Skip to main content

We’ve been dropping the British Empire for the last six months!

In the Name of the Father
(1993)

(SPOILERS) The trouble with the Troubles is that they tend to make for rather dreary, respectable, eggshell-treading fare. Unless, of course, they’re entering into full-blown genre territory (Hidden Agenda, ’71; there’s a film to be made about the funding of the various paramilitary organisations and their infiltration, but that puts you squarely in the kind of terrorism territory Hollywood wouldn’t want to touch). Barring the odd, unfathomable decision to make a Fiddy Cent movie, Jim Sheridan has mostly spent his cinematic career charting the Irish experience in various forms and settings, several of which relate to the repercussions of British rule (this, Some Mother’s Son and Bloody Sunday). In the Name of the Father has going for it the “wrongly imprisoned” subgenre, and its intentions are at least laudable, but its failing is that that of an over-emotive cry for attention, one emblazoned with big names before the camera and across the soundtrack, while flagrantly sacrificing forensic detail at the altar of outrage.

Indeed, there’s almost a wilful “Now they’re proved innocent, we’re not behoved to document the facts” approach in prioritising empathic dues. The crux of the movie, from that perspective, is Gerry Conlon (Daniel Day Lewis) sharing prison time with dad Giuseppe (Pete Postlethwaite); they never actually did, and they were commonly held in separate prisons to boot. Joe McAndrew (Don Baker) was invented. Likewise, Gareth Peirce (the very luvvie Emma Thompson) represented Gerry, not Giuseppe, meaning the dramatic mistake that turns the case (she is handed Gerry’s file in error), makes for a grand movie moment but a less than accurate one (Peirce, as solicitor, didn’t appear in court either, but that’s a less egregious sleight of hand, on the overall scale). Notably, producer Gabriel Byrne – who initially considered starring – publicly expressed that he wasn’t so keen on the numerous changes.

If changes go to make a dramatically better movie, fair enough – this is a dramatisation, not a documentary – but Sheridan must surely have been aware any significant diversion from the record would be a minefield, that the movie would be scrutinised particularly closely, and that such an approach might well get in the way of the main point: documenting a heinous stitch-up, whereby none of those perverting the course of justice were brought to justice themselves (nevertheless, In the Name of the Father went on to earn a Best Picture Oscar nomination – an arena where inaccuracies are often the meat and potatoes of poisonous counter-campaigns – and the second most popular movie ever, at the time, in Ireland).

Instead of proving dramatically satisfying, though, and thus to an extent mitigating its fabrications, In the Name of the Father offers a succession of overstatements. One might reasonably have assumed the bare bones of the case would have been incendiary enough. In the conception of Sheridan and co-writer Terry George, Gerry is a scally and dad is a saint. Their generational conflict is inelegantly crowbarred into conversation at every opportunity, be it dad berating an acid-addled Gerry or Gerry throwing churlish tantrums at his parent: “Why do you always follow me when I do something wrong?” It’s Steptoe and Son, but with fewer laughs.

Particularly absurd is his anecdote of dad’s illness from “working in the paint shed”: “You’ve been a victim all your life”. Giuseppe has no sides; he’s there solely to wilt nobly. Which may or may not reflect the actual man, but it makes for a less than stimulating screen pairing, and so fails to justify the expediency (I should stress that Postlethwaite was a great actor, so none of this is on him).

There's a frequent reliance on broad strokes to stimulate cheap drama, be it the hissable establishment or Gerry’s moral dawning when a prison warden (John Benfield) is set alight. Once Peirce is involved, every scene becomes a variation on Emma looking earnest and Daniel acting indignant. Later, the more dedicated but frustrated Gerry winds himself up in audio tape; because Sheridan lacks the necessary register, the scene simply comes off as faintly ridiculous. As opposed to a heartrending depiction of a man unravelling (perhaps too, in that sense, the metaphor is a little on the nose).

