Am hearing from some people that worked on the new movie about Bobby Sands that it has been accepted into this years Cannes Film Festival. Should be officially announced at the main press conference in the next week or two.
I didnt even know this movie was being made - who's playing Bobby Sands?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0986233/
Quote from: BennyHarp on April 11, 2008, 03:00:46 PM
I didnt even know a move was being made - who's playing Bobby Sands?
Michael Fassbender. Can't say I know much about him.
He is a kraut.......
Quote from: Donagh on April 11, 2008, 03:11:20 PM
Quote from: BennyHarp on April 11, 2008, 03:00:46 PM
I didnt even know a move was being made - who's playing Bobby Sands?
Michael Fassbender. Can't say I know much about him.
He went to the Kerry school that lost the Hogan final.
Any release date yet?
Better still any rapidshare links ?
Bobby Sands
(http://z.about.com/d/movies/1/0/R/p/N/300pubc.jpg)
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y275/hexxen-fansite/Azazeallookingood.jpg)
Quote from: Bensars on April 11, 2008, 03:16:13 PM
Any release date yet?
Better still any rapidshare links ?
There are preview versions doing the rounds at the minute but I'm told the final edit still hasn't been made.
Quote from: Donagh on April 11, 2008, 03:52:20 PM
Quote from: Bensars on April 11, 2008, 03:16:13 PM
Any release date yet?
Better still any rapidshare links ?
There are preview versions doing the rounds at the minute but I'm told the final edit still hasn't been made.
Good to see the owc contingent havesteered clear of this topic, I have visions of sammyg coming in and ruining the harmony.
For the threads sake I hope you are not a man of vision. :)
I see that the film was directed by Steve McQueen, sounds like a good omen.
Quote from: Main Street on April 11, 2008, 09:54:57 PM
For the threads sake I hope you are not a man of vision. :)
I see that the film was directed by Steve McQueen, sounds like a good omen.
Fcuk, I thought he was dead :o
Liam mcMahon is in this as well, he from Donaghmore, he da (Big A) taught in the Academy
Its a different Steve McQueen (if you weren't being sarcastic, when you said he was dead).
(Risking like sounding like a certain Mr. T. Fearon...but here goes)
Having been invited to attend this year's Cannes Festival, which I duely accepted, I'll give you a full report on my return. Believe it or not, organisers of a private party for 1000 people, to be held at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Cannes, have chosen an Irish ballad group to provide the evening's entertainment.....the Hollywood socialites will never have seen the likes of it.
Quote from: balladmaker on April 12, 2008, 08:41:22 PM
(Risking like sounding like a certain Mr. T. Fearon...but here goes)
Having been invited to attend this year's Cannes Festival, which I duely accepted, I'll give you a full report on my return. Believe it or not, organisers of a private party for 1000 people, to be held at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Cannes, have chosen an Irish ballad group to provide the evening's entertainment.....the Hollywood socialites will never have seen the likes of it.
For this movie Balladmaker? Well done! Must get that other boys email of you to send him a wee thanks. That book he gave us got £200 at the Ceili.
a wee snippet here on the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7406064.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7406064.stm)
2 years ago the wind that shakes the barley took the Palme dór now Hunger is being tipped for top prize.
The director says, wagging his finger, don't come to see this film with set opinions.
That won´t stop the usual bigots coming to the thread to make negative comment about the film even though they haven't seen it.
(http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/3/31/Protest_Bod.jpg)
Hunger has won the Camera d'Or prize, given to first time film directors, at the Cannes Film Festival. The prize was presented to Steve McQueen by Dennis Hopper. Congratulations.
Reaction to this movie's general release will be interesting to see. Anybody know the release date?
Quote from: carnaross on May 26, 2008, 09:45:19 AM
Reaction to this movie's general release will be interesting to see. Anybody know the release date?
doesnt seem to be one yet
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0986233/releaseinfo (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0986233/releaseinfo)
AFAIK they are still trying to find a distributor.
Quote from: Donagh on May 26, 2008, 10:08:28 AM
AFAIK they are still trying to find a distributor.
Any idea why Donagh?
Is it the political nature of the film, financial, or other reasons
I don't think there's anything funny going on. The final edit of the film wasn't made until fairly recently and this combined with a first time Director meant that no one was going to take a chance on picking it up before now. The movie has a distributor for Ireland and Britain but the makers had already targeted Cannes as the place to get an international distributor. The prize should strengthen their hand significantly now.
Looks superb and the award of the prize must mean the looks have substance. Hope it gets picked up and distributed soon.
Good news about the film, I'll look forward to seeing it.
The IT had a bit of info
'Hunger was not eligible for the Palme d'Or award because it was screened outside of the main festival competition. It was the opening presentation of the official Cannes sidebar section, Un Certain Regard, and it received a five-minute standing ovation'.
'Hunger became the subject of many bidding battles at Cannes. Before the festival closed last night, the rights had been sold to distributors in the US, UK, Ireland, France, Belgium, Portugal, Greece, Australia and New Zealand. The film is likely to go on cinema release in the autumn'
Gail Walker is still as bitter as ever. She typifies unionist arogance insisting - the troubles never happened, blah blah blah, only unionists suffered, blah blah blah, the IRA are to blame for everything. Yeah Gail, thats right ::)
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/columnists/gail-walker/article3728524.ece (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/columnists/gail-walker/article3728524.ece)
Quote
Why movies about the Troubles are all cartoons
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
You just have to see how Hunger, the new 'Troubles' movie which premiered in Cannes last week, is being summarised in the Press to realise how stupid and ineffective that whole industry is in capturing anything like the real world.
This is a direct quote from one such plot synopsis: "Sands had been jailed on firearms offences he was accused of committing as part of the IRA's deadly campaign to end British rule of Northern Ireland and unite the Protestant-dominated province with the largely Catholic Republic of Ireland."
As I predicted last week, what a sad mish-mash of half-accurate, half-deluded, half-insulting caricature that is.
The film-maker, Steve McQueen — if only — has this to say defending the graphic depiction of the hungerstrikes and the brutality of prison warders.
"Like in any situation ... you use the things that you've got at your disposal," explains the 38-year-old London-born artist.
"In that case, it was the body. Excrement, urine, whatever, you use what you have, they were limited to that."
Of course, there'll be the usual outcry from the media in Great Britain about the anti-British bias of the movie, even though McQueen is actually an official war artist and former winner of the Turner Prize, so is really a monster of their own making.
But what the point should be is that we can only expect the movie industry to invent its own sad, stereotypical tales and film them with moody actors and glamorous actresses.
When it comes to capturing 'real-life' drama, even the most gritty and graphic production amounts to nothing more than a cartoon.
It's only when we actually know the real details, have lived through the real incidents portrayed that we realise, with something of a shock, the fact it's all, er, fiction. For decades, smug buffs in Britain have been sneering at US war movies of the Second World War, even most recently about the abduction by the US Navy of the credit for breaking the Enigma code.
That attitude followed Hollywood into Korea, Vietnam and now even into Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Americans, we assume, believe those movies 'tell it like it is'. That's certainly what the publicists plaster over every TV advert and poster.
But a whole series of British and Irish movies — if there are such things, given it's always US money and distributors flogging the show — have been to the 'province' and delivered product which has told it 'like it is'. Except it's been 'like it isn't' or 'wasn't'.
I, for one, have had enough. Of course, the movies are biased. You aren't going to make a sexy drama about an undersecretary of state in the NIO during the dark days of the late 70s.
No one's going to do a biopic of former Ombudsman and serial inquiry chairman Maurice Hayes. No one, certainly, is going to do a 'life' of some anonymous cop who didn't live beyond switching on the ignition in his car.
The focus will always be on what movie-makers regard as the 'freedom fighters', complete with sobbing girlies and star-struck prot£g£s. It's what they've always done.
And the same people who loathed Patriot Games with Harrison Ford busting a splinter group of the IRA will no doubt adore Hunger by Steve McQueen. But not because it's the truth. Or because it's even close.
It'll be because it presents the image they want to have presented.
And there's another name for that entirely. And it isn't 'art'.
(http://www.khanya.co.za/blogs/images/head_in_sand_2.gif)
Quote from: Orior on May 26, 2008, 06:30:29 PMGail Walker is still as bitter as ever. She typifies unionist arogance insisting - the troubles never happened, blah blah blah, only unionists suffered, blah blah blah, the IRA are to blame for everything. Yeah Gail, thats right ::)
Gail hasn't seen the film yet.
(http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/3/31/Protest_Bod.jpg)
well we will just have to wait and see and comment on it.
Quote from: ONeill on April 11, 2008, 03:12:31 PM
He went to the Kerry school that lost the Hogan final.
dungannon were lucky! anyway i was more upset when tralee lost the final the previous year..
Hunger strike film is based on 'worst criminals in hell'
27/05/08
THE new film about IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands's final days has been accused of "glorifying some of the worst criminals in hell".
Republicans should be hounded for war crimes, not recognised by the Cannes Film Festival prize-winning movie Hunger, according to Jim Dixon, injured in the IRA's 1987 Poppy Day bombing in Enniskillen, Co Fermanagh which killed 11 people.
"The IRA should be held accountable for the horrendous deeds that they carried out," he said.
"These men are looking for credibility but if you trailed hell you couldn't find any worse."
Sands refused food for 66 days in the Maze prison, Co Antrim, in 1981 in a bid to be recognised as a political prisoner.
He was the first of 10 republicans to die.
The prisoners died in a protest for the right to wear their own clothing and other privileges formerly ceded to political inmates.
