Tuesday, April 14, 2009
It’s pointless to fear the power of myth in the movies
Historian Paul Bew’s warning that that the forthcoming movie Easter Sixteen could unwittingly feed the current drive by the violent republicans to re-establish themselves is whistling in the wind. It has to be faced: striking parallels exist which raise the familiar charges of contemporary betrayal. Those who are susceptible to the Real and CIRA’s arguments will rightly treat denial as a sign of evasive weakness. Instead, it should be easily admitted that the 1916 story is a stonking tale. It contains a terrific narrative and at least 16 brilliant major human interest stories which anyone with red blood in their veins and an imagination can identify with. Honest appreciation of the power of the story is the best defence against subversion. Does a deep fascination with the American Civil War make me a racist?
There’s no point in denying the force and appeal of the cause which according to one theory, has yet to be fulfilled. According to another theory though, the popular will of the people of Ireland has now been achieved. The thing about popular will which political romantics chose to ignore, is that no test of popular will is definitive forever. It’s the continual testing that counts – not that the men of 1916 ever put their proclamation to the popular test anyway; at the time, and without the threat of conscription,they would have lost, almost certainly. Facing the story and the myths head on is both truer and better than denial and is a sign of a self-confident democracy. Do we match up yet? Two quiet questions might occur to the romantics : do we want to go through all that again? And what was the fate of the dissident movements post –1922, when voters clearly decided enough was enough?
By the way, the dramatic treatment of 1916 I’d like to see is maybe a perverse one, one on the thoughts of Sir Matthew Nathan the Under Secretary, feeling very personally exposed as he receives the news of the shooting of the guard at the entrance to Dublin Castle, and as he was already coping with his frustration at the refusal of the Chief Secretary Augustine Birrell to come to Dublin as the contradictory on-off rumours flew, because he was engrossed in reading a novel in England. The story of the fall of an old regime is often as gripping as the rise as of a new one.
On the Rising itself, it’s taken as read - and remarkably was so at the time – that the immediate executions by firing squad of the 15 – was a serious mistake by any measure. The PM Asquith was regarded as typically dilatory by failing to press for a halt sooner. On the other hand, what other state would have limited its most drastic punishment to 15, at a time when hundreds of thousands had already been killed in the most terrible war in historical memory?
BTW2 - My fear of an easy thriller was laid to rest when I actually saw the movie “Fifty Dead Men Walking” based loosely on the story of Martin McGartland. With whatever the reservations of those most involved, it has the ring of essential authenticity about the mixed motives, the clash of relationships and causes and the mutual ruthlessness involved in how the grip of the informers strategy inexorably bore down on the paramilitaries, leaving a legacy of exhaustion mixed with recrimination which we ignore at our peril today.
Brian Walker @ 08:26 AM
Re this subject, see ‘Rebirth of the reel IRA
Do films on the Troubles illuminate or just inflame?’ in The Times last week -
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6073303.ece
- Danny MorrisonPosted by on Apr 14, 2009 @ 10:28 AMDan, nice to see your still about, I feared you had gone down with arthritis in your keyboard fingers.
Posted by on Apr 14, 2009 @ 10:41 AM“And what was the fate of the dissident movements post –1922,”
One of them became Fianna Fail; another became Provisional Sinn Fein ....
Posted by on Apr 14, 2009 @ 11:00 AM“Honest appreciation of the power of the story is the best defence against subversion.”
How often is cinematic entertainment an “honest appreciation”? It will all depend on the final product. Hollywood also has form.
Films may not always impact but some do and not always good ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation#Responses
It is widely credited with assisting the rebirth of the KKK.Even modern mainstream films have issues:
“For some the raw power of the William Wallace story as depicted on the big screen was too much. At one multiplex in Falkirk, managers had to phone the police when cinema-goers started shouting anti-English bile at the screen. Either by accident or design, the police control room managed to send the only constable in the central force who happened to be English. Cue two arrests for breach of the peace and assaulting a police officer.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article546776.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1Even mainstream parties sometimes try to take advantage, the SNP even launched a recruitment campaign around Braveheart.
“Does a deep fascination with the American Civil War make me a racist?”
Application of the personal to the broad is a flawed approach for analysis.
Posted by on Apr 14, 2009 @ 11:12 AMBrian
One also has to accept that ‘historians’ have their own agenda. None of us approach such topics narrative-free. Bew has form in this regard, and his almost hysterical reaction to the Michael Collins film several years ago is a case in point.
Film makers will do what they do. I’ve enjoyed countless movies which were based on the highly dubious premise of Americans/ British/ Cowboys good, Russians/ Native Americans & Others bad (btw- I’m a real sucker for Cold War Spy thrillers, in print and on screen.)