Sheridan employs Hendrix, Dylan and the Stones on the soundtrack early in the proceedings, along with a ’60s fashion dress-up box approach straight out of Austin Powers; such choices further distinguish the starkness of the material from the fictionalisation of its presentation. Squatter Gerry instantly falls in with the impossible-looking Saffron Burrows as an irresistible hippy chick (also present is Highlander’s Beatie “Aye, Blossom” Edney as Carole Richardson). There are some fine actors filling the ranks – John Lynch, Corin Redgrave, Tom Wilkinson – but also one-time bookies’ favourite Doctor Who Paterson Joseph, employing a hilarious Jamaican accent straight out of The Lenny Henry Show.

Dedicated Day-Lewis did three days of method incarceration and interrogation in preparation for the part. Rather than a truly method fifteen years’ hard time. He’s fine as Gerry at 35 – not so much as a twenty-year-old – but his efforts often fall at the hurdle of Sheridan’s melodramatic approach to character and dialogue. According to Richard O’Rawe, writer of In the Name of the Son, “Conlon found the film (partly because of its untruths but also because of its truths, particularly Pete Postlethwaite’s uncanny impersonation of Guiseppe) so painful he probably never watched it through”. The Maguires were not best pleased at not being consulted, and Sheridan soon became used to weathering the storms of discontent: “I was accused of lying in In the Name of the Father, but the real lie was saying it was a film about the Guildford Four when really it was about a non-violent parent”.

Sheridan turned the debate into a political/national one, and I don’t doubt some of the objections had such a basis, but nevertheless: “Well, the truth is -- here's what goes on. I got attacked in England for changing the facts, you know. And I said to them eventually, ‘What?’ and they said, ‘Well, for putting the father and the son in the same prison.’ I said, ‘By putting them in the same cell, I made you look more humane than you were, and you're mad at me for making you look humane.’ So you've got to think of what that tells you”. Indeed you do. It’s a weak defence, really, the whataboutery of saying the fault is with the accusers, who have a record, and just look what they did, rather than addressing the point.

What you get with In the Name of the Father is a package: an authorised adaptation of Conlon’s autobiography (Proved Innocent); an Oscar-winning actor and an Oscar-nominated director working together again (and getting nominated again); Brand Oirish contributions from Bono and Sinead. Maybe Sheridan’s right, and all that and his finessing, were legitimate, ensuring In the Name of the Father reached a wider audience than it otherwise would (in contrast, Some Mother’s Son made limited impact): “I think that film will have proved to have done a lot of good”.

Whether or not that’s the case, it’s symptomatic of a picture that’s at best worthy rather than vital or supremely compelling. There’s more grit here than in The Trial of the Chicago 7, but Gerry striding across courtroom benches in vindication is straight from the same textbook; Aaron Sorkin likely approved. Sheridan would later give the War on Terror a familial spin, and one might argue such digressions from the central issue are problematic in themselves, failing to examine the underlying situation and thus indirectly supporting or airbrushing the overlying narrative. In the Name of the Father, like My Left Foot before it, made quite a splash, but its stature as a piece of filmmaking, above and beyond any concerns over its authenticity, reflects an eye for material tailor made to stir a primal response rather than a considered one.


Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

Tippy-toe! Tippy-toe!

Seinfeld 2.7: The Phone Message The Premise George and Jerry both have dates on the same night. Neither goes quite as planned, and in George’s case it results in him leaving an abusive message on his girlfriend’s answerphone. The only solution is to steal the tape before she plays it. Observational Further evidence of the gaping chasm between George and Jerry’s approaches to the world. George neurotically attacks his problems and makes them worse, while Jerry shrugs and lets them go. It’s nice to see the latter’s anal qualities announcing themselves, however; he’s so bothered that his girlfriend likes a terrible TV advert that he’s mostly relieved when she breaks things off (“ To me the dialogue rings true ”). Neither Gretchen German (as Donna, Jerry’s date) nor Tory Polone (as Carol, George’s) make a huge impression, but German has more screen time and better dialogue. The main attraction is Jerry’s reactions, which include trying to impress her with hi