Conference bookie::movies

    re .0, I agree.  I saw this over the weekend and was very impressed. 
    Daniel Day-Lewis and Pete Postelthwaite both gave wonderful
    performances.  Very moving, as well as enjoyable.
    
    5 out of 5
    
    Lorna
    

This Movie is a completely fictionalised account of the events surrounding the
imprisionment of Gerry Conlon. It's not as if he isn't around to tell the true
story...

Although the performances were excellent and the Movie taken on it's own very
good, the fact that the events were so contrived in order to bring Gerry Conlon
out of it smelling like roses IMHO detracts from the whole Movie.

Pure propaganda !  1/5 from me.

Peter. 

    gee I thought this was done with Gerry Conlon on the sidelines...I saw
    something on 20/20 (or sometype show), I got the idea that the movie
    reflexed the truth.....why do you say it was fictionalised ?
    
    Chris

    RE: .3  by 19007::FIELDS 
    
    >gee I thought this was done with Gerry Conlon on the sidelines...I saw
    >something on 20/20 (or sometype show), I got the idea that the movie
    >reflexed the truth.....why do you say it was fictionalised ?
    
    Probably doesn't agree with his viewpoint.  Sort of like asking Richard
    Nixon how he liked "All the President's Men".
    

    doesn't agree with WHOs viewpoint ? reply #.4 ? or Gerry Conlon ?
    
    Chris

Let me put it to you this way...


1) Gerry and his father never shared the same cell let alone the same prison.
2) Gerry never knew Paul Hill before going to England.
3) The "Mcguire 7" and "Guilford Four" trials did not take place in the same 	
   courtroom.
4) The squat in London never existed. At least Gerry and Co. never stayed there.
5) Garath ( Sp ?) Pierce (The Lawyer) did not come across the evidence with the 
   big writing saying "Do not show to the defense" in the manner described. In 	
   fact there was no big writing.
6) The Mcguire's refused to go to the Premier because of their depection in the 
   movie and they are considering suing the producers.

There's more that I haven't got time to list




Peter.

    RE: .5  by 19007::FIELDS 
    
    See .6
    

    thanks.....I never knew much about this so when I saw that a movie was
    made about it and with the help of Gerry I just figured it would be a
    true tale...but I guess Hollywood moved across the big pond...
    
    do you know of a book I could read that might be more truthful ?
    
    thanks again
    Chris

Sorry, No can do on the book front although maybe you should read Conlon's
book(see below).

Most of my info. was gleaned from the papers here in Ireland before and after 
the appeal. Recently more articles have been published, one of which contained a
quote from Conlon admitting that the movie was fictionalized. 

Come to think of it the movie is not even supposed to bear the slightest
resembelence to the book(see above) so maybe I'm accusing Mr. Conlon in the
wrong. Maybe it is the director/writer/producer who have contrived the
screen-play in order for it to appeal to the sentimental and sadly ill informed
general public. Then again, as you have said, Conlon was in the wings and could
have objected to the portrayal of the characters and events in the movie.

just my 2c's worth...


good luck,

Peter.

    thanks Peter.....

    Even if Conlon objected, would that have changed the course of the
    movie? Not very likely. Even writers of stature such as Updike and
    Wolfe have their movies changed substantially for the big screen, and
    any objections they had would probably have been given little weight.
    
    Does anyone know of a case where an author *did* object to how his/her
    book was dramatized, and was listened to?
    			Jim

    I've heard a numbeer of radio inteerviews with Conlon.  Although Jim
    Sheridan wrote the screenplay, Conlon worked closely with him and is
    happy with the results.  The film does not purport to be a documentary
    and Conlon claims it captures the spiritual truths in reframing the
    details with his his father.
    
    - Dave

    I agree it's a superior movie.  It is a little troubling, in general, that 
    moviemakers frequently rearrange the facts of cases such as this for
    artistic reasons without explicitly saying so.  Many films, including
    this one, end with brief bits of text describing what happened to the
    main characters after the events shown.  (There was an audible
    collective gasp & murmur in the Ottawa shoppiung mall theatre where I
    saw this when it was revealed that Conlon's buddy Paul Hill had married
    the daughter of Robert Kennedy.)  Maybe some kind of disclaimer and/or
    pointer to the text(s) used as source(s) ought to be included in this
    matter.
    
