Karla (2006)

Directed by: Joel Bender

Starring: Laura Prepon, Misha Collins, Tess Harper and Patrick Bauchau

Rated: R

Genre: Thriller, Drama, True Crime

Based on the TrueCase of the Ken and Barbie Killers

In the early 1990s, Karla Homolka and her husband Paul Bernardo abducted, raped and killed two young women. Now, it’s 2000 and Karla Homolka is up for parole. She is being psychologically evaluated to determine whether she is eligible. Through this evaluation the viewer is told the story of her and her husband’s crimes, what they did and how they were stopped. However, it is told through Homolka’s perspective, so it’s not entirely accurate, something that has caused much anger and discontent among the viewers.

This film has garnered a lot of controversy. The crimes of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka are still fresh in the minds of most Canadians, and the Canadian government refused to help the filmmakers in any way during production. This may also explain the inaccuracies in the story, such as the mistakes in the timeline – Leslie (Tina in the film) was killed after Paul and Karla got married, not before. There is no mention of the victim called “Jane Doe” – the only one to have survived her time with the couple – who Karla “gave” to her fiancée as a wedding present. (This could be for legal reasons.)

The people behind the film didn’t treat the material responsibly. The actors were not informed that the film was based on true events, and were then unprepared for the public outrage at their involvement. Misha Collins, who plays Paul Bernardo, has publically renounced the film, and asks people not to watch it. I have heard rumors that Laura Prepon has done the same, but found no evidence.

Below are clips of Misha discussing the film: 

The film also doesn’t do a good job of letting the public know that it is not arguing for Karla’s innocence. Since it is told from her perspective, we see the Battered Wives’ Syndrome defense working in her favor. She was so in love with Paul, she couldn’t bear the thought of losing him, and she was terrified of what he would do to her if she left. While she does some awful things in the film, if the audience hasn’t researched the real story, they might actually find themselves feeling a little sorry for her. The film makes no mention of the video tapes the couple made documenting the atrocities they committed, and especially the fact that in those tapes, Karla seems to be a very willing participant. The only reason she escaped a life-sentence is that she plea-bargained before the tapes were admitted into evidence, and since she met every letter of that agreement, she only had to serve twelve years in prison. The new evidence could not legally be held against her.  The only things the film states are whether Karla earned parole, her release date, and that she made no effort to make amends to the families of her victims. There are subtle touches within the plot itself that may point to her more active involvement, but nothing that points out the entire truth.

As for the actual film itself, it is well-made, despite the inaccuracies. The opening sequence is very artful and moving. Prepon and Collins have a natural chemistry and really do appear to be a young couple in love. The sequence reveals that there’s a darkness to this couple through a change in music from sweet and happy to more ominous, and a strong focus on the shadows.

What makes this film work are the performances. Prepon does a great job in this version of Homolka. She is honest and raw, and, I feel, tries to add more dimensions to the character. Karla does seem a little jealous of the girls Paul chases and brings home. She’s jealous that he wants her little sister, and is willing to ruin Tammy’s life in order to please him. Again – the subtle hints that she is more involved than she lets on. She is also capable of making Karla pitiable, which is no easy task.

Collins’s performance wavers a bit. Despite the fact that this film introduced me to his acting and made me a fan, I find him inconsistent in areas. There are times when I think he should be a bit more panicked – such as when they realize Tammy’s choked into unconsciousness, or when he realizes Tina has seen both of their faces. Other times, his performance is spot on. He can convincingly move from sweet and charming to scarily cold and violent within seconds. He seems to become more psychotic as the film rolls on, which could be linked to Paul’s unraveling due to fear of being caught.

The young victims did a great job too. While the names were changed to protect the deceased (or for legal reasons), the girls were sympathetic and it was heartbreaking to watch them go through such trauma. They were legitimately scared and attempted to protect themselves anyway they could. I especially liked Katelyn (Kristen French in real life) because she stood her ground until the very end.

As far as brutality goes, most of it is not shown. The viewer sees Paul slap, taunt, and pull the victims' hair, but everything else is shown through close-ups of his face and sound effects. Enough is set up so the audience has an idea of what he's doing, but nothing is shown with the underage girls. The scenes where Karla is the subject of his anger, things are a lot more intense. The final beatings leave her so badly hurt she has to be hospitalized, and there is a disturbing scene where he "punishes" her for trying to leave him. This film is not for the faint of heart. 

