Photosales
niJobfinder
niCarfinder
Home Delivery
Propertynews
1916 movie ‘will not glorify violence’
Monday, 20 April 2009
It is the 1916 Easter Rising but not as we know it.
With Guy Pearce as James Connolly and Ian Hart as Thomas Clarke, Hollywood is set to bring Padraig Pearse and his fellow revolutionaries to the big screen.
But not everyone is happy at the prospect with one leading historian, Queen’s University Belfast Professor of Politics Paul Bew, warning that the Hollywood treatment of 1916 could be exploited by dissident republicans opposed to the peace process.
Prof Bew expressed his fear that the movie would be too simplistic in its depiction of events.
“I hope this film doesn’t resort to the same old simplistic cliches of ‘we, the Brits, and our imperialist guilt and what we did to the Irish',” he said.
“The circumstances surrounding Easter 1916 were much more complicated than that."
But Nicola Charles, the producer of the $25 million Easter Sixteen, has defended the script written by Brendan Foley, denying that it romanticises violence.
"It's a film that has to be made and Foley has spent 14 years working on the script. The film is really the prequel to Michael Collins. Our final scene is their opening scene.
“It’s a human interest story and in no way does it glorify violence. It's not about violence and revolution.
“It is about hope and heroism," she said.
Prof Bew raised his fear that modern-day dissidents might take their lead from the characters in the movie.
"They - the dissidents - can surely say, 'Well, we may be so-called micro groups but we have an historic legitimacy as saviours of the nation',” he said.
“One would hope that such an irony of our history would not be missed but I wonder."
- Text Size
Also in this section
- Carpet rolled out for Bafta awards
- Radcliffe on his short man syndrome
- Dermot: I still get starstruck
- Sandra Bullock: I'm more picky now
Marc
When you approach a subject like this from a position of ignorance then you are bound to make a fool of yourself. The men of 1916 are heros as are the Irish who perished as cannon fodder at the somme, sent by a British government who viewed them as 'expendible' second class citizens....... Are you Mickey in disguise?
Posted by mark | 21.04.09, 16:03 GMT
You're right sol, the heroes of the B Specials and UDR who put on uniforms and went out to defend the whole community are much more deserving of a movie than sectarian cowards who hid behind secret organisations and sneaked out to murder people in cold blood. Not everyone is taken in by republican propaganda.
Posted by Pete | 21.04.09, 15:10 GMT
Don't go and see the movie if it's going to annoy you, but my point really is to Mihe that Britain is not a nation but a collection of nations.
Posted by JOhn | 21.04.09, 13:48 GMT
re sols comment if you check YOUR history the ulster and irish men who fought in ww1 fought side by side catholic and protestant and dissenter they fought together NOT the sectarian ira who fought a terrorist war are you that blinded by republican propaganda even when the uprising had finished and ireland gained independance they still were not happy and killed more fellow irish men in a civil war including michael collins i suppose he was another cog in the british war machine you should take a trip to the somme and look at the thousands of true irish and ulster graves maybe then you would understand
Posted by marc | 21.04.09, 12:16 GMT
Marc, this is why this movie should be made so that others can see how the Irish (especially Catholics) were treated as second class citizens in their own country by a foreign government. If you don't like the subject matter, you have the option not to see it.
Posted by Mary | 20.04.09, 17:36 GMT
Marc....in answer to your message posted below. maybe they should instead make a film about the brave and proud Black & Tans or even better the 'b' specials..why stop there we could even include the udr, ruc....etc etc...get the point? If you are going to get all high and mighty then at least look at your own history in full first.
Posted by Sol | 20.04.09, 16:53 GMT
While the men at the somme deserved to be remembered, they were not fighting for their own freedom. They were fighting "so that small nations might be free". They fought in an imperialist war. The irony being that Britain fought for the freedom of some small nations whilst imprisoning others.
The men of '16 were not treacherous rebels they were brave men who believed in a blood sacrifice for Ireland, they fought knowing that they would not win but future generations would.
Posted by Patrick | 20.04.09, 16:49 GMT
hope this film gives a true account of 1916 and explains while our brave Irish sons were fighting for freedom at home treacherous irishmen were fighting with the enemy killing fellow irishmen and foreigners abroad
Posted by Tom | 20.04.09, 14:42 GMT
Michael, Britain has been about as a nation much longer than 1916. what on earth are you talking about?
Posted by MiHe | 20.04.09, 14:07 GMT
the men of 1916 were the founders of this great nation, to call them treacherous rebels is as insulting as it is pure ignorant
Posted by michael | 20.04.09, 13:31 GMT
More Oirish American rubbish no doubt. A lot of naff accents and Enya music coming up.
Posted by MiHe | 20.04.09, 12:52 GMT
hope this film gives a true account of 1916 and explains while our brave ulster and irish sons were fighting for freedom at the somme treacherous rebels were killing fellow irishmen at home
Posted by marc | 20.04.09, 10:54 GMT