Mr Dixon unsuccessfully stood for election in 2001 in opposition to the 1998 Good Friday Agreement.
DUP assembly member Robin Newton said the production would offend many victims.
"If the director Steve McQueen actually wanted to understand the fanatical nature of terrorists there are other ways to study the motives of those who are prepared to murder and bomb that cause less offence to those who continue to suffer as a result of their depraved actions," he said.
Belfast City Council refused to allow its property to be used in the making of the film.
A spokesman for the producers said no release date had been set.
"I believe that people need to see the film before passing judgment. They are making decisions about it without having seen it," he said.
How about this.... the schools of the 2 actors mentioned met in this years Hogan Cup final, and of course the Tyrone men won, but in a unique show of Kerry / Tyrone unity they both went on to win the Cannes cup side by side. Has this ever happened before in the GAA?
Where's Willie Frazier?
surely this is a job for wee willie
Quote from: Uladh on May 29, 2008, 10:40:02 AM
Where's Willie Frazier?
surely this is a job for wee willie
Busy grieving for the Dublin and Monaghan bomber:
Loyalist gang member dies
BY Staff reporter
27/05/08
AN alleged member of the 'Glenanne Gang' which carried out some of the most notorious loyalist killings of the 1970s on both sides of the border has died. Retired farmer James Mitchell from Glenanne, Co Armagh, died in Daisy Hill Hospital in Newry on Saturday night.
To read more login or subscribe.
So has anyone one seen the movie yet?
Its bizarre that anyone is giving out about the film without having seen it. for all they know it could be 100% factual, so how is that wrong?
If these people want to see films about how bad the IRA were, then get the FACTS together, and make the film.
QuoteIts bizarre that anyone is giving out about the film without having seen it.
Are you surprised.
people have been giving out about things they havent seen since records began.
Quote from: nifan on May 29, 2008, 01:56:21 PM
QuoteIts bizarre that anyone is giving out about the film without having seen it.
Are you surprised.
people have been giving out about things they havent seen since records began.
some people cant handle the truth. how anyone can give out about a film based purely on facts is beyond me.
Well a film based on historic events is always open for chriticism. If someone did a film of bobby sands and portrayed him in a very unsympathetic way we would have an entirly diffrerent set of people going on about the facts. And id be quite certain it would start before people had seen the film.
Quote from: nifan on May 29, 2008, 04:39:58 PM
Well a film based on historic events is always open for chriticism. If someone did a film of bobby sands and portrayed him in a very unsympathetic way we would have an entirly diffrerent set of people going on about the facts. And id be quite certain it would start before people had seen the film.
100% agree, and equally pointless given that they wouldnt know exactly what they are giving out about without seeing it.
Will the film be shown in cinemas across the north?
There is a screening tonight of H3 on rte 2 at 12.10am.
Made in 2001, a drama set in the H Blocks.
I haven't seen it, so can't comment on it.
Quote from: Main Street on June 07, 2008, 09:55:25 PM
There is a screening tonight of H3 on rte 2 at 12.10am.
Made in 2001, a drama set in the H Blocks.
I haven't seen it, so can't comment on it.
It's very good and well worth sitting up for. Written by Brian Campbell (http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/news/2005/new11102005b.htm (http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/news/2005/new11102005b.htm)) and Laurence McKeown (77 days on hunger strike) it's as close to the authentic story as you are going to get. Watch out of big Laurence in a cameo as a screw after the wing shift.
Watched the movie this evening. It's a powerful but ultimately very sad and difficult film to watch. Don't be expecting a politcal polemic as McQueen has made a very artistic flim with lots of strong aural and visual imagery. A surperb piece of filmmaking - hard to believe it's his first.
When's it in the cinemas?
available hear to watch
http://www.ninjavideo.net/video/10429 (http://www.ninjavideo.net/video/10429)
Thanks for the link Gerry. Just finished watching it there. As Donagh says, superb piece of filmmaking.
would rather watch it in the cinema than by download myself.
If you have that choice then do it.
Thanks for the link Gerry.
Observer article on McQueen and his film Hunger.
McQueen and country (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/oct/12/2)
well many more of you seen it?
thoughts? looking forward to seing it myself not a pile of cinemas showing it here in london but a few
i saw a good quality copy of it about a month ago. i was very impressed. there are some very powerful scenes in it... well worth a watch.
I put off watching Hunger until last weekend.
It's not for the feint hearted.
This is not a Film, it's something else.
It's like an exercise in method filmmaking.
But once you start watching, it just grabs you in a way that you have never/rarely experienced before in filmmaking.
The camera is a neutral witness, there are no superficial emotions manipulated here.
If you are that way inclined you will walk away from it after 5 minutes.
Most things have been stripped away, drama, dialogue, romance, colour, smiles, light, furniture
and we are left with basic raw savagery and the defiance of the human spirit in the face of that savagery.
The dialogue between Sands and the cynical Priest is central and defines Sands and his decision.
There the camera succeeds in taking you from watching that dialogue from an onlooker to being confronted face to face by something indestructible.
The medical orderly acted by Lalor Roddy succeeded brilliantly in capturing an understated human warmth.
Overall, a superb piece of Filmmaking
Surprised this review made it past the standard's editorial policy
Horror and bravery in Hunger
By Derek Malcolm, Evening Standard 30.10.08
More reviews by Derek Malcolm
Derek Malcolm
Hunger
Virtuoso: Michael Fassbender gives an uncomfortably brilliant performance as Bobby Sands in the Maze
IT TAKES a brave man to make a film about Bobby Sands, who was committed for 12 years to the Maze prison in 1981 for the possession of firearms and was the first of those who starved themselves to death because the Thatcher Government refused to treat them as political prisoners.
But clearly Turner Prize-winning artist Steve McQueen is such a man. Making his first feature film, he is assisted by a virtuoso performance from Michael Fassbender as Sands that entails a physical representation of death by starvation.
This is not a comfortable film to watch but it is a consistently powerful one which justly won the Camera d'Or for the best debut at Cannes. McQueen hasn't made an ordinary docudrama but a film which attempts with its varying styles to push out beyond a tough and uncompromising realism.
He is as much concerned with the weaknesses and strengths of the flesh as any moral or political statement. We see, often in minute detail, the excreta smeared on the walls of the IRA prisoners walls, the urine forming puddles in the jail's corridors, abandoned food alive with maggots, naked men with badly beaten flesh with police in riot gear bearing down upon them and Sands's own body gradually succumbing to his fast.
Film Trailers by Filmtrailer.com
McQueen clearly wants to show us exactly what it was physically like to make such a stand. But he also shows us the perils of being a warder in the Maze, endangered in the prison itself and threatened with death in a grey and fraught world outside.
He does this through the stoic character of Raymond Lohan (very well played by Stuart Graham), whom we first see painfully bathing his bruised hands in a bathroom sink after an encounter with the prisoners. Lohan is an ordinary man with a family who, because of the situation, is drawn into excess. He is not a villain but a pawn in increasingly horrendous circumstances, his personal fastidiousness failing to ward off the filth and stink and moral turpitude of the Maze.
The other notable performance is from Liam Cunningham as the Catholic priest who, in a 22-minute sequence when the camera never moves, argues with Sands about the sense of his martyrdom. Some have found this long scene, however well-played, a distraction from the main matter in hand, which is how humans behave towards one another in extremes. But it is essential to the argument and there surely has to be one section which is not purely relaying the terrible events of the time.
This is where Irish playwright Enda Walsh, co-writer of the screenplay with McQueen, comes in and we realise for the first time how divorced from contact with the outside world, including the Republican leadership, Sands and his fellow prisoners have become.
Hunger is far and away more discomforting than most horror movies. The mind inevitably comes forward 30 years to the present day when events have occurred in Iran and in Cuba that are not so very different. McQueen has not just made a striking film. He has forced us to see how we might behave in strained and unfamiliar circumstances when those who rule us lead us into the mire.
Read Derek Malcolm's latest film reviews every Thursday in the Evening Standard
There was a long spot on RTE the Pat Kenny show about the film with Lawrence McKeown, Bic McFarlane and some whiney voiced fella of falluted importance.
Started off with discussing the flm, the 2 ex prisoners talked about the film and their reality of their experience.
It was an excellent piece of radio and went on for at least 30 minutes.
Most of time was taken up by McKeown and McFarlane.
Can be listened to by opening this page http://www.rte.ie/radio1/todaywithpatkenny/ (http://www.rte.ie/radio1/todaywithpatkenny/)
click on <Listen Live> above the picture of PK
and select the show <Today with Pat Kenny>
The "whiney voiced fella" was Eamonn Mallie the journalist. Not a bad fella and as far as I can tell, one of the few that's trusted by all sides. Spotted him in a good Irish language programme on TG4 the other night about the Vallely family from Armagh.
Malley is from silverbridge.
when is hunger on general release?
Today in the south. Already showing in the north.
Whilst flicking trying to find the Ireland match on the radio this morning, I cam across an English station debating the film. A few clallers on saying it was like a film gloryfying Osama Bin Laden. Seemed to be the mood that the critics were far too symphatetic to Sands.
The camera is neutral in this film which is why the Film critics can have little problem with politics or bias when it comes to appraising the film.
The film can be judged on it's merits without any ideologies conflicting.
The only people who interact with Bobby Sands once he takes the decision to go on Hunger strike are the priest who challenges Bobby,
the 2 orderlies, one of whom is sympathetic to the human condition that he was witnessing, the other orderly was not sympathetic.