    As to the movie, I think it's one of the 2 or 3 best I've seen in the
    last year or so.  Day-Lewis especially is great.
    
    -Stephen 

    re .13, there was an article in People magazine last year about Paul
    Hill marrying Robert Kennedy's daughter, so it's hardly been kept a
    secret from the public.
    
    Lorna
    

    Also, I just recently read an interview with Jerry Conlon and he stated
    that he was very pleased with the way the movie turned out.  He, also,
    said he's interested in going into acting.  :-)
    
    Besides, regardless of minor details that may have been changed in the
    movie, it is a fact that he was wrongly imprisoned for 15 yrs., for a
    crime he never commited, and that it was a terrible injustice that
    everyone should know about.
    
    Lorna
    

    Oh, and, since we're pointing out discrepancies between real life, and
    the movie, I couldn't help but notice that the real Jerry Conlon is no
    where *near* as handsome as Daniel Day-Lewis.  (but, then, most people
    aren't...)  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    I personally had never heard of Paul Hill and don't follow the lives of
    minor members of the Kennedy dynasty, or read "People" magazine;
    evidently other members of the audience were in the same boat.
    
    I don't have a problem with the fact that the movie wasn't completely
    true to the historical record.  As you say, the big important fact of a
    major miscarriage of justice was effectively presented.  Movies like
    this and, say "Mississippi Burning" do irritate people who care about
    historical accuracy, however, and in my earlier note I was musing about
    ways that this irritation might be lessened.
    
    -Stephen

Until I read these preceding notes, I only suspected how phony this film
was.  Anyway...

Daniel Day Lewis is a wonderful actor.  He single-handedly rescued such
faltering films as The Last of the Mohicans and The Age Of Innocence.
And he does it again here.

For me the film was a disappointment. The press hype set expectations
that simply weren't met.  A story with rich history, political intrigue
and courtroom drama was reduced to family soap.  Good family drama, I
might add, but nothing like Lewis's masterpiece "My Left Foot".

The film has a few great lifts in it.  A spontaneous funereal ceremony in a
prison was one inspired cinemagraphic moment.  Emma Thompson's cameo, like
so many cameo's, was a case of an actress getting lost one day and briefly
landing on the wrong set.  Along with Lewis, the actor who plays the father
deserves all the credit he's been given.

Essentially this movie has nothing to do with the "miscarriage of justice". The
main theme is that of the relationship between Gerry and his father and this
whole scenario is contrived. 
If the movie had been about the Guilford four it would have dealt with all of
their ordeals in prison not just Gerry Conlons . The untruths in the movie are
far from minor...

The fact is that the evidence which eventually led to their being set free was
uncovered by the Surry Police force who were investigating the ongoing's of
another regional Police force i.e the one that arrested the four !!! 

Gerry Conlon had very little to do with his subsequent release , as a matter of
fact Paul Hill was the one of the four who did most.(these are very convenient
inaccuracies for one wishing to build himself up as some kind of hero). 

It is unreasonable to compare the events portrayed in this movie to those
portrayed in for example the Killing fields or Schindlers Ark (List) . The 
people being portrayed are all still alive with the exception on Guiseppi(Sp ?)
Conlon. The facts are fresh in peoples minds and the need for any assumptions
based on an incomplete history is unjustified.

Basically this is a piece of propaganda from a disgruntled and bitter man(and
rightly so) but his feelings should not have been allowed to colour the Movie.
It should have been a totally objective approach telling the truth as it
happened.

After all two, lies don't make the truth... So who do we believe ? Gerry Conlon
or the British Police ?


Peter.

    RE: .19  by 41174::PHAYDEN 
    
>Basically this is a piece of propaganda from a disgruntled and bitter man(and
>rightly so) but his feelings should not have been allowed to colour the Movie.
>It should have been a totally objective approach telling the truth as it
>happened.