With regard to the historical context, there are many political traditions in Ireland today who celebrate the Easter Rising and who are quite comfortable with their narrative of the subsequent development of their political tradition vis-a-vis armed struggle against the British forces.
I’ve never been comfortable with ‘neatly’ defined historical narratives like that which suggests 1916 was doomed to utter failure until the executions occurred. Yes, there may have been opposition initially from many residents of Dublin, and of course the executions sparked outrage across the Irish Nation.
But, crucially, I don’t think that alone would have sustained an armed campaign against the occupying British forces without a deeper rooted desire of the vast majority of the Irish people to support the pursuit of Irish freedom, and, for enough, by any means necessary- not least since the Protestant unionists of the North had armed themselves by that stage and in the context of increasing frustration with the failed parliamentary campaign.
Of course, we’ll never know because interpreting history is an open-ended endeavour.
The idea that ‘romantic’ notions spurred on the pursuit of Irish independence has always been greatly exaggerated by those most critical of the cause of Irish independence. Regarding the post-1969 conflict, such a narrative ignores the reality that it was the experience of the Irish nationalist community in the Six Counties during the post-partition era which sustained support for the republican cause and narrative.
It is the ending of the ‘nationalist nightmare’ (not often I’ll quote Garret Fitzgerald..) with all that entails for the death of the Orange State and development of a shared state which will ensure the activities of dissident republicans are doomed to failure. From a mainstream republican perspective, that brings with it the not inconsiderable challenge of promoting the cause of greater unity within the country.
But it is an infinitely preferable position to be in and course of action than that on offer from the dissident republican movement, and it is that essential truth which will ensure the demise of armed actions in the north.
Posted by on Apr 14, 2009 @ 11:23 AMOK Fair Deal. Does a deep fascination with the American civil war necessarily make anyone a racist? Application of the personal to the broad when the meaning is clear does no harm at all. Come to think if it, generalising on the basis of one showing of one movie means.. what exactly? But ok, I get your point. As do you mine. Let’s not perversely fail to understand the points being made. I specifically didn’t deny the potency of movie story telling, just the fear of it. There are enough genuine misunderstandings in the world…
Posted by on Apr 14, 2009 @ 11:30 AM...and Chris, all fair enough. We can all quibble with any single-sentence conclusion about 1916 or post 1969 or any raw historical or contentious contemporary issue. I have no intention of doing so here!
Posted by on Apr 14, 2009 @ 11:37 AMI blogged about this topic too, Brian, after I saw ‘Hunger’ and came across the Paul Bew article. Directors have to be very careful but I think Bew is being a bit alarmist.
A comment on history and cinema
Posted by on Apr 14, 2009 @ 01:11 PMThe problem for Unionism and the right wing press in Britain is that invariably fictional/factional account of events in Ireland(and most other country’s) lead to a negative portrayal of the British and a positive portrayal of whatever insurgency was going on at the time. With film this is particularly so, and it’s not so much a case of shooting the messenger as shooting the medium.
The reason behind this is not some dreadful anti-British plot dreamt up by fenian loving Holywood but just that imperialism and the throttling of smaller countries has at least for the time being gone out of fashion.
But Paul Bew may well be right, people who view this film may well conclude that irrespective of the prevailing view (shared by my goodself) that opting for violence to rid the country of the evil Englezes is not justified nor sensible, and they may well decide to join the current bunch of irregulars - but that is just the price we have to pay for living in a democracy and the probably the inevitable legacy of Britian’s imperial past and ongoing presence in Ireland.
Brian, Re. “On the other hand, what other state would have limited its most drastic punishment to 15, at a time when hundreds of thousands had already been killed in the most terrible war in historical memory?”
I have always loved the logic of that argument – it reminds me of the Chinese tale of the old man who has his house broken into and all his goods stolen and then when the robber is about to leave he lectures the man on how lucky he is that his friend, who is not as reasonable as himself, has not accompanied him on the robbery. So to the allegations of ingratitude ? we Irish are guilty as charged.
Posted by on Apr 14, 2009 @ 01:14 PMBrian
Does a deep fascination with the American Civil War make me a racist?
How could it?
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/for-the-union-dead/
Posted by on Apr 14, 2009 @ 01:26 PM“Does a deep fascination with the American civil war necessarily make anyone a racist?”
Automatically no potentially yes because race is one of the issues involved in those historical events. Therefore, it depends on what aspects of the War between the States fascinate the individual and what lessons they believe are to be drawn.
