Heavenly Creatures (1994) is based on the Parker - Hulme murder case this enhances the eeriness of the film, making it deeply alarming.
The Parker-Hulme murder case:
Pauline Parker, aged sixteen, and Juliet Hulme, aged fifteen, were found guilty of the murder of Pauline's mother, Honora Mary Parker, the killing was done with a brick placed in a sock.
The murder took place on 22nd June 1954, in Victoria Park, Christchurch (New Zealand).
A bid was made by the defence that the two teens were not guilty on grounds of insanity, this plea was rejected by the jury.
It is thought the girls friendship developed as they bonded of elaborated fantasy lives together. Their respective parents became concerned by this, fearing their relationship may be sexual (homosexuality at the time was seen as a serious mental illness), thus they tried to prevent their children from spending time together.
In 1954, Juliet's parents divorced, and Juliet was to be sent to South Africa with family - particularly for her health.
Pauline expressed to her mother that she wished to accompany Juliet to South Africa; her mother, Honora, was adamant that she would not allow this.
It's thought those are the reasons the girls planned to kill Honora, so that they could be together.
The girl's trial was a sensational affair with overwhelming speculation of homosexuality and insanity almost engulfing the facts of the murder itself.
Being too young to receive the death penalty, Pauline and Juliet spent just fiver years in jail, before being released under the condition of never seeing one another again (although the latter is thought to be just media speculation).
Below, Juliet (now Anne Perry) discusses the murder.
Juilet shrugs off the murder, claiming she is merely an accessory.
Regardless of any speculation, the mere fact Heavenly Creatures is even loosely based upon the Parker-Hulme murder case is astonishingly chilling, and really brings to life the reality of the thriller genre.
The clip you've found about the two women both living in Scotland is an interesting one.
ReplyDeleteWell done Danielle for digging around. Clearly this case continues to mystify.
Splendid engagement with media studies and the texts we discuss is strongly evident on your blog;