I saw this TV-made film for the first time last night. I know "sociopath" and "psychopath" are labels and that everyone is an individual and no label, even attached to a mass-murderer such as Haigh could really explain his actions which can only be described as destructive and evil. Martin Clunes was clearly relishing the role and I have to say, I found him completely convincing in it. Whilst the adaptation does suggest the strict religious sect his parents adhered to was a strong influence in his development into a psychopathic murderer, I think this film interpretation of his character indicated he had a sense of entitlement to taking what he wanted in life and he had no boundaries, no conscience, saw no reason why he could not do what he wanted to do to get it all. He would appear to be one of those people who believes their own lies to the extent they can successfully convince many others. I think the reason he committed the murders was because he could and he seems to have committed them for personal gain. He had none of the normal moral and ethical boundaries in place to prevent him. He was unable to understand or foresee the consequences of his actions. Since the explanation he was influenced by his religious background came from Haigh himself, who was a practised and pathological liar, I leave it to the experts to determine whether such people as Haigh are the products of nature or nurture or a tragic combination of many contributing influences.
Review of A Is for Acid