>After all two, lies don't make the truth... So who do we believe ? Gerry Conlon
>or the British Police ?

    Oh, come now, Peter.  Are you suggesting that Gerry Conlon made this
    movie?  Calling this a piece of propaganda is a dead giveaway as to
    your impartial judgement of the historical accuracy of the plot details.  
    
    It's as if "A Bridge Too Far" had been made prior to VE Day and
    everyone started bickering about details rather than accepting that
    there had been a major screwup.  After all, in time of war, one does
    not admit mistakes.
    

    re .19, given a choice, I'll take my chances believing Jerry Conlon
    over the British police.
    
    Lorna
    

    >>re .19, given a choice, I'll take my chances believing Jerry Conlon
    >>    over the British police.
    
     There is very little to choose between the two.
    
    Mikef

    
    saw it over the weekend, afraid i have to agree with those who are not
    that impressed. yes, daniel day-lewis sparkles on screen, as does
    posthwaite (sp?) (and as usual it looks like the real actress will be
    here tomorrow and emma thompson is just standing in). it's a
    fascinating political story that's told with very little insight, and
    a compelling personal drama that told with very little subtlety.
    the music is o.k.
    

    re .23, I think Emma Thompson is the best actress around today.  In my
    opinion, *she* is the real actress.  However, in this movie her role
    was very limited and didn't give her much of a chance to use her
    talent.  I think she was wonderful in The Remains of the Day.
    
    I found this movie extremely enjoyable.  It's been dissapointing to
    hear, after the fact, that it didn't stick with all the facts.  But, as
    a drama, I liked it a lot.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    sorry kiddo, i think any female human being (or, in fact, any decent
    drag queen) could have done as good a job (or better) than emma in
    that ultimate sleepy.
    

    well, damn, why didn't I try out for it then?  :-)
    
    We'll just have to agree to disagree.  Emma's my ideal woman!
    
    (Do you like Ken?)
    
    Lorna
    

    
    i think you would've done a much better job than emma (besides
    being more attractive ;^)
    
    i think ken is very talented, a little weird, but talented.
    

I keep trying to get myself to see In the Name of the Father because it's
obviously got a lot of people going and it's about several important topics
(families, terrorism, the failures of English justice, not necessarily in that
order). I've tried not to join in conversations about it until I've seen it, but
the previous replies discussing dear Emma explain exactly why I'm probably not
going to see it ever, or only by accident on TV some time. 

Viz: Emma's courtroom histrionics in the trailer are not only Oscar-demanding
meretriciousness (and a happy new year), they are also a scandalous travesty of
the process by which the Four and the McGuires were released, and of the
character of Gareth Pierce, who is one of the country's few totally principled
lawyers. 

The problem isn't really that Gareth Pierce could never have appeared in the
High Court because she's a solicitor. It's that she worked for the Four's and
the McGuires' release, for some years with very few supporters, by going through
all the formal legal processes and doing the sort of research that eventually
produced an unanswerable case for hearing the appeals and then winning the
cases. If Gareth Pierce did appear in court (as she now could), she'd be as
unlike Emma Thompson as you could imagine. And she's have a case that didn't
need courtroom revelations.

Incidentally, although many people know who Gareth Peirce is, she refuses all
personal publicity and only give interviews about particular cases and civil
rights. I don't think the national papers have a portrait photo of her on file.
Unlike Emma, who occasionally mentions civil rights to get a bit of extra
publicity.

Helen

Also incidentally, I hear that Gerry and Guiseppe practiced total character
immersion during the filming and drove the rest of the cast crazy by always
addressing them in character....

    re .28, how do you know that Emma Thompson only mentions civil rights
    to get publicity?  Just because she is an actress, and not a lawyer,
    doesn't mean that she can't be concerned about civil rights.
    
    There is no other actress that I have ever enjoyed seeing on screen as
    much as I have Emma Thompson.  I think she's wonderful, although I did
    come by that opinion because of Howards End and The Remains of The Day,
    not In The Name of The Father where her role is so small.
    