Posted by on Apr 14, 2009 @ 01:30 PMAs to the incomparable visual historian of the first civil war fought between irishmen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1QRXtEBiYI
Posted by on Apr 14, 2009 @ 01:32 PMBrian,
Not whistling in the wind. Either whistling in the dark or pissing in the wind.Posted by on Apr 14, 2009 @ 01:47 PMSammy, Disapproval rising to outrage at the executions of the 15 extended far beyond the nationalist Irish. It lay deep in the British establishment, although their reaction times were slower in those days than they might be now. The point isn’t a matter of logic in an argument; it’s a free standing historical reflection that I think speaks quite well of the sensibilities of the establishment at a time when they might have become more brutalised by the horrors of WW1. Concern about US opinion played a part, yet only two years before, members of the Liberal cabinet resigned rather than fight a war they disapproved of on semi-pacifist grounds. It would be hard to imagine that happening today. Since WW1 and 2, in some ways we live in harsher, coarser times, although the evidence is mixed. I happen to think this a fascinating historical topic. You could say it was a huge pity that anti- execution opinion under what may have been martial law (there’s a dispute about whether it was under martial law or the wartime Defence of the Realm Act) wasn’t pre-empted. Events might be been somewhat different…. although I agree that the executions may not have been quite the big turning point some say they were..
Posted by on Apr 14, 2009 @ 02:00 PMBrian
What was the premise for declaration of WW1?
Belgian neutrality (self-determination) Treaty of London 1839
Small Catholic country with a few Prods gets invaded by big militaristic neighbour.
No parallels there then.
Posted by on Apr 14, 2009 @ 02:19 PMBrian,
I was only teasing - I often give birth to a Chinsese proverb to suggest gravitas.
The numbers executed are probably not that important - but rather its the outrage at the British attitude that we did not have the right to take up arms - hence the executions.
The same attitude informs British governmental and public opinion (although probably not the foreign office) in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan where a large percentage of the population objects to their presence and views it as an occupation.
It seems inconcievable, that years after Britain at least tried to rectify its colonial misadventure in ireland via the GFA the attitude that was in evidence in 1916 could at least be partly responsible for the disaster that was the invasion of Iraq almost a century later.
Posted by on Apr 14, 2009 @ 02:29 PM“members of the Liberal cabinet resigned rather than fight a war they disapproved of on semi-pacifist grounds. It would be hard to imagine that happening today”
Maybe a bit unduly harsh on today’s politicians -Robin Cook’s and the belated Clare Short resignations over the second gulf war?
Posted by on Apr 14, 2009 @ 02:32 PMFair Deal
If Robin Cook had been a man of principle he would have resigned from the Labour Party as would the quareone from South Armagh.
Posted by on Apr 14, 2009 @ 02:37 PMNice piece Brian.
“On the Rising itself, it’s taken as read - and remarkably was so at the time – that the immediate executions by firing squad of the 15 – was a serious mistake by any measure.”
Only it wasn’t immediate was it? The executions were sort of drip fed over 9 days between May 3rd and May 12th - I’ve often wondered if the staged nature of the executions was as big a factor as the executions themself.Posted by on Apr 14, 2009 @ 02:41 PMInteresting article by Garret FitzGerald
Posted by on Apr 14, 2009 @ 02:49 PMA couple of clips from Irishmen serving in the British Army at the time the Rising took place.
http://www.rte.ie/laweb/ll/ll_t12f.html
Posted by on Apr 14, 2009 @ 02:49 PMChris Donnelly
“But, crucially, I don’t think that alone would have sustained an armed campaign against the occupying British forces without a deeper rooted desire of the vast majority of the Irish people to support the pursuit of Irish freedom
Love the way you use the words occupying and freedom. If you say it often enough it’s like the British invaded, LOL.
Posted by on Apr 14, 2009 @ 03:03 PMDewi. Thanks for the Garret article - well worth reading. I hadn’t seen it before. His argument that the Celtic Tiger wouldn’t have happened without independence took fully 50 years to become viable. The case is not quite water tight. A Home Rule Ireland after 1910 could have devised the education and social partnership policies different from GB’s to which he mainly attributes success. Fair play to him though.
Posted by on Apr 14, 2009 @ 03:07 PMDewi,
Reading that story of Garret’s mother puts me in mind of Roddy Doyle’s jolly japes and sex under the stamp counter in his tales of the Post Office derringdo which is probably one of the worst bits of writing relating to that period - a sort Irish Blackadder except Roddy actually wasn’t kidding.
Posted by on Apr 14, 2009 @ 03:20 PMIreland’s finest period in world history is undeniably the 19th century when it was part of the Union. It became the land of scholars because the Union set it free. Ever since the 1916 rebellion, freedom was lost political and religious servitude.
Posted by on Apr 14, 2009 @ 03:20 PM
