MovieChat Forums > '71 (2014) Discussion > Let's talk about the bomb

Let's talk about the bomb

posted 10 years ago by Gambit8234
37 replies | jump to latest

This post is only for those who have already seen the movie.

I'm curious as to the thoughts of others - did the head undercover officer intend for that bomb to go off in the Protestant pub, or not?
When it did go off, I immediately thought this guy's a double agent. Later, he seems remorseful, and even mentions having trained them on how to handle a bomb.
Also, he sends his 2nd in command back to the pub to find Gary - which would make me think he didn't want the bomb to go off, otherwise he wouldn't have asked his 2nd in command to go back in. OR - maybe he knew it was a matter of time and didn't want Gary to die.
It could really go either way - thoughts?

[–] Ambrosia-I 10 years ago

I thought it was entirely accidental. The unionist would-be bombers in the film were portrayed as being clumsy and rather amateurish so I never for a moment thought it was anything other than a very ugly and tragic accident. I've certainly heard of bombers being blown up by their own devices on the news more than once.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] andyd-1 9 years ago

they were basically taking care with the bomb though, which was obviously designed to be moved around. They did, as you'd expect, have a bit of a fumble with it.

Before they were putting the bomb in the bag, it showed a close up of the clock, and I wondered if it was deliberately timed to explode early.

So it could go either way, another brilliant thing about the film.

[–] The_Dougster 8 years ago

I thought it was entirely accidental. The unionist would-be bombers in the film were portrayed as being clumsy and rather amateurish so I never for a moment thought it was anything other than a very ugly and tragic accident. I've certainly heard of bombers being blown up by their own devices on the news more than once.

Quite true. In Northern Ireland, those occurrences were referred to as "own goals". And that's what this looked like to me. You heard the one guy say "CAREFUL" to the other one as he just sort of dropped the bomb into a box rather carelessly.

[–] Depleted 10 years ago

Perhaps you need to watch a simpler film like lion king?

[–] Gambit8234 10 years ago

The Lion King is deep, and poses many questions. Like: how did they get the lions to talk so good?

[–] Anrkey 10 years ago

James Earl Jones.

[–] SupeRed09 10 years ago

Respect. That's how you deal with trolls!

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware this is the Internet BOOK Database.

[–] Jimbo_BSD 10 years ago

The Lion King is based on Hamlet. Sooooo maybe you should shut the fck up.

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

You think TLK is a simple film? It's based on one of the darkest of Shakespeare's plays and one of the best if not the best animated film.

[–] waswasere 10 years ago

It wouldn't make sense for him to be a double agent other than to deliberately create a plot device and '71 is pretty much played straight.

Army intelligence collusion with the UDA and UDF is well documented as is a claim that 1 in 4 of IRA members were informers. The bomb was meant to be "turned" by the intelligence officers on a nationalist target.

You are meant to get from that scene that the intelligence officer wanted Gary dead to cover their tracks, as was played out later.

"I know it looked like I fell... but it was all part of my plan!"

[–] MrMcArony 10 years ago

I doubt the IRA couldve lasted for 30 years with not only at least 50% of the population, the NI police force, the British army and MI6 on their tails, but also 25% of their own membership ...

[–] andyd-1 9 years ago

yeah but he was playing people off against each other and setting people up to kill/be killed - Quinn for example

[–] Area-51-Resident 10 years ago

Agreed.

They had no bomb making experience and were using the guy's alarm clock as the trigger. I can see a few ways it might have detonated prematurely:

1) The glass cover had been removed and the hands were exposed. If they touched due to rough handling that could have triggered the bomb.
2) The explosive wasn't secured to anything, could have shifted and contacted the power source.
3) It looked like "gray sweater guy" touched/moved one of the clock hands or the alarm on/off lever just before packing it up.

It was an accident waiting to happen.

[–] cracked_machine 10 years ago

I will be honest I laughed at the joke beforehand:

"How are you gonna get up tomorrow?"
"What do you mean?"
*nods to clock attached to bomb*
"Well, you ain't getting your alarm clock back are you?"

I'm a bad person.

[–] SupeRed09 10 years ago

Yep an intentional joke, I laughed too!

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware this is the Internet BOOK Database.

[–] marizata 10 years ago

Accident or not, that intelligence guy is corrupt and he tries to kill the soldier in the end anyway, so why not try it directly at the pub? It makes sense.

[–] benman46 10 years ago

It is quite obvious he is corrupt.

[–] billyblackwood 10 years ago

The Brit intelligence officers were not corrupt, maybe cold hearted though. They had a job to do as soldiers, and that was disrupt the IRA by supporting the younger and more reckless IRA members. The old guard IRA were not as radical, but much more organized and dangerous to the Loyalists. The Brits wanted to wipe the IRA problem off the map in northern Ireland. What better way than fighting a bunch of inexperienced kids? Unfortunately the plan backfired on them "Bloody Sunday 72" and the rest is history.

[–] MalibuBohemian 10 years ago

Ehhh...Brit intell was pretty corrupt. Lots of stuff now on collusion between the British government, Army, UVA, UDF, UVF, UDR, you name it.

[–] Demarates 10 years ago

It was unintentional.

The Loyalists were supposed to use it against the IRA, but they were clumsy and blew up their own place.

When I'm gone I would like something to be named after me. A psychiatric disorder, for example.

[–] mpt-90456 10 years ago

I thought it was intentional; an IRA bomb blowing up a Loyalist pub to stir up tit for tat reprisals. Like the dealings between the MRF and Doyle...Doyle wants the MRF to get rid of Quinn, but the MRF decide to spare Quinn and tell him to get rid of Doyle. Playing all sides against each other in a very clandestine conflict. And they tried to kill Hook as well...

[–] looker7 10 years ago

Watched '71 for the first time a couple of nights ago -- very enjoyable and well made film, imo -- and my thoughts were that it was an accident on the Loyalist paramilitaries'/MRF's part; when they were placing the bomb into the bag, you could clearly see and hear an unintentional jolt due to clumsy handling by one of the guys, whereupon his colleague looked at him in a disapproving and somewhat angry way. To further support the notion that it was indeed an accident, there is a scene in the immediate aftermath of the pub explosion featuring a speeding car full of British soldiers and MRF guys, and the Scottish Corporal guy says something along the lines of, "Fuqqin' clumsy b@$tards!"

Just my thoughts.

[–] TRinzler 10 years ago

I thought it was intentional;

I remember Browning telling Lewis to "go in there and bring him out NOW" while they were talking at the car after he had handed over Hook's dog tags. I assumed this was because they'd rigged the bomb to blow ASAP. Lewis says "Something else..."

There were also several closeup shots of the trigger mechanism which might have been included to suggest it was set to go off early.

We later see the IRA - both Quinn and Doyle - arguing aout who was responsible for it hence I suspect it was intentionally set off (by the MRF) to stir up loyalist hatred.

Alternatively, it could be BOTH/EITHER. The MRF give the Loyalists am I.E.D to use it against Republicans but if it goes off early by accident then the IRA gets the blame, so they win either way...