There are some questions I developed over the course of the film. The first is related to wardrobe: in the scene where they are celebrating Christmas, Tammy, Karla, and Paul are all dressed like it’s summer. Why?  The film took place in Canada where the weather around Christmas is usually snowy with temperatures below freezing. It made no sense to me. Also, why was Paul so upset that Tina had seen his face in the house, when she had clearly seen it when he abducted her? My guess is the filmmakers were playing on the fact that he’d taken her at night, so the shadows obscured his face, but that is hard to buy when the viewer can clearly see it. If we can see it, so can Tina.

Overall, as a fictional film, it would be a decent, disturbing, little watch, but I have to deduct points for the lack of accuracy, as well as the way the filmmakers handled this material. The video tapes should have been mentioned as well as Karla’s true involvement – which could have calmed some of the controversy. The acting is done well and makes the film compelling, despite its flaws and inaccuracies.

5.5/10

The Burning Bed (1984)

Directed by: Robert Greenwald

Starring: Farrah Fawcett, Paul Le Mat, Grace Zabriskie, James T. Callahan, Dixie K. Wade, and Penelope Milford

Genre: TV Movie, Drama, Domestic Violence

Rated: Not Rated

Based on a True Story and the book by Faith McNulty

Based on the true case of Francine Hughes, the story follows the tumultuous relationship between Francine and her husband, Mickey. A relationship that gets progressively more violent and abusive over time and one Francine is unable to escape from. Her efforts to leave are thwarted, either by Mickey or those she turns to for help. On the night of March 9, 1977, after being beaten and raped by her husband, she got the children out of the house, and as her drunken husband slept, doused him in gasoline and set the bed on fire. Thus setting into motion one of the first cases to ignite the idea of Battered Wives Syndrome as a credible defense.

This film is very emotionally gripping. I truly felt for the character of Francine – the fear she lived with, the lack of help or places to go, and the learned helplessness she developed throughout her life with Mickey. I sympathized with her because I understood her reasoning for doing things that others would deem stupid, even when I was frustrated by her choices. However, for the most part, the film just made me angry; angry at Mickey for being a drunk, abusive jerk; angry at his parents for looking the other way when they know he’s beating the hell out of her; and most of all, at Francine’s mother – who told her that she had to “take the good with the bad” and she’d made herself a “hard bed and now she must lay in it.” This woman was spineless and wouldn’t stand up for her daughter, begging Francine to go back to Mickey, and even giving her grandchildren to Mickey when he’s drunk, violent and belligerent. 

Yeah, because that’s a smart move, lady! 

Her behavior was so unfathomable to me because I was raised by a strong woman who would do anything to protect me from harm. She would kill the guy long before I did. When I was done with this movie, I was in serious need of something with a strong heroine kicking some butt.

The acting in this film is what was the most compelling to me. While Farrah’s performance is a little overrated, she does do very well with the material and bringing her character to life. It certainly does prove that she’s a talented actress. Paul Le Mat also did a great job as Mickey – a role many remember him for and hate him for the same reason. He made Mickey a villain, and when his victim is one of America’s Sweethearts, that role is not easily forgiven. The other performances were great as well, with Grace Zabriskie standing out as Mickey’s cold fish of a mother. She made me hate her just as much as Mickey, so she did her job well. The worst acting had to be from Francine’s lawyer – he was so monotonous and dry. In the court room, he is supposed to be appealing to the jury and making them sympathetic to Francine’s experiences – but he’s so bland and unemotional that it’s hard to believe he managed to get any reaction at all.

The production values are dated by today’s standards, the picture’s grainy in areas, but overall it still holds up. The lighting and audio are fine, and no scenes seemed out of place. The film was well edited so it showed just enough violence to get the point across, but not too much. Still, it was hard to stomach in places, especially in the scenes where the kids witness the abuse. Yet, it doesn’t have the made-for-television feel that many TV movies do.

Overall, this is a moving portrait of one of our country’s most famous domestic violence cases. Whether you agree with Francine’s actions or not, the film is still worth a watch for the performances alone. It’s not a movie you’ll want to watch again and again, but it is very well done.

8/10