie. During the first escape, considering they were all convicts (guilty or innocent, I don't know), it was understandable that they elected to murder the one who was volunteered or chosen to whip them. One of them, Greenwood I believe, seemed to be a little too comfortable with it. I know he was the instigator, but all those men, including Pearce had choices to NOT commit murder. To me, they are all just as guilty.

Now the second escape is more important in terms of being deemed a monster or not. As already mentioned, despite the fact that he had provisions, he still chose to murder Cox. I know he was tired of serving time in such harsh conditions, and felt betrayed that Cox lead him that far just to keep him stranded, but what good was killing him and then eating him? I can only conclude that Pearce now, like Greenwood, was getting too comfortable doing it.

Was he a serial killer? No. Was he a monster? According to his actions in this movie, I'd say yes. Not the most scary monster around, but someone who can lose his cool, murder someone not out of self defence, and then eat them despite having provisions. Let's just say I wouldn't want to be trying to survive in the wild with him.

If I was starving and faced death, nothing could bring me to murder an innocent. I'd die trying to find food and water.

[–] lowrises 15 years ago

tanster-1: If I was starving and faced death, nothing could bring me to murder an innocent. I'd die trying to find food and water.

Of course you would ;)
Alexander Pearce would have said the exact same, had you asked him before the escape. And that despise living in far worse conditions you EVER will have to to endure.
Ain't exactly original making bold statements belly filled, fridge fulla food and the next MC Donalds around the corner, don't you think?

[–] hawk-gr 15 years ago

I believe that these people who escaped they suddenly "transported" in another world, another reality where everything was different.
When you are in this situation the way your mind works is different.
We really don't know what exactly we would do if we were them. We must not judge those people just sitting in our living room in front of our TV with some hamburgers and cold coce.

[–] csider 14 years ago

I'll admit it, I didn't know a great deal about this man and his story before watching this film and finding out what I can about him online afterwards.

However, what interests me the most about this story it is how history has come to view Pearce. Your comment in particular intrigues me as you clearly sit on the 'this man is a victim of the system' side of the fence. If you look at the facts, the man was a thief first, then a murderer/cannibal, and in any other context he would be remembered for these actions alone. However, given the context these actions took place - i.e. british penal transportation and deportation in the 19th century - Pearce is used as an example of the inhumanity & injustice of this system from a modern perspective. I'm paraphrasing a common misconception here.

what amazes me is how people, like yourself, can view 'poor old alexander' in such a light? do you realise that life on the penal colony of van diemen's land was actually preferable to life as a convict on british soil at the time? Are you aware that convicts, after serving their time would be given 3 acres of land of their own and extradition was seen as an opportunity for a better life?

There really isn’t any excuse for what Pearce did. He didn't have get moved to Sarah island from mainland Tasmania, he didn't have to escape, he didn’t have to murder and eat those men and he didn’t need to die. Stop trying to mythologise him and others like him. The man was not only a monster but probably a bit of an idiot with it.

[–] shannonphoenix 14 years ago

I don't think any of us should have the audacity to judge this man. I am not defending him for his actions, I am not saying that I agree with what was done because I don't. However, if you are human, your first need or instinct is for survival and you may surprise yourself at what you would be willing to do. The survivors of the Andes plane crash of 1972 who were stuck in the Andes mountains, another hostile environment, resorted to cannibalism to survive. They didn't kill anyone, they didn't have to.

I don't know what I would do if I were in one of the worst prisons or penal colonies on the planet and it is bad. I have had enough Australians tell me that they wouldn't go camping there. Australia is beautiful, but it is also dangerous.

You need to see "Van Diemen's Land" which means "land of men who die." This movie made it seem as if that area was actually habitable and that is BS. I don't think he killed Cox out of hate but out of anger. Not that it is right, but he is not hear to say anything. Neither is Hitler, but we know from people who are still alive, including his nephew and his children, how he was.

I hear you saying "I would never do that..." How do you know? I think you are fooling yourself if you believe that you would not do that. I don't think they should have killed anyone, but I wasn't there. I throw no stones because I don't know what I would do in that situation.

[–] ivankafka 14 years ago

LOL, always makes me laugh when people say you shouldn't judge someone. My right to judge someone is stronger than someone's right not to be judged. Yeah the guy was totally misunderstood, just like so many murderers. And please don't compare the survivors from the 'Alive' film with these men, they never murdered anyone to eat. They ate the flesh from some of the frozen passengers in order to make the trek for help. There has been many people throughout history that have been forced through starvation to eat the dead, that is true, but it takes a completely different type of person to savagely kill living human beings purposely to eat. Even some of the other convicts refused to be party to the killings.

Edit: A second thought. Surely these men must have known before they escaped that they would find it almost impossible to feed themselves. Can't help but think cannibalism was in the minds of a couple from the start.

[–] ObstinateAnnette 14 years ago

You need to see "Van Diemen's Land" which means "land of men who die."

Actually, the name comes from Anthony van Diemen, who sent Dutch explorer Abel Tasman on the voyage during which he discovered the island.

Twice in this thread you've compared the men portrayed in this movie to the Andes survivors. The Andes survivors didn't murder anyone, for food or any other reason. The people they cannibalized were dead from the plane crash. Morally, that's an entirely different thing, and there's no comparison.

I need my 1987 DG20 Casio electric guitar set to mandolin, yeah...