Do I need to know the background before I see it? - '71 (2014) Discussion

[–] cody_lightning 10 years ago

i think the film is meant to bewilder. not in the sense that it done in a confusing way, it's just that hook our protagonist, doesn't really know what to make of everything.

i think that'S what makes it interesting. so, i watched it twice. once with the benefit of being able to drop myself into the story, the other time with being able to understand everyone's motivations a bit better.

if that makes any sense.

the film gives you a good impression of being pushed into a conflict that you know nothing about.

reply

[–] sue-534 10 years ago

Yes. It is very confusing if you don't know the "whys" of the characters.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 10 years ago

Since that time, I've learned some of the background, but certainly not anything comprehensive. My idea was to see '71 and use it as a springboard to learn more. Would I perhaps be better served to learn as much as possible prior to seeing it?

Not especially...
Learning just the absolute basics would be good enough. That was about all most soldiers got when they were sent over there.

reply

[–] ronfirv 10 years ago

The soldiers am sure were given the basics but.........we had the Troubles on our radios, tv's, newspapers, day in day out, and if anyone couldn't pick up the facts of what the dickens was going on over there, then we had a country of dullards. I was barely out of my teens in Scotland and we knew exactly what was happening, and we were all mad as hell, or mad as most Scots can be, and that is pretty darned mad! The anger felt in my part of Scotland was palpable, and that was general, believe me, not restricted to a few. Back then, we would have accepted a coup in Westminster if that is what it would have taken to stop the shambles of that recalcitrant Province.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 10 years ago

The soldiers am sure were given the basics but.........we had the Troubles on our radios, tv's, newspapers, day in day out, and if anyone couldn't pick up the facts of what the dickens was going on over there, then we had a country of dullards.

Speaking as a soldier of that day, albeit toward the end of the affair in the 90s, it was something a lot of us had grown up with but never delved particularly deep into.
We knew people were getting bombed and burned and shot, we knew XYZ faction had claimed responsibility, we knew it was nasty and violent, but we never really knew much of the history behind it and were made to feel stupid if we asked, as by then it was assumed that everyone already knew...

We knew it was something to do with Catholics and Protestants arguing, with us in the middle supporting the RUC.
We knew it was because about a hundred years ago Ireland wanted to be independent from UK rule. Ireland had split, with the UK retaining responsibility for the many British citizens still in NI. Half the people wanted the other half out along with UK rule, while that other half wanted to stay and have us protect them.

It got confusing with the IRA, Official IRA, Real IRA, Provisional IRA, Continuity IRA, and all manner of offshoots, as well as remembering which side the Protestant/Unionist/Loyalists or Catholic/Nationalist/Republicans were which... It was mostly a bunch of terms in two different languages, laid out on a chart for us to try and remember.

All we really knew was that there were these IRA guys who kept bombing our home towns, for some reason and that we had to go get between a bunch of people who were rioting, all while expecting to be randomly shot at any moment.

I was only just 17 when the rest of my battalion was sent over. You had to be 18 or 19 before they'd let you go so I had to stay behind, but I still got much of the prep training everyone else had. I also heard that at least one of the guys I'd trained with had been killed by the 'South Armagh Sniper' teams.

reply

[–] ronfirv 10 years ago

I empathise with your predicament as a teen, yet serving your Nation.
All my friends, family, neighbours, just all had a view and it was 98% pro-Army and we were filled with appallingly negative feelings towards the IRA and their sympathisers. Even now, as I think back, or watch this movie, my old feelings flood back, and I don't relish how they make me feel, even today. The words, "still raw" come to mind.
Can't watch this film a lot to be honest, as I would prefer old hatreds to lie dormant.
Just a middle-aged patriot, ttaskmaster, but thanks all you guys did. Ever, job well done lads. Remain, proud as Punch of all of you.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 10 years ago

I empathise with your predicament as a teen, yet serving your Nation.

To be fair, we never really bought into the Queen And Country stuff. It was a fun job, a good life and something we (generally) wanted to do.

All my friends, family, neighbours, just all had a view and it was 98% pro-Army and we were filled with appallingly negative feelings towards the IRA and their sympathisers.