The parents were also witnessing but are deliberately kept distant in the room by the camera.
I havent seen it advertised as being shown on any cinema yet in the north...
It's on at the QFT and Movie House cinemas.
i'm near sure its on in newry omniplex
A bit too arthouse for my liking but still a good watch.Never delves to deeply into the backround of the hunger strikes , leaves you with more questions than answers.
Some Welsh Tory (theres an oxymoron) was complaining that they were given £120,000 in funding from the Welsh film board for this film, slow news day in the Valleys.
Quote from: Donagh on October 31, 2008, 12:19:09 PM
The "whiney voiced fella" was Eamonn Mallie the journalist. Not a bad fella and as far as I can tell, one of the few that's trusted by all sides. Spotted him in a good Irish language programme on TG4 the other night about the Vallely family from Armagh.
That's him. Some things he said are not suitable for this thread.
But as Hunger is a central part of this thread :)
O'Mallie made a bit of a show at the end of the program of stating excitedly his understanding of the medical report leak, that from the 45th day onwards there is a (physical) deterioration from which there is no point of return.
That medical observation was based on, amongst others, Lawrence McKeown, who as we know was taken off his hunger strike after 70 days when he lapsed into a coma in an extremely feeble deteriorated state close to death.
Lawrence was asked the question by PK, if he had any lasting effects from his hunger strike.
He replied that the only lasting effect is with his eyesight.
I presume O'Mallie was listening to the interview, I wondered why would he not pay attention to that information but chose later to state his understanding of a flatly contradictatory medical observation which did not credit that there is a point of return even up to death's door, where the body with proper care and attention can repair and restore itself almost to the previous level of function.
Quote from: tkeitdwn on October 31, 2008, 04:45:41 PM
A bit too arthouse for my liking but still a good watch.Never delves to deeply into the backround of the hunger strikes , leaves you with more questions than answers.
This is probably deliberate on the part of the filmmaker as it would be an interesting, tragic story no matter what country or back story is driving it. It obviously takes a dedicated individual with nuts of steel to put themselves on hunger strike never mind sticking it for over 2 months.
Quote from: Main Street on October 31, 2008, 09:05:24 PM
Quote from: Donagh on October 31, 2008, 12:19:09 PM
The "whiney voiced fella" was Eamonn Mallie the journalist. Not a bad fella and as far as I can tell, one of the few that's trusted by all sides. Spotted him in a good Irish language programme on TG4 the other night about the Vallely family from Armagh.
That's him. Some things he said are not suitable for this thread.
But as Hunger is a central part of this thread :)
O'Mallie made a bit of a show at the end of the program of stating excitedly his understanding of the medical report leak, that from the 45th day onwards there is a (physical) deterioration from which there is no point of return.
That medical observation was based on, amongst others, Lawrence McKeown, who as we know was taken off his hunger strike after 70 days when he lapsed into a coma in an extremely feeble deteriorated state close to death.
Lawrence was asked the question by PK, if he had any lasting effects from his hunger strike.
He replied that the only lasting effect is with his eyesight.
I presume O'Mallie was listening to the interview, I wondered why would he not pay attention to that information but chose later to state his understanding of a flatly contradictatory medical observation which did not credit that there is a point of return even up to death's door, where the body with proper care and attention can repair and restore itself almost to the previous level of function.
I'm not sure MS but I think Mallie came late to the discussion. I think what he might have been getting at, and I've heard big Lawrence say this himself, there was/is a suspicion that the Hunger Strikers had things (vitamins and such) put into their water to make sure that they didn't die at politically difficult times for the Brits. McKeown suspects that because he lasted 70 days and survived, a week longer than anyone else, that he was one of those that was kept alive, hence the attempts to have the medical records from the time released. When you think of the likes of Pat Beag and the Dark (Hughes) who died young as a result of the damage done to their bodies after being on hunger strike and then McKeown who has had relatively few problems since, their suspicions do seem valid.
i dont know about that Donagh. again we are hung up on conspiracies. Pat Sheehan lasted nearly 60 days. a clubman of mine and is in real good health. some people died a lot earlier because of organ failures. do we presume that they had been tampered with? body's reacted differently just.
having read McKeowns book Nor meekly serve my time (think thats the title) my years ago there was no mention of it then
Who knows exactly what they did. I'd be interested to read the medical reports.
Lawrence did drop into a coma and was close to death by the time he was taken off the strike.
If he had been liquidated secretly with nutritional supplements then his descent into that physical coma would just have been delayed further.
But essentially, the coma is evidence of his distinct physical deterioration.
It is a possibility that he received nutrition so some of his organs might have retained some essential vitality.
What may be also the case is that Lawrence had a stronger constitution to begin with, whereas other hunger strikers had some weaker organs, liver/ kidneys/heart which after prolonged fast were damaged beyond repair.
Quote from: milltown row on October 31, 2008, 10:54:03 PM
i dont know about that Donagh. again we are hung up on conspiracies. Pat Sheehan lasted nearly 60 days. a clubman of mine and is in real good health. some people died a lot earlier because of organ failures. do we presume that they had been tampered with? body's reacted differently just.
having read McKeowns book Nor meekly serve my time (think thats the title) my years ago there was no mention of it then
milltown, I have heard the same rumours myself but that's all they are is rumours. I asked Sean Sands years ago if he thought there was any truth to it and he was emphatic in his denial of that. As regards Lawrence McKeown, he is the only person who was on hunger strike who has escaped relatively unscathed when you look at all the other men it affected long term. I stand to be corrected on that though it is my understanding Lawrence is a lucky man.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on November 01, 2008, 12:45:10 AM
Quote from: milltown row on October 31, 2008, 10:54:03 PM
i dont know about that Donagh. again we are hung up on conspiracies. Pat Sheehan lasted nearly 60 days. a clubman of mine and is in real good health. some people died a lot earlier because of organ failures. do we presume that they had been tampered with? body's reacted differently just.
having read McKeowns book Nor meekly serve my time (think thats the title) my years ago there was no mention of it then
milltown, I have heard the same rumours myself but that's all they are is rumours. I asked Sean Sands years ago if he thought there was any truth to it and he was emphatic in his denial of that. As regards Lawrence McKeown, he is the only person who was on hunger strike who has escaped relatively unscathed when you look at all the other men it affected long term. I stand to be corrected on that though it is my understanding Lawrence is a lucky man.
like i said, the only striker that i know well, is pretty fit for his time on the strike. lucky? i'm sure he is
Typical unbiased review from Guardian Film Critic...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2008/nov/03/hunger-bobby-sands
it's nothing personal, that guy hasn't done a positive review on anything.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/davidcox (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/davidcox)
it shows in his face.
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/06/12/david_cox_140x140.jpg)
These are the Guardians film critic reviews
philip french
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/nov/02/drama (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/nov/02/drama)
5 stars from Peter Bradshaw
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/oct/31/hunger (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/oct/31/hunger)
plus an article on the director.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/oct/12/2 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/oct/12/2)
Just finished watching it. Probably the most harrowing and depressing film I've seen. Massive inaccuracies but still goes closest to portraying life 'inside' at that time. Wonderful cinematography.
Quote from: ONeill on November 07, 2008, 11:20:26 PM
Just finished watching it. Probably the most harrowing and depressing film I've seen. Massive inaccuracies but still goes closest to portraying life 'inside' at that time. Wonderful cinematography.
has it?
is it worth going to see, would it be upsetting or annoying ?
Just back from it myself as well O'Neill, thought it was very well done. Very moving. And yes I agree with you definitely the most depressing film in a long time. Cinema in Cork was packed out actually which I was quite surprised at because my mum went to see it last weeekend in Newry and she sais there were only about 40 people at it. Maybe it's too controversial at home? Was it busy where you went to see it O'Neill?
Defo worth going to see.
Well, I assumed the central scene - a debate between Sands and the priest - was Denis Faul. If so, the background to his priesthood was inaccurate as was his personality and part in the Crumlin Rd/Long Kesh years. Minor pedantry but important if you're going to chronicle the actualities in such detail.
Is it annoying? Possibly. i found it stirred passions that some may not want to awaken. If anyone says this was neutral then they're not seeing it. It's pro-republican and in the context of what happened, rightly so.
Quote from: downgirl on November 08, 2008, 12:02:49 AM
Just back from it myself as well O'Neill, thought it was very well done. Very moving. And yes I agree with you definitely the most depressing film in a long time. Cinema in Cork was packed out actually which I was quite surprised at because my mum went to see it last weeekend in Newry and she sais there were only about 40 people at it. Maybe it's too controversial at home? Was it busy where you went to see it O'Neill?
Defo worth going to see.
Just myself, in my living room, with an apple mac and a pint of diluted orange.
Yea O'Neill, it is not neutral at all, definitely slanted to the Republican side. You watched it online? They were quick getting that up online anyway!
You know your man who played the head prison officer (Stuart Graham I think his name is) who did he play in Omagh?
Quote from: downgirl on November 08, 2008, 12:17:12 AM
Yea O'Neill, it is not neutral at all, definitely slanted to the Republican side. You watched it online? They were quick getting that up online anyway!
In what way?
just watched it in Belfast...controversial! cinema was pretty full though. thought it was a very good portrayal even if some of the acting was a bit rough. having said that there is only one real scene of proper dialogue - between bobby and the priest! a warning though, a lot of the images were very disturbing!