    Lorna
    

The film is definitely an adaptation of the real story,
and of Conlon's book (which one would hope is at least
HIS real story - from his perspective that is).  I had
no problem with the changes that were made for purposes
of the screenplan.  Audiences would not have sat through
the dozen or more shifts of prisons that the Conlon's
went through, so the screenplay keeps them both (together)
in one place.

Re Gareth Pierce's work.  This was adequately portrayed.
We meet the character in Conlon's fourth year (or there-
abouts) of his fifteen years in prison.  Her work from
earliest prison visit through years of research and
campaigning is well communicated.

As for your opinion of Emma Thompson, we can agree to
disagree.

dcl

    Re: .28
    
    >And she's have a case that didn't need courtroom revelations.
    
    Reality is not always good cinema.

Re: replies to -3 (my unalerted flame)

1) Emma Thompson and civil rights: sorry, I put it in an unfair way. I don't
have evidence that Emma Thompson isn't committed to civil rights, and I suppose
better for her to use Oscar acceptance speeches etc to highlight causes than for
pure self-glorification. I really meant to contrast Emma and Ken's
self-publicising lifestyle activism (which goes with the job they do) with
Gareth Pierce's non-personalised court work, which in my opinion has done a lot
more to get people fair(er) trials in England. English justice isn't perfect,
but it is possible to reform it.

2) Facts in the film: I was ranting about the 45 second clip that was used on
Barry Norman and other TV programs, and I think in the trailer. I have been
resisting seeing the film, and was prejudiced against it, because of the
conflict with the important facts about Gareth Pierce's work that I mentioned. 

Working to reform the English legal and political system isn't a trivial matter.
I would guess that many people who would be basically sympathetic to this film
see the campaign to control the police's collection and use of evidence, and in
particular the use of confessions,  as a key issue in the case. I know that's
not what the film's "about", but if it doesn't treat the political and legal
context coherently, then it's using an important case in a purely sensationalist
way. Choosing that clip as a trailer suggests that the producers and
distributors think they are selling the film to an audience whose political
views are very simple-minded (establishment liberals vs. racist old ruling class
and police).

Well, I've read Conlon's book and I've seen the film.
I'm just an ignorant Yank (less ignorant than many
in the matter of British news), but I think that Jim
Sheridan made a terrific film of the story.  All in
all it was even-handed, far more so than Gerry
Conlon's account, but that's hardly surprising.

Plenty of changes were made for dramatic effect, but the
basic line was consistent with Conlon's version of
how things played out.  Since apparently the appeal
that Gareth Peirce prepared never actually went to
court, there would have been precious little for the
filmmaker to show without indulging in some poetic
license.  [From Conlon's account it appears that 
once Peirce's filing was reviewed, the system proceeded
to quickly announce that the Guildford Four would be
released, rush them into court and pronounce the
convictions quashed.  The appeal had been 
scheduled for weeks later.  Certainly they were 
hoping to reduce the media circus that would result.
I doubt that they were too successful.  I can remember
hearing the news in Australia.]

I can understand that the story raises a lot of hackles
in some circles.  If you won't go see it in the theatre
(you're missing a great soundtrack...), at least
give it a look when it hits video.  I don't think 
you'll be disappointed.

Re. .-1

Thanks for your comments. I'm sure you're right that the film is worth seeing,
and I'm sure I'll catch it some time.

My original comments were about the distributors' choice of trailer clip, which
is completely incompatible what what actually happened, as you accurately
describe it. The trailer suggests one version of the heroic lawyer which is not
only not what happened, but which also (in the very peculiar context of the
English legal system) implies a view of the political and social background to
the case that is wrong and misleading. 

The fact is that with a very few honorable exceptions, the liberal establishment
didn't take up the Maguire's and the Four's case for years after Gareth Pierce
became involved. I think Emma Thompson's performance is based on Helena Kennedy
with an English accent. Helena Kennedy would have been too young to do anything
in the early years of the case, and there was probably nobody similar to her
then. But there were lots of grand liberal lawyers and important left-wing types
who in fact did nothing until it was clear that the government (in effect) was
going to lose and be embarassed.

