“it was the most irresponsible bit of filmmaking”

Channel Five made a change to their planned schedule this evening. At 9pm they had been intending to broadcast the 1997 film The Devil’s Own – in which Harrison Ford plays an Irish-American cop who agonises over whether he should turn in his new lodger, Brad Pitt, to the authorities when he learns that Pitt is an IRA gunman on a mission to buy weapons. Obviously viewers might have been confused about which IRA was involved..

, , , , ,

  • Ben

    Seems like a reasonable decision to me, there are bereaved and upset extended and regimental families out there. On the other hand, it would have been defensible to show it anyway, very few people would have been too upset by it. A free and unscared society demands that the show go on…

  • It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it

    It has been a source of some consternation for the British that those outside of Britain often insisted on seeing the Britsh as the bad guys in relation to Norn Iron. All sorts of explantions are offered for this from the igonarance of those expressing opinions to the wicked propapganda of Republicans. Of course there is a simpler explanation but due to its unpalatbility it rarely seems to be explored.

    re. Different tpes of IRA – yes it can get very confusing and the same confusion can arise with a national army when they are deployed in different countries. In Northern Ireland most soldiers are not in combat with the local community( well not any more) and yet the same soldiers can then go to another foreign country like Iraq and before you can say “lets bomb those damnable fuzzy wuzzies” they are in engaged in all sorts of violent activiites – well how confusing is that.

  • LURIG

    Just Norn Iron Sammy? How dare those ungrateful wogs in America, India, Hong Kong, Singapore, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and every other British controlled colony demand the right to rule themselves. It is just not cricket old boy what what what! See that Mel Gibson, how dare he make films exposing the truth and facts about violent British colonial terrorism which portrays God’s nation as bloodthirsty War Criminals. It’s all Republican propoganda!

  • Gregory

    “See that Mel Gibson, how dare he make films exposing the truth and facts about violent British colonial terrorism which portrays God’s nation as bloodthirsty War Criminals.”

    One of my antecedents, Colonel Fitzwiliam Gardiner Wickham, was half Hessian on his mother’s side, he was a depraved butcher on his own account,

    when the Americans pointed out, that they would ask for no separate peace in soliditary with their French colleagues, but they could ‘offer’ a separate peace,

    that not being explicitly gainsayed by the common enterprise & association of gentlemen in arms.

    Colonel Wickham had tears running his cheeks, the Americans patriots, were as conniving and bad assed trick infested as he was.

  • Harry Flashman

    “Mel Gibson, how dare he make films exposing the truth and facts about violent British colonial terrorism”

    No one is seriously putting forward the notion that Mel Gibson’s movies are historically accurate are they?

    I mean come on, as action movies go they’re as good as Die Hard, and just about as believable.

  • Rory Carr

    The sympathetic portrayal of IRA men in movies is easily explained by the simple demand of plot dynamics. A protagonist in conflict must be seen to be fighting against the odds. Sometimes the plot demands that he prevail other times that he perish, albeit not before finding an inner peace.

    Given the balance of forces in Ireland the IRA man naturally comes to the fore as such a character. We can hardly sustain credibility with a plot that portrays plucky little Tommy with all his fortified barracks and helicopters and tanks and armoured cars being shown as some kind of Zapata figure now can we? Not even Willie McCrea would swallow that. Though, on second thoughts, David Vance might.

  • It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it

    Rory,

    also it is far easier for film makers to appeal to the an audience when the film maker’s sympathies are in line with those of the audience. Britain as an imperial power, is a difficult postion in this regard, when many countries who are to fore in film making the US, India and of course to a lesser extent Ireland are former colonies.

    Many might see this as a form or poetic or cinematic justice and it is perhaps an indication of how much work is yet to be done to help Britain to come to terms with her extremely violent historical past.

  • Smug O’ Toole

    in which Harrison Ford plays an Irish-American cop who agonises over whether he should turn in his new lodger, Brad Pitt, to the authorities when he learns that Pitt is an IRA gunman on a mission to buy weapons.
    Agonises? Have you even seen the movie? The minute he finds out what Brad is doing he’s chasing and shooting and arresting him all over the place.

    For the sake of parity of esteem, Brad should be made play the role of a loyalist, trying against the odds to sell heroin and extort money in a world turned upside down. He already had a wee bit of practice at this role in the movie Snatch, where he played a knaker.

    Are we to expect a blog entry for Zulu the next time its on? Surely a movie which glorifies the slaughter of indigenous peoples fighting for freedom in their own land would warrant such a thing?

  • Jimmy Sands

    Showing the film would have risked causing incalculable offence to people who like films.

  • Danny O’Connor

    I am not sure that it would have caused any more offence than the numerous times Martin was on admitting is IRA past and Gerry well…..