Quote from: Donagh on November 08, 2008, 12:25:17 AM
Quote from: downgirl on November 08, 2008, 12:17:12 AM
Yea O'Neill, it is not neutral at all, definitely slanted to the Republican side. You watched it online? They were quick getting that up online anyway!
In what way?
Will go to see it this week, but yes (
downgirl), how was it "slanted" (contrary to the opinion of the vast majority of 'neutral' or non-partisan reviews)?
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on November 08, 2008, 02:29:06 AM
Will go to see it this week, but yes (downgirl), how was it "slanted" (contrary to the opinion of the vast majority of 'neutral' or non-partisan reviews)?
It isn't slanted at all. It is not a political movie. It is a movie about two people on either side of a political conflict and a apolitical priest representing those caught in the middle. It is very balanced.
Those who have always believed the protestors were right will ask themselves questions arising from the movie but ultimately come away with being vindicated by the movie. Those who believed the protestors were wrong will ask themselves questions too but they will find vindication in the movie to support their view also.
Well well well, who would have thought that we would see the day that anything, much less a film would be allowed to be broadcast or shown to the general public that was pro-republican. Up until now all we had was a group of dedicated people doing the rounds, wherever they were allowed space, to present the play, The Laughter Of Our Children. (I saw it twice and it was good and of course included Laurence McKeown in the cast.
Going to see on Tuesday Night.
My only regret is that a Red Green Carpet was not out for the Premier Night and that ould bitch Maggie Thatcher was made walk up it and made sit in the front row to watch it. Maybe they could show her the sinking of the Belgrano while the adds are on or she is changing her nappy. As for awaking old wounds, well the strikers at that time awakend a lot of countries throughout the world to the tyranny of the time which is why today there are streets named after them in the most far flung countries in the world. The Hunger Strikers deserved a little more than the white crosses on the Newry By-Pass to be remembered by and what I am trying to say in a nutshell is, if you go and see the film and did not like it, that is fair enough, if you liked it then that is more than fair enough, but if you haven't been to the film and have no intention of going to it then this thread should not be turned into one that will debate the merits of the hunger strikers as opposed to debating the quality of the film.
Quote from: Bud Wiser on November 08, 2008, 09:39:31 AM
Maggie Thatcher
She is now of no importance. She recieved handmedowns and in turn has handed down. All she did was give Republicans something material to focus on. She was never anything more than a prop.
For those yet to see it, I'll be interested to hear what you thought about the Sands/Faul debate. I thought the man of the cloth slightly edged it.
Quote from: ONeill on November 08, 2008, 11:44:11 AM
For those yet to see it, I'll be interested to hear what you thought about the Sands/Faul debate. I thought the man of the cloth slightly edged it.
That's a tough one. If the film was your only knowledge of the protest then Faul probably did edge it. It's hard to give justice to the 4 previous years and put the debate into a real life context. That scene had me questioning much of the stuff I had taken for granted before. It didn't change my opinion of anyone but it certainally help me to appreciate how hard the decisions were rather than were they the right or wrong decision.
I know obviously it had to be Republican and I have no prolem with that, and I know that the prison officers did do all those horrible things to the prisoners but for me it went into a lot of detail and anyone who was neutral I thought would have been swayed to sympathise with the prisoners when they saw these scenes I suppose that's all I meant.
It was tit for tat rap while the camera was on the other side of the room, not friendly but edgy.
If you thought the debate was about the sin of suicide then Sands argument clearly won out.
The priest failed with his catholic dogma in explaining that it was a sin.
If you thought it was a debate about Sand's romantic republican ideal of sacrifice. Sands expressed his convictions and took the debate to an area to where the Priest could not comprehend and had no answer.
If you did not comprehend that conviction then you may think about winner and losers.
But the debate was not about a competition.
The debate was brought to a graphic area where a viewer could say that they understand why and its context.
You could understand but still disagree.
It was not a debate where Sands was trying to convince you that he was right.
In that way the film was was just an observer, not peddling a belief.
Watched this the other night at the Dublin Road picture house. I found it very arthousey. To be honest I was quite underwhelmed by it all. Some scenes are very real and hard to watch but I just felt the film was missing something.
Fassbender was superb as Sands but some of the other acting was a bit ropey.
Quote from: ONeill on November 08, 2008, 11:44:11 AM
For those yet to see it, I'll be interested to hear what you thought about the Sands/Faul debate. I thought the man of the cloth slightly edged it.
Of course the priest edged it which makes me wonder why anyone would think the movie is slanted in favour of republicans. Showing the reality of the conditions of the time isn't introducing bias - don't forget the scenes of the screw ending up dead in his mothers lap or the other one crying behind the wall.
In fact if you knew nothing of the Hunger Strikes, I don't believe there is anything in the movie, in terms of referencing the conflict, would have you know it was based in Ireland. It could just as easily be Guantanamo Bay or any other concentration camp in the world today.
Slanted isn't a word I'd use. For a neutral with little knowledge of times here, they're more likely to side with the inmates than the establishment.
Always felt a little sorry for Faul. He was vilified for his 'change' of allegiance and fabricated stories circled about the Brits having 'something' on him. I believe Faul took the 'hit' for what he saw was the right thing to do in his capacity. As the character intimated, if 70 had died on hunger strike it would have no increased effect than if 10/9/8/7 died. Faul knew he'd be the fall-guy but was prepared to be that.
You're not an 'Academy' boy by any chance O'Neill?
I don't think Faul was vilified for his role in ending the Hunger Strikes but rather for how he behaved later. He changed and in later years took up a very public and anti-republican position at a time when his community were particulary under the cosh. That seemed like a betrayal to many.
That's where you're very wrong Donagh, on two counts.
Firstly, he was vilified at the time. He was accused of using the 'murder' card on the parents of some hunger strikers. He was also public enemy at Mass inside. If you need to know more, ask around.
If I'd been inside at the time, I'd also have believed he'd been got at. I remember talking to a republican who was inside at the time of the hunger strikes. It was he who opened my eyes, as a young man, as to what Faul did. Instead of lambasting the man, he said that Faul had no option but to oppose the hunger strikes in that multiple deaths would actually decrease the impact. Imagine if 30 had died? You reckon people could rhyme them off, sing songs, elevate to Wolf Tone status, as is their right? Multiple deaths would have been pointless. Faul realised this and acted, knowing he'd be labelled as the bad guy. The total impact of the hunger strikes is still questionable.
Secondly, I know Fr Faul was a tireless worker for his community and helped more republican families that you'll ever know in his area when it came to injustice and wrongdoings. Again, ask around. Faul was never anti-republican. He was a figurehead for those who were still suffering from the unfortunate innocent casualties of war.
I don't need to ask around, I know all about Faul and his relationship with the prisoners from people who were inside at time. I know first hand of how he behaved when he took up with British proxies such as FAIT later and those same people who looked to him before wouldn't touch him with John Taylor's barge pole.
Going by your postings on this (I don't read political threads on here much) I don't think you really grasp the bigger picture in terms of republican strategy during the 80s. Faul was very much a part of that. You'll find the republican grassroots were fed, and believed, what was needed in terms of British surveillance of the current thinking on the ground. That's why SF are the powerful and effective machine they are.
The prisoners had an excellent relationship with Faul pre the 2nd hunger strike.
I grasp it quite well thanks, though that's not difficult as in 1980 and '81 there wasn't a strategy other than survival. I also think you are overplaying the importance of Faul, in the film by the way, the priest is more an amalgamation of a few different people - rather than Denis Faul.
I didn't say he hadn't a good relationship with them. My point was that the Strikes ended despite Faul, not because of him and he wasn't vilified merely on his role in 1981 but due to the public posiitons he would take later.
Can I just say I always considered Faul one of the finest men of our time - someone you could always rely on for absolute truth, honesty and fearless opposition to evil, from whatever quarter it came?
A very aesthetic and 'real' account of the Hunger Strike, in that it doesn't focus on emotion or political convictions but the struggle of the senses within it.
The scene between the priest and Sands was very well written, but owing to the priest ended up a bit wooden. I didn't feel that he pulled off the scene too well even if Fassbender was doing his best. The priest's accent was spot on but his tone turned towards more of a southerner's voice at times, or even maybe one better suited for the stage rather than a movie attempting to be hyper-realistic. It did get better as it went along, however, and as a foil for the armed-force republican sentiments of Sands it worked very well. It was also interesting that the outside world wasn't really handled apart from the summation of Thatcher, it was very similar to a film called Elephant by Gus Van Sant in both the content (to some extent) and also the camera angles.
But most interesting of all, after the film no-one wanted to speak about it until they reached the comfort of solitude. The cinema itself was almost turned into a prison! I suppose in the south you might have heard utterances of "those black bastards" and all that but everyone was on their best behaviour in University Square. Overall, a very (hesitate to use the word, but) enjoyable film that will change perspectives either way.
Quote from: stibhan on November 09, 2008, 12:00:22 PM
The priest's accent was spot on but his tone turned towards more of a southerner's voice at times,
Would that not have been more accurate if it did?
Quote from: Hardy on November 09, 2008, 09:47:18 AM
Can I just say I always considered Faul one of the finest men of our time - someone you could always rely on for absolute truth, honesty and fearless opposition to evil, from whatever quarter it came?
Agree totally. Fr Faul spoke it as he saw it. He represented the views of the majority of Nationalists at that time but who were afraid to speak out because of the fear of being attacked by those Nationalists who did not agree with them.
Quote from: ONeill on November 09, 2008, 03:22:10 PM
Quote from: stibhan on November 09, 2008, 12:00:22 PM
The priest's accent was spot on but his tone turned towards more of a southerner's voice at times,
Would that not have been more accurate if it did?
the priest in the film was from Kilrea.