Aside from those directly affected by IRA activities (as in lost someone to a bombing or shooting), I don't recall much actual hatred as much as general exasperation. Sort of the whole, "Why can't we just have a stand-up fight about it and then go down the pub" kind of mentality. Certainly no-one really had any bad feelings toward the Irish people in general and it was mostly just the IRA types who were being a bunch of pricks.
The guys did often say they felt like they were strangers in a foreign country and that it was quite a depressing, oppressive sort of place.

Just a middle-aged patriot, ttaskmaster, but thanks all you guys did. Ever, job well done lads. Remain, proud as Punch of all of you.

For what it's worth - You're welcome.
I myself never went to NI at that time, though I saw a few things elsewhere a bit later on.

reply

[–] darrenhoey 9 years ago

You should watch the wind that shakes the barley, it shows how the irish rebellion came about. maybe after watching that you can see what led to so much conflict between both sides, both of which have been responsible for some atrocious acts

reply

[–] ozzyland17 10 years ago

We knew it was something to do with Catholics and Protestants arguing, with us in the middle supporting the RUC.

We knew it was because about a hundred years ago Ireland wanted to be independent from UK rule. Ireland had split, with the UK retaining responsibility for the many British citizens still in NI. Half the people wanted the other half out along with UK rule, while that other half wanted to stay and have us protect them.

I was 13 in 71' and in California. I was always a little confused about what was going on in Ireland at the time.

This is the best explanation I have read anywhere, Thanks!

reply

[–] chinaski2323 9 years ago

Wow. You lived there and fought in the army and *you're* confused about it? I feel a lot better as an American (with Irish background) for not getting anything but the total basics of the whole thing. I've never understood how you could even tell a Catholic from a Protestant because here in the U.S. they all look the same, pretty much. I guess there are more cultural differences there tied into religion or something.

Due to that, the film was pretty confusing at times to me. Why did the last guy try to choke him out? Was he a double agent? I had to look up the Fenian's and I still barely understand why the little kid would be anti-IRA. Also I had to download subtitles since the accents were pretty thick.

Even so, it was a pretty cool movie, action-wise.

reply

[–] ronfirv 9 years ago

Religion has nothing but nothing to do with appearances!!
I am not Irish but was told many years ago by an Irish acquaintance of mine (from the North) that sometimes one can tell from the surnames of either a Protestant or RC.

The kid was anti-RC as that is how he was brought up. Back then, and to a large extent even today, areas of cities are split between RC and Protestant housing areas. (Not the case now in mainland UK).

reply

[–] pjpoconnell 10 years ago

If you English and Scots had stayed in England and Scotland instead of going to Ireland and taking the land of the Irish people and persecuting Catholics, there would not have been any Troubles. You want mad, try going through what the Irish people went through under Cromwell, the Penal Acts, the Famine, etc.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Theo Robertson 10 years ago

One person you Oirish should have listened to was an Englishman called Thomas Paine who wrotte if you're going to have a revolution then have one that ends in a democracy where church and state is separated . His manifestos are what the modern states of America and France are built upon . Instead of that the Irish voted in a plastic paddy from New York called De Valera who thought the opposite of what Paine and any intelligent progressive person who believes what democracy is about - he joined church and state . It's not famine or the black and tans the Irish have to worry about - it's the priests

reply

[–] Generationbetrayed 10 years ago

America isn't democratic. It's a republic. I sympathize with the IRA. Either get rid of borders all over the world, or keep your *beep* armies in your own country.

reply

[–] katjoeus 9 years ago

A republic is by definition democratic. That's the whole point!!
"A republic (from Latin: res publica) is a sovereign state or country which is organised with a form of government in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body"

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 10 years ago

If you English and Scots had stayed in England and Scotland instead of going to Ireland and taking the land of the Irish people and persecuting Catholics, there would not have been any Troubles.

If you Irish had stayed as Celtic tree-hugging druidic types, instead of being brainwashed by the child-abusing religion from Italy, we'd likely be discussing something far more pleasant!

Then again, if you Irish'd not been trying to invade and enslave the Britons, the English would have stayed at home in/around Denmark.

You want mad, try going through what the Irish people went through under Cromwell, the Penal Acts, the Famine, etc.

And yet England has historically been the largest employer of the Irish, with a good percentage of the UK built by them, so I'd say they've done pretty well out of England overall...! 

reply

[–] pjpoconnell 10 years ago

More accurately, England has benefited greatly from the (underpaid) labor of the Irish!