I don't know anything about Gareth Pierce's background or political views,
except that she believes strongly in a written constitution and bill of rights.
The heroic liberal barrister is necessary because in the English legal system it
helps to have an important person representing you, not just a good lawyer. The
iniquity of the Four's and Maguires' position was that the establishment was
never concerned to get them a fair trail in the first place, whether from racism
or lack of interest in lower middle class and working class people. Making Emma
Thompson's rant in court in the trailer for the film suggests that the film
accepts the opposite view: that the liberal establishment was heroic in
releasing the Four and the Maguires.

That's enough of me now. 

Re. books:

Paul Hill's account of this story is in a book called "Stolen Years". I've read
it, and found it quite good. It's basically an autobiography, dealing first with
the troubles in the north through the eyes of a boy with "mixed" parents. (For
those who don't know, this means one parent Catholic, the other Protestant.)
And then with the happenings following the Guilford pub bombings.

Anyway, it is a graphic, often disturbing rendition of the ordeal these people
went through - if you  prefer the more realistic version to what was depicted on
screen.

I did like the film also though! 

Cheers,

Elaine.

All references to Gareth P. in Conlon's book are 
spelled "Peirce".  I've never seen this spelling 
before.  Is this a huge misprint, or is this
alternative spelling correct in her case?

re: -1. "Peirce" is right (as in Charles Sa(u?)nders P.). I spelled it wrong in
my previous notes...I think she pronounces it "pierce" rather then "purse",
which was partly what confused my already feeble spelling.

Helen

    I think this is one of the best films I have seen in years,a totally
    shocking story(even if it isn't all fact),The people behind the arrest
    and convictions of these people should be put away for life themselves,
    This film goes to show how trustworthy and honest the Police and
    Government really are!(corrupt as hell)
    
                                                 Rich
    
    
                                                             

    RE: .38  by 44247::RBERNARD 
    
    >This film goes to show how trustworthy and honest the Police and
    >Government really are!(corrupt as hell)
    
    See also "Hidden Agenda".
    

  I have no idea if anything portrayed in this movie is true or not, but it is
a really good film. 

  The characters are good, the acting is good, the direction is good, the
photography is good and true or not, it's one really fine story. There were
no real holes in the way this film was made.

  I rented it and saw it on TV and there didn't appear to be any problems
translating it to the small screen. It's better than anything you are likely to
see on network TV so if you have a free evening coming up it's definitely worth
renting the tape.

  **** out of 5,
  George

    Caught this a weekend or so ago on tape.  Historically accurate or not
    (and I'm pretty oblivious to the reality of the situation), I thought
    it was a fairly involving, interesting piece of work. Just about
    everybody in it did a good job.
    
    Recommended, if you're in that injustic-drama kind of mood.
    
    
    *** out of ****
    
    
    kim

    I've been meaning to rent this movie for some time... I thought it was
    excellent.
    
    The opening scene was exceptionally gripping.  I was amazed at how they
    captured life in Ireland.  The lack of employment, the drugs, the
    fighting...  As I sat and watched each scene, I recalled a documentary
    I saw on televison about Dublin ... I wonder if things are pretty much
    the same in 1996 - I hope not.
    
    In the movie, I doubted the fact that Gerry Conlon and his father
    shared the same cell in prison and recalled earlier notes mentionning
    the discrepencies between the movie and actual events.  This doesn't
    diminish the fact that they spent 15 years unnecessarily in prison. 
    How awful for the aunt; she served her full sentence of 14 years and
    there were two young lads who also served time (I believe a 4 and 6
    year sentence).  Let's not forget, there were others implicated as
    well.  I would have to catch the scene where they sentence each member
    other than the famous "four".
    
    I will certainly look for Paul Hill's account in "Stolen Years". 
    Having seen the movie, I am interestes in what actually happened.
    
    PChaplinsky