Quote from: Gaffer on November 09, 2008, 03:43:36 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 09, 2008, 09:47:18 AM
Can I just say I always considered Faul one of the finest men of our time - someone you could always rely on for absolute truth, honesty and fearless opposition to evil, from whatever quarter it came?
Agree totally. Fr Faul spoke it as he saw it. He represented the views of the majority of Nationalists at that time but who were afraid to speak out because of the fear of being attacked by those Nationalists who did not agree with them.
Faul may have spoke it how he saw it, but invariably he was way out of step with how those in his community saw things. The vast majority of nationalists couldn't have given a toss about joyriders, thieves and drug dealers being run out of town. His later relationship with convicted rapist and paedophile Vincent McKenna at a time when the whole country could tell he was a Walter Mitty sadly illustrated how guliable and arrogant Faul could also be.
Quote from: Donagh on November 09, 2008, 04:38:14 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on November 09, 2008, 03:43:36 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 09, 2008, 09:47:18 AM
Can I just say I always considered Faul one of the finest men of our time - someone you could always rely on for absolute truth, honesty and fearless opposition to evil, from whatever quarter it came?
Agree totally. Fr Faul spoke it as he saw it. He represented the views of the majority of Nationalists at that time but who were afraid to speak out because of the fear of being attacked by those Nationalists who did not agree with them.
Faul may have spoke it how he saw it, but invariably he was way out of step with how those in his community saw things. The vast majority of nationalists couldn't have given a toss about joyriders, thieves and drug dealers being run out of town. His later relationship with convicted rapist and paedophile Vincent McKenna at a time when the whole country could tell he was a Walter Mitty sadly illustrated how guliable and arrogant Faul could also be.
Do you expect a priest to call for joy riders , thieves and drug dealers to be run out of town. He, in his position as a clergyman, has to follow the teachings of his church.
This is a thread about the film Hunger.
Up until yesterday the conversation on this thread has focussed on the film and not on people's love ( and absolute love) of the individuals character involved directly in the H Blocks. Possibly even people who have not seen the film are making comments.
Can people please keep their comments to the Film and whatever has a direct relevance to the Film.
As regards the central debate between the priest and Bobby Sands, the camera dwells for a short while on the priest after the debate has ended. The priest is clearly unnerved and the closing image is of a man taken out of the comfort zone of his beliefs and thrown off balance.
Watched it at the weekend myself, I have to say I was bit underwhelmed myself. I'd agree with an earlier poster who thought it was arthousey, it defintely was and for those who try to paint it as Republican propaganda - certainly not. Trying to describe it to a mate, my first words were passionless/impassionate, which is exactly what McQueen was hoping to achieve I'd imagine. The missus found it a bit disturbing.
Quote from: stibhan on November 09, 2008, 04:31:18 PM
Quote from: ONeill on November 09, 2008, 03:22:10 PM
Quote from: stibhan on November 09, 2008, 12:00:22 PM
The priest's accent was spot on but his tone turned towards more of a southerner's voice at times,
Would that not have been more accurate if it did?
the priest in the film was from Kilrea.
True enough. That's why I was questioning whether that was actually Faul (from Louth) in the scene, or just some random priest who was simply there to further the narrative.
I think Faul was privy to too many things that were not in the name of a 'just cause' and, as clergy, realised he couldn't let certain things go without comment action. Some claim the pressure he put on the parents of the latter hunger-strikers was close to religious blackmail, but at the same time adhered to the teachings of the church.
Quote from: Main Street on November 09, 2008, 06:38:56 PM
This is a thread about the film Hunger.
Up until yesterday the conversation on this thread has focussed on the film and not on people's love ( and absolute love) of the individuals character involved directly in the H Blocks. Possibly even people who have not seen the film are making comments.
Can people please keep their comments to the Film and whatever has a direct relevance to the Film.
As regards the central debate between the priest and Bobby Sands, the camera dwells for a short while on the priest after the debate has ended. The priest is clearly unnerved and the closing image is of a man taken out of the comfort zone of his beliefs and thrown off balance.
Have to say I've enjoyed both discussions. And I haven't seen the film! Hope you don't mind Main Street?
Of course debate is interesting but it is too easy to let debate about this film be diverted by people's own personal beliefs which have nothing to do with the film.
went to watch it last week in belfast and there wasnt a spare seat in the house
it would be hard to say the film was enjoyable, it was hard to watch in parts but definately a must see.
i think mcqueen tried to be neutral, but if a foreigner watched it i think they would side with the prisoners
it was very arty and not like any other films ive watched before.
That was already discussed earlier
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=7455.75 (http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=7455.75)
Didnt read back MS
Deleted :-X
Did a wee bit of research today and as I slightly suspected, that priest was not in fact Fr Faul but a Fr Toner - well based on him any way. Makes no difference to the narrative of the film but was definitely a long way off the personality of Faul.
Faul is bound to have shaped the lives of many on this board from his time at the Academy. History will be kind to Denis Faul, he always took on the cause of the oppressed and marginalised in our community, I may not have agreed with some of his 'principled stands' but the man never veered from his position. He got centrally involved in the Hunger Strikes at a time when to do so was going to attract plenty of opposition, I also think he said mass very day in Long Kesh during the strike.
Back to the film, yet to see it and hope to get this weekend so will make no comments on that until then.
Quote from: ONeill on November 10, 2008, 08:40:44 PM
Did a wee bit of research today and as I slightly suspected, that priest was not in fact Fr Faul but a Fr Toner - well based on him any way. Makes no difference to the narrative of the film but was definitely a long way off the personality of Faul.
Well I did tell you that in the previous page, but then again with me not having a grasp of things... ::)
Sorry, must've nodded off before the edit!!
A good part of the debate about the morality of the hunger strike was based on Fr.Faul and his attempt the day before to talk Sands out of the strike. The story Bobby used in the film to illustrate 'greater love has no man ..' was based on the debate he had with Fr.Faul on that eve.
The priests reaction in the Film at the end of the debate was one of resignation.
AFAIR, Fr. Faul's own account of that meeting is more soft towards Sands, an ideological disagreement but deep respect for the man's expressed sincere beliefs.
Apart from mundane details, I fail to see where there are massive inaccuracies in this film around the Priest, but the debate conclusion is more the H Block version.
Quote from: Doogie Browser on November 10, 2008, 10:13:23 PM
Faul is bound to have shaped the lives of many on this board from his time at the Academy. History will be kind to Denis Faul, he always took on the cause of the oppressed and marginalised in our community, I may not have agreed with some of his 'principled stands' but the man never veered from his position. He got centrally involved in the Hunger Strikes at a time when to do so was going to attract plenty of opposition, I also think he said mass very day in Long Kesh during the strike.
Shaped the lives is a bit strong! He was rarely about! In fact I don't think I had one conversation with him in the 7 years. He wasn't the most inspiring of principals towards the end of his teaching career, a repetitive mantra of '3 hours study, 4 hrs study' was all you'd hear.
He was a bit of an egotist but, as you say, consistent esp in the latter years.
Quote from: ONeill on November 11, 2008, 12:10:48 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on November 10, 2008, 10:13:23 PM
Faul is bound to have shaped the lives of many on this board from his time at the Academy. History will be kind to Denis Faul, he always took on the cause of the oppressed and marginalised in our community, I may not have agreed with some of his 'principled stands' but the man never veered from his position. He got centrally involved in the Hunger Strikes at a time when to do so was going to attract plenty of opposition, I also think he said mass very day in Long Kesh during the strike.
Shaped the lives is a bit strong! He was rarely about! In fact I don't think I had one conversation with him in the 7 years. He wasn't the most inspiring of principals towards the end of his teaching career, a repetitive mantra of '3 hours study, 4 hrs study' was all you'd hear.
He was a bit of an egotist but, as you say, consistent esp in the latter years.
You were obviously well behaved at school then! I had almost weekly meetings with my principal, but it was never my fault of course.
I always wondered how Faul had the time to be principal of a large school and also carry out his 'extra cirrucular' activities as he was never off the news, was he just a figurehead at the school with VP's running it for him?
Quote from: ONeill on November 11, 2008, 12:10:48 PM
Shaped the lives is a bit strong! He was rarely about! In fact I don't think I had one conversation with him in the 7 years. He wasn't the most inspiring of principals towards the end of his teaching career, a repetitive mantra of '3 hours study, 4 hrs study' was all you'd hear.
He was a bit of an egotist but, as you say, consistent esp in the latter years.
When did you go to the Academy?
I had several meetings with him over the years some good, some bad. One of the finest RE discussions we had was when a few of us had jibbed out of an exam early for a smoke, and he "happened" upon us in the toilets. We had broken the rules but instead of going off on one he decided to have a discussion on one of the exam questions. Ive fond memories of him standing the bar bill in the Dunowen after a certain football victory too. It was always a case of rules are there to be obeyed (most of the time....). Faulsy had legendary status at the Academy in the last years, but thats not to say he had the same levels of respect as an educator, yet manys a lad would "clear the snow" if it was looking a bit heavy, he was much liked by the pupils. I always remember being amazed at his appetite for learning and languages and the broad range of books in his office.