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 10 years ago

I'm not aware that she was Irish! (We're talking about Ireland, not Spain or the Spanish or half-Spanish.)

She was a Catholic who persecuted Protestants, one of many, which was teh point being made.

More accurately, England has benefited greatly from the (underpaid) labor of the Irish!

Accounts suggest they were in fact well paid, judging by the sorts of salaries around at the time, actually!
Navvies in particular got a good deal and were paid daily. However, they were also well-known for being big drinkers, with a reputation for spending most of it on ale and not having enough for food, to the point where companies had to issue them food tokens.

The Famine, you say?
That was primarily a naturally-occurring agricultural disease that wiped out the potato crop. It was happening all over Europe, but only hit Ireland disproportionately because so much of the population relied on potatoes for food.
Things were further worsened because Ireland's farm-owning and merchant peeps insisted on exporting it's grains instead of retaining it for the poor, because it was a money crop not a food crop for them.
There were also large shipments of aid food coming in from as far as India, but the ruling Irish class did not properly distribute it, while at the same time mass-evicting all their previously rent-paying lower-class tenants who were too starving to work for said rent money.
While the British Whig government of the time interfering with matters of the economy would have been quite against the reigning economic orthodoxy and was a greatly defining factor in them not stepping in to try and prevent a lot of this, The Famine was still not caused by anyone on purpose and certainly the Irish ruling classes did very little to help their fellows!

It wasn't anything to do with Cromwell himself, as he was long dead by then.

No point in whining about Cromwell generally either, since:
a)He was a bit of a cock anyway.
and
b)There were massive numbers of English peeps who opposed him just as much, including those Royalists who allied with and fought right alongside the Irish Catholic Confederates. A great many of those who suffered in Ireland were English who had sided *with* the Irish.

reply

[–] ronfirv 10 years ago

Thanks further explaining my point on Queen Mary ; I had thought he'd have known!
Yes, emphatically many thousands of English, Welsh and Scots opposed Cromwell. Had so many not opposed his ideas, there would have been no future Kings or Queens of the UK.

reply

[–] pjpoconnell 10 years ago

Taskmaster: You have an appropriate name, judging by the tone of your communications! Let me just say that those you are referring to as the Irish ruling class, etc., were, in effect, not Irish but English or Anglo-Irish. The dependence of the native Irish on the potato was actually the result of British policy over the years re. land ownership, etc., as was the policy on exporting crops, not aiding the starving, etc. The famine started for natural reasons but was lengthened and made catastrophic by social policy, British social policy. Denying that is like the Turks denying the Armenian genocide.

Ronfirv: Let's not get into a relative qualifications contest re. historical knowledge. You will lose. Your "knowledge" is actually just your prejudices.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 10 years ago

Taskmaster: You have an appropriate name, judging by the tone of your communications!

It was a nickname I picked up as a Corporal.

Let me just say that those you are referring to as the Irish ruling class, etc., were, in effect, not Irish but English or Anglo-Irish.

They were all three, in fact and resident in both England and Ireland, which is why I used that term. Plenty of middle and upper class genuine 100% Irishmen were getting as rich off the backs of their poorer brethren as those otherwise. Greed is not a uniquely English trait!

The dependence of the native Irish on the potato was actually the result of British policy over the years re. land ownership, etc.,

Not quite.
The Brits introduced the Irish to various farming methods, with the potato beginning as a crop for the gentry. Cattle-farming became popular as people could make money from it, but land was required which led to seizures by the richer from the poorer. The poorer turned to potato farming because it was cheap and still made money, which led to further arguments over land and the poorest suffered. This divide in wealth meant certain other foods were unaffordable, since the money they made as exports pushed the price too high for native purchase.

as was the policy on exporting crops, not aiding the starving, etc.

Made equally worse by those natives too greedy to intervene...

The famine started for natural reasons but was lengthened and made catastrophic by social policy, British social policy. Denying that is like the Turks denying the Armenian genocide.

No-one is denying that contemporary policies and attitudes regarding whether or not the government should be intervening on matters of economy were a great contributing factor. But it also cannot be denied that domestic activities of the native population were just as contributary.

Ronfirv: Let's not get into a relative qualifications contest re. historical knowledge. You will lose.

There is no contest.
I've chatted with and read the posts of Ron here on several other boards over a fairly wide variety of topics and can assure you that, not only would I get insanely good odds from betting on him, but that since you're the only one with something to prove you have already lost.

