"Responsible Child" is based on the actual case of two brothers, Jerome Ellis age 14 and his brother Joshua, 23, who stabbed their abusive stepfather Neil Tulley to death in 2013 in England.
This is a very well-acted film, particularly considering that it is a 'made for TV' film. Billy Barratt, the young actor who plays the lead role of the younger brother, is absolutely believable in his part. In 2020 at the age of 13 he won the International Emmy Award for Best Performance By An Actor, the youngest person ever to receive the award - especially impressive as the category is not based on age. (Four years earlier, that award went to Dustin Hoffman.) All the roles are very believably acted but Barratt's was by far the toughest and most important of the film. He absolutely came across from the screen as the scared and withdrawn child he played in the film.
Films with a story such as this one have an innate 'hook' to them - an ordinary person finds themselves in extraordinary circumstances. The fact that this one concerns a schoolboy compounds that fact.
I find it an interesting point that young Barratt was apparently about the same age (12) during filming of "Responsible Child" as the character he portrayed. It seems to me that nobody playing a movie role is ever the same age. Teenagers and high school student roles are frequently acted by people well into their 20's. For me, having the actor's age match the role adds credibility and believability to their characterization.
I do question why the producer of the film chose to stay true to the facts of the actual case but lowered the age of the younger brother in the film to 12, instead of 14 which was the reality. Perhaps he was trying to make a point that the same situation could have happened to a 12 year old as happened in real life to a 14 year old? In England a child as young as 10 can be charged as an adult in a serious crime and tried in regular full court.
The film's point is that the UK should re-examine its laws regarding child criminals and the age at which they should be held responsible. I would agree with that with the exception that not all child criminals are just good kids who were driven to do bad things as was the case here. There are legions of juveniles convicted of murder, who have criminal records as repeat offenders including for prior violent crimes. There certainly must be distinction made in how children are treated in the courts, depending on past circumstances and the individual situation. A 14 year old who kills for thrill is not the same as one who snaps after being abused by a drunken step-parent. It is not my intent here to preach or editorialize, but to comment on the message expressed by the film.
While this movie didn't exactly move me to tears as it apparently did for some, that is not in any way a criticism. It's a compelling re-enactment of a real-life tragedy, and Billy Barratt did a tremendous job playing the role. You can't help but feel empathy for the character he plays as a juvenile charged with murder.
This is a very well-acted film, particularly considering that it is a 'made for TV' film. Billy Barratt, the young actor who plays the lead role of the younger brother, is absolutely believable in his part. In 2020 at the age of 13 he won the International Emmy Award for Best Performance By An Actor, the youngest person ever to receive the award - especially impressive as the category is not based on age. (Four years earlier, that award went to Dustin Hoffman.) All the roles are very believably acted but Barratt's was by far the toughest and most important of the film. He absolutely came across from the screen as the scared and withdrawn child he played in the film.
Films with a story such as this one have an innate 'hook' to them - an ordinary person finds themselves in extraordinary circumstances. The fact that this one concerns a schoolboy compounds that fact.
I find it an interesting point that young Barratt was apparently about the same age (12) during filming of "Responsible Child" as the character he portrayed. It seems to me that nobody playing a movie role is ever the same age. Teenagers and high school student roles are frequently acted by people well into their 20's. For me, having the actor's age match the role adds credibility and believability to their characterization.
I do question why the producer of the film chose to stay true to the facts of the actual case but lowered the age of the younger brother in the film to 12, instead of 14 which was the reality. Perhaps he was trying to make a point that the same situation could have happened to a 12 year old as happened in real life to a 14 year old? In England a child as young as 10 can be charged as an adult in a serious crime and tried in regular full court.
The film's point is that the UK should re-examine its laws regarding child criminals and the age at which they should be held responsible. I would agree with that with the exception that not all child criminals are just good kids who were driven to do bad things as was the case here. There are legions of juveniles convicted of murder, who have criminal records as repeat offenders including for prior violent crimes. There certainly must be distinction made in how children are treated in the courts, depending on past circumstances and the individual situation. A 14 year old who kills for thrill is not the same as one who snaps after being abused by a drunken step-parent. It is not my intent here to preach or editorialize, but to comment on the message expressed by the film.
While this movie didn't exactly move me to tears as it apparently did for some, that is not in any way a criticism. It's a compelling re-enactment of a real-life tragedy, and Billy Barratt did a tremendous job playing the role. You can't help but feel empathy for the character he plays as a juvenile charged with murder.