When I watched the film, I didn't see the central scene as being a reference to any one particular conversation with one priest but a representation of the discussions Sands had with many priests. The blanketmen at that time used clergy visits to smuggle comms in and out of prison and the reason I don't think it was Father Faul in that scene is because Bobby Sands always distrusted him and said openly that discussions with Fr Faul should be kept to a minimum. If anything this scene would be more representative of the relationship he had with Fr Alec Reid who was central to the blanketmen and was the only one Sands trusted including Fr Toner. This would also tie in with the emphasis on smoking in the film as it is well documented that Fr Reid provided Bobby Sands with this one luxury on numerous occasions.
The film moved me beyond words. I have read and admired Bobby Sands for many years and before anyone starts to criticise me for that I would say, get to know the character that you condemn. There have been many misconceptions about Sands over the years which I have to say make me very sad. I would advise anyone if their thinking about watching the film to read beforehand "Nothing but an Unfinished Song". This book gives the context for the hunger strikes and shows the character of the man. It also highlights how he was instrumental in the shift in republican ideology.
Quote from: An Fear Rua on November 11, 2008, 12:42:53 PM
When did you go to the Academy?
I had several meetings with him over the years some good, some bad. One of the finest RE discussions we had was when a few of us had jibbed out of an exam early for a smoke, and he "happened" upon us in the toilets. We had broken the rules but instead of going off on one he decided to have a discussion on one of the exam questions. Ive fond memories of him standing the bar bill in the Dunowen after a certain football victory too. It was always a case of rules are there to be obeyed (most of the time....). Faulsy had legendary status at the Academy in the last years, but thats not to say he had the same levels of respect as an educator, yet manys a lad would "clear the snow" if it was looking a bit heavy, he was much liked by the pupils. I always remember being amazed at his appetite for learning and languages and the broad range of books in his office.
Ach there are loads of those stories but I'm sure he didn't shape me or any aspect of my life. I did received a double detention from him for dallying in the said handball alley whilst mass was on.
Those who experience life inside at the time will say that the beatings were all too realistic and I recently heard of a fellow inmate breaking down at the cinema whilst watching it. The fact that they were a daily occurance and often more vile is unimaginable. Horrifying to think, but the cells were much worse than depicted it appears. The visiting scenes beared no resemblance to the real thing.
Just back from watching the film and I must say it was outstanding. Not what I was expecting. Very powerful film and moving.
I understand that the central scene between Sands and the Priest is the longest un-cut scene in movie history.
Only got to see this film d'other nite. OK, I know about the film being based on the rights or wrongs of the Hunger Strike and centred on Bobby Sands but I thought it would have taken only a few minutes to show what was happening on the outside that lead to the boys being on the inside. It would not have taken much to show a few scenes that described the reasons behind the commitment that was given. Instead we got the voice overs of that ould bitch describing them as criminals.
Now, before someone asks, I am basing my comments on the fact that for example one of these young lads played for Derry in an All-Ireland Final and was not engaged in activities unlike what everyday criminals engage in, while by contrast, the levels of intimidation on the outside and the brutality on the inside should have been investigated by the International War Crimes tribunal, or perhaps should still be.
Can't say I liked the film, thought the play, The Laughter of Our Children was better. The acting in the scene in the nursing home was excellent though " Look, they are daisy's Mum" when yer man handed over the flowers.
saw this the other night - powerfull movie, thought the dialogue between sands and the priest was well scripted. well worth going to see, the cinema in tralee was 3/4ers full btw which is very good. as for sands family are his parents still alive? and what about his son, does he still live in the north? must be a tough time for them with the film coming out and all those memories. whatever one thinks of sands only the blind and bigoted could deny his courage
Standard success for Sands movie
Hunger, the dramatisation of the last days of IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands, has taken the top prize at the London Evening Standard Film Awards.
Artist Steve McQueen's movie took the best film honour at a London dinner.
Oscar-tipped Slumdog Millionaire director Danny Boyle and The Reader star Kate Winslet missed out on prizes.
The best director award went to Stephen Daldry for The Reader, while Tilda Swinton was named best actress for her lead role in kidnap drama Julia.
Best actor was shared between Michael Sheen, for Frost/Nixon, and Pat Shortt, for playing a lonely pump attendant in Garage.
Director Joanna Hogg was named most promising newcomer for her film Unrelated while acclaimed film-maker Mike Leigh took the Alexander Walker Special Award - named after the paper's late film critic - for his contribution to British film.
'Talent and diversity'
Sally Hawkins, who stars in Leigh's Happy-Go-Lucky, won the Peter Sellers award for comedy, while Martin McDonagh won best screenplay for In Bruges.
Slumdog Millionaire did take one award out of its three nominations, though, as production designer Mark Digby won the technical achievement prize.
The paper's film critic Derek Malcolm said: "This year we have really seen the British film industry come of age. We are seeing British films triumphing over big-budget Hollywood epics.
"The winners of reflect the huge talent and diversity that we have in this country and the judges were delighted to have the opportunity to honour incredible quality produced both in the bigger budget films, and the smaller independent productions this year."
Sourced BBCi: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7864035.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7864035.stm)
Hunger is on CH4 tonight 10pm.
tv premiere
Good man main street. Downloaded it a while back, but needed some codec for the sound and never bothered getting it - this'll save me the hassle.
Just looked at a few of the above posts, and I see a few books are mentioned - but not this one - 'Ten Men Dead' by David Beresford.
One of the best books I've ever read, cant recommend it highly enough. Apologies if it has been mentioned earlier in the thread - i'm too lazy to check!
One of the most powerful films I've ever seen - and Steve McQueen's directorial debut.Some piece of work for an Englishman with no previous knowledge of the subject matter.
Quote from: haranguerer on December 15, 2009, 08:53:21 PM
Good man main street. Downloaded it a while back, but needed some codec for the sound and never bothered getting it - this'll save me the hassle.
Just looked at a few of the above posts, and I see a few books are mentioned - but not this one - 'Ten Men Dead' by David Beresford.
One of the best books I've ever read, cant recommend it highly enough. Apologies if it has been mentioned earlier in the thread - i'm too lazy to check!
Download VLC player and you'll have no problems with codecs.
VLC is the player.
I saw a trailer for it a while ago on CH4.
The viewing quality was so much better compared to what I got with the downloaded .avi file.
cheers lads, i'll have to try that
It was a hard movie to watch, it was extremely well done, from the acting, the dialogue and cinematography.
I thought that it showed us as we are in the north, the humourous side of the Ulstermans nature was there for all to see, the stubborness of both priest and prisoner, the self doubt, the fear, the anger and of course the violence. One of the most poignant parts of the movie for me was the big prison guard with UVF tattoed on his fingers, he seemed to have compassion and respect for Sands as time went on and he got weaker, that ties in to me with hope, that if a man like that can feel those sort of emotions for his enemy then why cant we all not do the same.
A very good movie, one I will try not to watch again but it definitely was worth watching.
Quote from: Hardy on November 09, 2008, 09:47:18 AM
Can I just say I always considered Faul one of the finest men of our time - someone you could always rely on for absolute truth, honesty and fearless opposition to evil, from whatever quarter it came?
Faul was a total bollox and a hypocrite. Encountered him in the 70s and the infamous 'Yellow Bed' he put kids over to strap and cane. A bully boy who picked on kids he thot were weaker and then talked about brutalisation of prisoners. I've met many who encountered him back then with bad memories of him. He got his card marked in the 80s for the brutality towards children. No time for thon boy... treacherous. Sorry but that's how it is... dead or not.
I wouldn't say this only to counter tributes to him like that one above.
When I was at primary school we used to get some hammerings from the head master, if any of them were to touch my children now they would be split open by me. Told my perants about it at the time but nothing they looked at it as if he had every right. No way to be brought up, Used to fear going to school them days. Can't even look at the ole **** now.
Brilliant film.
(Now you young bucks understand why we detested Thatcher so much.)
Powerful, powerful film. Probably my favourite film of the decade after only watching it for the first time last night. What a debut for Steve McQueen as director.
absolutely amazing film last night, jesus it made my blood boil
Strange - it must have been the advance build-up, but I was very disappointed with it. I know I'm out of step with the majority and with the critics, but there y'are.
I didn't see any insight at all. There was no attempt to explore the motivations, ideologies or even the human interest issues. I was a simple cataloguing of a series of events, without commentary. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't see where that merits the superlative plaudits it's received. And it was delivered with a lot of self-indulgent cinematic cliches, like the sixteen-minute single shot or the dwelling on the screw sweeping the corridor for the whole length of it. What was that for?
In summary, I knew no more, intellectually or emotionally about the whole time, the events or the personalities involved at the end than I did before I saw it.
really strong emotioned film, very well protrayed and acted out. The sad thing thing is, that this only happened a lock o years ago, and im sure hit a nerve with quite a few people last night. The scene with Bobby and the priest just before he begins the hunger strike is powerfull.
Saw this for the first time last night, a really powerful film which brought back some of the emotions of the time of the hunger strike. It is incredible to see the dedication these guys had to the cause. [whether you agree with that cause or not]. To choose to spend 5 years living in those conditions of filth and brutality , not to mention going on hunger strike, as a refusal to accept criminalisation, must take an incredible commitment.
I remember in Martin Dillon's book The Shankill Butchers, a fellow prisoner of Lenny Murphy's said that the only guys Lenny feared were the guys on the dirty protest 'he saw them as the really extreme guys'.
On a related note this book also featured a mention of Fr Dennis Faul who reportedly told the Irish News that he had information that the 'Butcher' operated around Carlisle Circus,wore a surgical collar and was aged around 50!!