Your "knowledge" is actually just your prejudices.

Ron merely addresses the points raised, as do I (mostly).
You are the one laying out prejudices, by stating "You English and you Scottish", as if those modern persons you address are directly responsible for events that occurred hundreds of years before they were even born. You are the one perpetuating both conflict now past and erroneous historical commonplaces, along with incomplete perspectives of such, for the purposes of reinstigating an agenda no longer relevant.

reply

[–] ronfirv 10 years ago

Ttaskmaster, many thanks such solid support, so much so, I have no need to reply directly to the poster who has the temerity to accuse me (us?)of prejudice, when he seems to have more than his fair share of his own, not so? (We haven't see him on other boards where we have discussed at length and not a little depth our shared knowledge of Roman history of this 'sceptred isle'which we are both privileged to call home, regardless the side of the Famous Wall we originated from! :))

Btw, do seek out "Kajaki", out on dvd 1/6/15, highlighting our brave lads' actions in Afghanistan in 2006. Outstanding reviews! Being ex-Forces, you should relish it.

reply

[–] Generationbetrayed 10 years ago

You mean England has been an imperialistic piece of *beep* nation since way before the 1900s. Where do you think all of us American's learned how to do it? We are your descendents.

reply

[–] ronfirv 10 years ago

US of A is a rainbow nation, some of whom are of British descent. (Far from all).
England alone was not an Imperial power -GT.Britain was indeed.
America didn't learn how to be imperialistic from the Brits, as after all, you waged a war against us as you seemed to hate colonialism so much. You got independence. Good luck and all that.
So, throwing your weight around the globe, bombing others to smithereens to impose your will is OUR fault now??? That's a new take on American imperialism, but thanks for sharing it, sunshine.
The difference is, we became a superpower back in the day by trade, ruling through local chiefs, emirs, rajahs and others and trying to win hearts and minds. US of A runs in like Flynn from Day One, and never learns from past failures. Oh dear, if only...........(you HAD learned how to do it from us).

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 10 years ago

America didn't learn how to be imperialistic from the Brits, as after all, you waged a war against us as you seemed to hate colonialism so much. You got independence. Good luck and all that.

To be fair, the Colonialism bit was fine.
They quite justifiably got arsey over having to pay taxes (as reimbursement for the support of British military forces), citing the lack of parliamentary representation being a violation of their rights as Englishmen.
Personally, I think the war kicked off as a result over the arguments about how that representation should happen and if *both sides* had just put the effort into making it happen instead of just discussing it, the whole thing would have been fine... Then they could have actually enjoyed a nice cup of tea, rather than chucking it around! 

reply

[–] Generationbetrayed 10 years ago

Obviously I wasn't being completely serious. The Brits however, are definitely Imperialistic, and would be just as much as this *beep* hole of the USA if they had the same power as the U.S.

reply

[–] Generationbetrayed 10 years ago

Also, there is no real point in arguing which government is worse than the other. I think we call all agree that all governments are corrupt and don't hold the best interests of people in general. The US just happens to have the most power at this time in history.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 10 years ago

America isn't democratic. It's a republic.

It is a constitutional republic and a representative democracy... which is still democratic. 

I sympathize with the IRA.

You sympathize with a bunch of people who try to hide their faces (so much for standing behind what they believe in), and kill non-combatants instead of moving directly against those they actually oppose?
Why?
Genuinely, I ask why...

I also ask *which* IRA - The ones who oppose the idea of peace, the ones who want some of it but not others, the ones who actually are fighting to resolve the issues, the ones who just want an excuse to blow *beep* up, the ones who nobody knows the purpose of, the ones who don't know what their own purpose is...?
With so many to choose from and so many conflicting goals, how would a 'United' Ireland happen even if the UK did withdraw?

Either get rid of borders all over the world, or keep your *beep* armies in your own country.

Nice idea... but in order to really lose borders, you'd have to erase the concepts of ownership, possession and property from the minds of humanity. Until then, there will always be someone who wants to keep something for themselves (from the biggest gold reserve to the smallest coconut) and will establish defensive borders to keep it that way... and there will always be another someone who wants to try and take it.

You mean England has been an imperialistic piece of *beep* nation since way before the 1900s.

It's sometimes said that the Roman Empire never fell. It just relocated.
Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman, Russian, British... and is now the American Empire in all but name.