I've always thought that this man was a complete gasbag who would say anything to get himself in the papers or on telly. as far as i could see he spouted nonsense when the opportunity afforded it, whether he knew anything about the subject or not. I never met the man, so i'm commenting on his public utterances only.
I see the priest in the film had a brother in Kilrea. If Dennis Faul had a brother in Kilrea it would be John Dallat!!! ;D
Quote from: Hardy on December 16, 2009, 12:09:54 PM
Strange - it must have been the advance build-up, but I was very disappointed with it. I know I'm out of step with the majority and with the critics, but there y'are.
I didn't see any insight at all. There was no attempt to explore the motivations, ideologies or even the human interest issues. I was a simple cataloguing of a series of events, without commentary. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't see where that merits the superlative plaudits it's received. And it was delivered with a lot of self-indulgent cinematic cliches, like the sixteen-minute single shot or the dwelling on the screw sweeping the corridor for the whole length of it. What was that for?
In summary, I knew no more, intellectually or emotionally about the whole time, the events or the personalities involved at the end than I did before I saw it.
Hardy I thought that bit was to signify the passage of time while the Hunger strikes progressed.
Quote from: Hereiam on December 15, 2009, 11:42:40 PM
When I was at primary school we used to get some hammerings from the head master, if any of them were to touch my children now they would be split open by me. Told my perants about it at the time but nothing they looked at it as if he had every right. No way to be brought up, Used to fear going to school them days. Can't even look at the ole **** now.
You didn't go to the same primary as me? Cookie Callan was a vindictive, evil cnut and to see the hoor up giving out communion sickened me the last time I was home. We have rightly called to task the abusive priests, but what about their off-siders?
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on December 16, 2009, 12:18:08 PM
Quote from: Hardy on December 16, 2009, 12:09:54 PM
Strange - it must have been the advance build-up, but I was very disappointed with it. I know I'm out of step with the majority and with the critics, but there y'are.
I didn't see any insight at all. There was no attempt to explore the motivations, ideologies or even the human interest issues. I was a simple cataloguing of a series of events, without commentary. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't see where that merits the superlative plaudits it's received. And it was delivered with a lot of self-indulgent cinematic cliches, like the sixteen-minute single shot or the dwelling on the screw sweeping the corridor for the whole length of it. What was that for?
In summary, I knew no more, intellectually or emotionally about the whole time, the events or the personalities involved at the end than I did before I saw it.
Hardy I thought that bit was to signify the passage of time while the Hunger strikes progressed.
Steve McQueen also said he wanted the audience to get a sense of what it was like to be in the prison at that time, so scenes like that one I think were put in there to recreate the sounds and atmosphere of the place...
Quote from: Hardy on December 16, 2009, 12:09:54 PM
Strange - it must have been the advance build-up, but I was very disappointed with it. I know I'm out of step with the majority and with the critics, but there y'are.
I didn't see any insight at all. There was no attempt to explore the motivations, ideologies or even the human interest issues. I was a simple cataloguing of a series of events, without commentary. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't see where that merits the superlative plaudits it's received. And it was delivered with a lot of self-indulgent cinematic cliches, like the sixteen-minute single shot or the dwelling on the screw sweeping the corridor for the whole length of it. What was that for?
In summary, I knew no more, intellectually or emotionally about the whole time, the events or the personalities involved at the end than I did before I saw it.
I have to say I agree with Hardy. I was underwhelmed by the film after watching it. I felt it failed to explore enough the context in which the events of Long Kesh happened and didn't deal enough with the negotiations leading up to, and during, the Hunger Strikes nor the impact they had on the wider community. In particular, I felt that not dealing with the election campaign or result was a glaring ommission which couldn't be rectified simply by a sentence at the end of the film.
Perhaps this makes me an intellectual oaf in the film world but I thought the film just moved far too slowly without nearly enough dialogue for my tastes.
Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on December 16, 2009, 12:32:32 PM
Quote from: Hardy on December 16, 2009, 12:09:54 PM
Strange - it must have been the advance build-up, but I was very disappointed with it. I know I'm out of step with the majority and with the critics, but there y'are.
I didn't see any insight at all. There was no attempt to explore the motivations, ideologies or even the human interest issues. I was a simple cataloguing of a series of events, without commentary. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't see where that merits the superlative plaudits it's received. And it was delivered with a lot of self-indulgent cinematic cliches, like the sixteen-minute single shot or the dwelling on the screw sweeping the corridor for the whole length of it. What was that for?
In summary, I knew no more, intellectually or emotionally about the whole time, the events or the personalities involved at the end than I did before I saw it.
I have to say I agree with Hardy. I was underwhelmed by the film after watching it. I felt it failed to explore enough the context in which the events of Long Kesh happened and didn't deal enough with the negotiations leading up to, and during, the Hunger Strikes nor the impact they had on the wider community. In particular, I felt that not dealing with the election campaign or result was a glaring ommission which couldn't be rectified simply by a sentence at the end of the film.
Perhaps this makes me an intellectual oaf in the film world but I thought the film just moved far too slowly without nearly enough dialogue for my tastes.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I seem to remember the film's makers saying that their intention was to focus on the situations and experiences rather than the politics or circumstances around them.
I diddnt get watching it last night, but I can say that Mrs SB wasnt overly enthusiastic about it, she mentioned a few of the points raised by Hardy and TAM.
Agree with Orior with his Thatcher statement, that woman has a lot to answer for.
Quote from: AFS on December 16, 2009, 12:39:16 PM
Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on December 16, 2009, 12:32:32 PM
Quote from: Hardy on December 16, 2009, 12:09:54 PM
Strange - it must have been the advance build-up, but I was very disappointed with it. I know I'm out of step with the majority and with the critics, but there y'are.
I didn't see any insight at all. There was no attempt to explore the motivations, ideologies or even the human interest issues. I was a simple cataloguing of a series of events, without commentary. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't see where that merits the superlative plaudits it's received. And it was delivered with a lot of self-indulgent cinematic cliches, like the sixteen-minute single shot or the dwelling on the screw sweeping the corridor for the whole length of it. What was that for?
In summary, I knew no more, intellectually or emotionally about the whole time, the events or the personalities involved at the end than I did before I saw it.
I have to say I agree with Hardy. I was underwhelmed by the film after watching it. I felt it failed to explore enough the context in which the events of Long Kesh happened and didn't deal enough with the negotiations leading up to, and during, the Hunger Strikes nor the impact they had on the wider community. In particular, I felt that not dealing with the election campaign or result was a glaring ommission which couldn't be rectified simply by a sentence at the end of the film.
Perhaps this makes me an intellectual oaf in the film world but I thought the film just moved far too slowly without nearly enough dialogue for my tastes.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I seem to remember the film's makers saying that their intention was to focus on the situations and experiences rather than the politics or circumstances around them.
Nope, you're spot on.
I'd say what ballinaman and AFS state to be the films objectives must be true after watching that last night.
It wasnt about insights or personalities
it was outlining the harrowing treatment to prisoners and treatment in long kesh
then what the actual hunger strike 'experience' must have been like
feck that was hard to watch and I know a few fellas who were in long kesh couldnt watch the film for long as its stark reality was too much of a painful reminder of the past.
no what I call entertainment but maybe a lesson or insight into what this kind of treatment was like to endure for people that might not have heard or known what this kind of thing was like in the not so recent past.
harrowing and emotionally tough to watch is all I could describe this as.
absolutely brilliant in its accuracy and portrayal though so the director and actors deserve huge praise.
Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on December 16, 2009, 12:32:32 PM
Quote from: Hardy on December 16, 2009, 12:09:54 PM
Strange - it must have been the advance build-up, but I was very disappointed with it. I know I'm out of step with the majority and with the critics, but there y'are.
I didn't see any insight at all. There was no attempt to explore the motivations, ideologies or even the human interest issues. I was a simple cataloguing of a series of events, without commentary. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't see where that merits the superlative plaudits it's received. And it was delivered with a lot of self-indulgent cinematic cliches, like the sixteen-minute single shot or the dwelling on the screw sweeping the corridor for the whole length of it. What was that for?
In summary, I knew no more, intellectually or emotionally about the whole time, the events or the personalities involved at the end than I did before I saw it.
I have to say I agree with Hardy. I was underwhelmed by the film after watching it. I felt it failed to explore enough the context in which the events of Long Kesh happened and didn't deal enough with the negotiations leading up to, and during, the Hunger Strikes nor the impact they had on the wider community. In particular, I felt that not dealing with the election campaign or result was a glaring ommission which couldn't be rectified simply by a sentence at the end of the film.
Perhaps this makes me an intellectual oaf in the film world but I thought the film just moved far too slowly without nearly enough dialogue for my tastes.
That wasn't what the film was about. If it had have covered background and the election it would have been a different movie. It wasn't about politics but ordinary people in extraordinary situations. I wasn't keen on the arty farty stuff either but I suppose it was as close as the director could get the viewer to the conditions in the cells. If the guy sweeping the floor for a few minutes annoyed you can you imagine what it would have been like locked up there 24 hours a day.
This was 'nt meant to be a re- telling of historical events.The angle that moved McQueen to the point where he felt he had to do something,was that these men were using their bodies as the last line of defence in the face of such brutality and humiliation.He was'nt at all interested in the politics of the situation,his fascination was with the fact that these young men believed in something to the extent that they were willing to lay down their lives fo it,not just in word ,but in deed.
Quote from: Hardy on December 16, 2009, 12:09:54 PM
Strange - it must have been the advance build-up, but I was very disappointed with it. I know I'm out of step with the majority and with the critics, but there y'are.