But to be fair, many other nations of the time were pretty imperialistic, too. Everyone was trying to invade, colonise, explore or whatever and Britain was pretty bad at keeping up to begin with.

When the Normans moved in to Ireland it kicked off this whole English occupation thing, which began as an effort to preserve the Catholic Church there and kick the Normans out. It was actually backed by the church themselves and Pope Alexander III pretty much gave Ireland to the English Crown because it served the Catholic agenda... interesting how that developed in the centuries after, eh!

Where do you think all of us American's learned how to do it? We are your descendents.

Would you rather have been French...? 

Always makes me laugh, though, meeting "Irish Americans" who supported the IRA but knew nothing about the conflict and then suddenly stopped that support after 9/11.
Almost as hilarious as those who labelled them as terrorists, yet knowingly still funded 'charity' organisations that openly supported the IRA.

reply

[–] ronfirv 10 years ago

ttaskmaster, I really take my hat off to you. So measured in the face of these distinctly pro-IRA comments here, especially you are ex-Forces.
I seethe.
I watched this film, and when I saw the working class women banging their bin lids on the pavements,in front of our brave lads, it brought it all back to me, and the deep hatred I and my mates and family felt back in the 60's and 70's for these people. I had to switch off and view again a day or two later, from that point on.
Jack O'Connell did a great job in his role, definitely.
Are my emotions raw? Not quite but not far from the surface if you wanna scratch me

reply

[–] ronfirv 10 years ago

My clan were Royalists so I hold out no flame for Cromwell. Justice was done when Charles II regained the throne.
Persecution was not one-sided if you know British history. Queen Mary, known as Bloody Mary for one?

reply

[–] pjpoconnell 10 years ago

I'm not aware that she was Irish! (We're talking about Ireland, not Spain or the Spanish or half-Spanish.)

reply

[–] Theo Robertson 10 years ago

You really have no understanding of history do you Pjp . The idea of nationhood in the 16th and 17th century is entirely different from nationalism as seen today

reply

[–] ronfirv 10 years ago

I came to that conclusion couple of days ago.

reply

[–] Chiffmonkey 9 years ago

"You English and Scots" referring to a completely different group of people from another era.

reply

[–] Leepal 10 years ago

I don't think you need to know that much about the politics, it's more of a thriller than being an explanation of the troubles. The main character is also confused about what's going on.

This film (I think) depicted a split between the "Official IRA" and the "Provisional IRA", it's something I was aware of but don't think I've seen before in dramas.

reply

[–] glennwalsh44 9 years ago

I lived through The Troubles (what a euphemism!) and you are better off enjoying this as a straightforward thriller rather than getting bogged down in the history and politics, a bit like 1979s Harry's Game.

reply

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

I said on another thread, that there is virtually zero backgrounding of the conflict for the casual viewer. No narration, nor pre or post credit explanations. I'd suggest quite a high % of viewers may want to bone up on The Troubles a little before watching '71, or risk losing track of just who's pursuing who and for what reasons.🐭

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (41638798) 9 years ago

I've spent a considerable time in Belfast and knew Special Branch guys back in the day when the conflict was in full swing.

I've seen the peace walls (there are more than 200 today, I think, vastly MORE today than during the Troubles!). That should tell you what there may be a cease fire but it's far from "over." It will never be over.

The flags are everywhere, the curbs are painted red, white and blue in protestant areas, orange and green in Republican and so on and so on and so on ad infinitum.

Try driving through a UDF neighborhood getting petrol at a petrol station in a hired car with a Republic of Ireland license plate on it, and there will be some young men circling your car watching you like a hawk until you have the good sense to flee asap.

Knowing all of this, experiencing a great deal of it first hand, I STILL had to watch carefully during this film to be sure I got all of the political and plot turns that were going on.

I cannot imagine it if you have no familiarity at all.

I thought Browning and his team were Special Branch, until they said otherwise.

reply

[–] activista 9 years ago

Heck,yeah you need to know some of the background before you see it, simply because it will make more sense. I do have a question----why did the Irish policeman or whatever they were pull out guns and threaten the old guy and his daughter who briefly hid the soldier? What were their issues with these two? I didn't get that part.

reply

[–] angelofvic 9 years ago

.
Because one of the "collaborators" had recently been seen there. Quinn, I think his name was.
.

reply