I didn't see any insight at all. There was no attempt to explore the motivations, ideologies or even the human interest issues. I was a simple cataloguing of a series of events, without commentary. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't see where that merits the superlative plaudits it's received. And it was delivered with a lot of self-indulgent cinematic cliches, like the sixteen-minute single shot or the dwelling on the screw sweeping the corridor for the whole length of it. What was that for?
In summary, I knew no more, intellectually or emotionally about the whole time, the events or the personalities involved at the end than I did before I saw it.
Missing the point Hardy. That's like saying 2012 gave you little insight into global warming or that Jaws gave little or no indication of the appetite of sharks. It was clear from the opening 20 mins that this was more of an 'arty film with a take on individual experiences.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 16, 2009, 01:15:20 PM
I'd say what ballinaman and AFS state to be the films objectives must be true after watching that last night.
It wasnt about insights or personalities
it was outlining the harrowing treatment to prisoners and treatment in long kesh
then what the actual hunger strike 'experience' must have been like
feck that was hard to watch and I know a few fellas who were in long kesh couldnt watch the film for long as its stark reality was too much of a painful reminder of the past.
no what I call entertainment but maybe a lesson or insight into what this kind of treatment was like to endure for people that might not have heard or known what this kind of thing was like in the not so recent past.
harrowing and emotionally tough to watch is all I could describe this as.
absolutely brilliant in its accuracy and portrayal though so the director and actors deserve huge praise.
Thats about it, the film is what it is for 90 or so minutes and succeeds brilliantly.
The scriptwriter in an interview talked about himself and the director and how they went about it.
http://www.eventguide.ie/articles.elive?session_id=12262796792343&sku=081031121955 (http://www.eventguide.ie/articles.elive?session_id=12262796792343&sku=081031121955)
'We both wanted to do something cold and detached. I had no interest in writing anything on this subject that was familiar. So, we had similar sensibilities, and I felt that it would be good for me to work with an artist, just to explode certain notions I might have had of narrative and drama.''We researched together quite extensively; we took one entire week to interview inmates of prisons – around eighteen men I think – including prison officers. This experience really informed how we created the structure and tone of the film. We both felt that if we could find the intensity with which these men talk, then we would have the film.''we were so struck by the lucidity of the men we spoke to. We wanted to do justice to their use of language. They would always begin with small talk, and all of a sudden, we felt that they were shifting gears and raising the level of the conversation, dropping in astonishing phrases and wording. We wanted this to be replicated in the conversation between Michael [Fassbender, who plays Bobby Sands] and Liam [Cunningham].''We had all the information about the period, and the story could be worked on, but it was the intensity of these men and their stories that we need to capture and project onto the screen'first third of the film
'So I was asking what we are giving the audience here; is there forward momentum, or is all of this just an aesthetic exercise? What is the viewer getting beyond painful images? I think that we managed to convey a forward momentum in that opening half hour; we're building towards meeting Bobby Sands, and towards a well-documented riot that is the culmination of this opening section. The longer dialogue is absent, the more the audience craves it.'
Quote from: ONeill on December 16, 2009, 01:57:54 PM
Quote from: Hardy on December 16, 2009, 12:09:54 PM
Strange - it must have been the advance build-up, but I was very disappointed with it. I know I'm out of step with the majority and with the critics, but there y'are.
I didn't see any insight at all. There was no attempt to explore the motivations, ideologies or even the human interest issues. I was a simple cataloguing of a series of events, without commentary. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't see where that merits the superlative plaudits it's received. And it was delivered with a lot of self-indulgent cinematic cliches, like the sixteen-minute single shot or the dwelling on the screw sweeping the corridor for the whole length of it. What was that for?
In summary, I knew no more, intellectually or emotionally about the whole time, the events or the personalities involved at the end than I did before I saw it.
Missing the point Hardy. That's like saying 2012 gave you little insight into global warming or that Jaws gave little or no indication of the appetite of sharks. It was clear from the opening 20 mins that this was more of an 'arty film with a take on individual experiences.
Aye, thats true, but it seems most people missed the point, bacause having listened to reviews, and other people talking about it, I was expecting a film about the hunger strike.
It wasnt, however - rather, it was about a man who was prepared to lay down his life in the most deliberate way possible, and the reactions of those around him to that. I would love to see a good film about the hunger strike, and having listened to said reviews, I thought this was to be it. However, while this is a good film, beautifully shot, its not what I was hoping for.
Quote from: ONeill on December 16, 2009, 01:57:54 PM
Quote from: Hardy on December 16, 2009, 12:09:54 PM
Strange - it must have been the advance build-up, but I was very disappointed with it. I know I'm out of step with the majority and with the critics, but there y'are.
I didn't see any insight at all. There was no attempt to explore the motivations, ideologies or even the human interest issues. I was a simple cataloguing of a series of events, without commentary. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't see where that merits the superlative plaudits it's received. And it was delivered with a lot of self-indulgent cinematic cliches, like the sixteen-minute single shot or the dwelling on the screw sweeping the corridor for the whole length of it. What was that for?
In summary, I knew no more, intellectually or emotionally about the whole time, the events or the personalities involved at the end than I did before I saw it.
Missing the point Hardy. That's like saying 2012 gave you little insight into global warming or that Jaws gave little or no indication of the appetite of sharks. It was clear from the opening 20 mins that this was more of an 'arty film with a take on individual experiences.
Ah sure that was clear enough to me too. I just don't think it succeeded as art either. I'd hesitate to expound about art, as I know as much about it as a pig does about a bank holiday, but as best I understand it, art should give you a new view (an insight, if you like) of what it's trying to portray. Or it should inform you in some sort of way and leave you knowing more or something new or at least seeing the thing in some other way that hadn't occurred to you before. That was what I was trying to convey when I said I knew no more emotionally or intellectually at the end of it. At the very least, I'd say good art should leave you saying "that was very well done", whatever "that" was.
It didn't do any of that for me. Clearly it did for many and that's great. That's the way it goes.
You sound very confused Hardy, it must be all those little voices nattering away :)
I don't have an appreciation of Film art or Film techniques.
I would object if one had to have some appreciation of art or technique in order to appreciate this film.
It is not an intellectual process.
Like many who appreciate such a film, all that needs to be done is observe the effect of the scenes upon yourself and appraise it in the context of the film.
Possibly you may have a lot of preconceived notions about the central story which creates some conflict with appraisal, possibly you have an open mind on the central story but this film did not hold your attention.
Quote from: Main Street on December 16, 2009, 05:28:48 PM
Possibly you may have a lot of preconceived notions about the central story which creates some conflict with appraisal.
The same can be said for me I suppose. I didn't appreciate the art and I already knew the story. I have defended the film and that may be more to do with preconceived notions than the actual content of the film.
Quote from: Main Street on December 16, 2009, 05:28:48 PM
You sound very confused Hardy, it must be all those little voices nattering away :)
I'm not confused at all. I thought I was quite clear about what I thought of the film.
Quote
I don't have an appreciation of Film art or Film techniques.
I would object if one had to have some appreciation of art or technique in order to appreciate this film.
It is not an intellectual process.
Like many who appreciate such a film, all that needs to be done is observe the effect of the scenes upon yourself and appraise it in the context of the film.
Possibly you may have a lot of preconceived notions about the central story which creates some conflict with appraisal, possibly you have an open mind on the central story but this film did not hold your attention.
Sure that's exactly what I thought I did and said here I did.
Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on December 16, 2009, 12:32:32 PM
Quote from: Hardy on December 16, 2009, 12:09:54 PM
Strange - it must have been the advance build-up, but I was very disappointed with it. I know I'm out of step with the majority and with the critics, but there y'are.
I didn't see any insight at all. There was no attempt to explore the motivations, ideologies or even the human interest issues. I was a simple cataloguing of a series of events, without commentary. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't see where that merits the superlative plaudits it's received. And it was delivered with a lot of self-indulgent cinematic cliches, like the sixteen-minute single shot or the dwelling on the screw sweeping the corridor for the whole length of it. What was that for?
In summary, I knew no more, intellectually or emotionally about the whole time, the events or the personalities involved at the end than I did before I saw it.
I have to say I agree with Hardy. I was underwhelmed by the film after watching it. I felt it failed to explore enough the context in which the events of Long Kesh happened and didn't deal enough with the negotiations leading up to, and during, the Hunger Strikes nor the impact they had on the wider community. In particular, I felt that not dealing with the election campaign or result was a glaring ommission which couldn't be rectified simply by a sentence at the end of the film.
Perhaps this makes me an intellectual oaf in the film world but I thought the film just moved far too slowly without nearly enough dialogue for my tastes.
+ 1
I thought it was a remarkable film. It seems others here are more into the way the Hunger Strike was done in 'Some Mothers Son'....which is fair enough. Is hard to explain but the 'arty' stuff as some call it was mesmorising and to me caught very vividly the anguish and pain of all involved. Suppose is a matter of opinion but it didn't win top awards for nothing. Would be interesting to know what former blanketmen thot of it.
I very much understand the points made by hardy, but after watching this last night it definitely affected me. I couldn't take my eyes off it, can't even begin to understand the mindset of the strikers. Tough movie to watch, yet very watchable.
Quote from: Puckoon on March 11, 2010, 03:23:02 PM
I very much understand the points made by hardy, but after watching this last night it definitely affected me. I couldn't take my eyes off it, can't even begin to understand the mindset of the strikers. Tough movie to watch, yet very watchable.
I believe that was one of the points the director was trying to portray.