@thens Film Club: Broken bottles under childrens' feet, bodies strewn across a dead-end street

Starring: James Nesbitt, Tim Piggott-Smith, Nicolas Ferrell

For my part, sorry for taking so long to get this updated with a post for 'Bloody Sunday'. I've been swamped lately and didn't get around to watching this until 2 in the morning after the Oscars. So onto the film.

First of all, I want to give props to Paul Greengrass. This guy has carved out quite a niche for himself with these "docudramas" and from everything I have seen, he is the undisputed master of this style of filmmaking. And what a set of balls to go in tackling some of our collective worse days as human beings. I can't applaud him enough for 'United 93' and the job he did with that picture. It was nice to finally see the similar project he did 4 years ago that prepared him to depict that most touchy of subjects.

This movie, like 'United 93', simply portrays a fateful day and the multitude of events that took place beforehand to lead to the bloody conclusion. The day happens to be Jan. 30 1972 when peaceful protesters and marchers in Northern Ireland were mercilessly gunned down by English troops, an event which heralded the rise of the IRA and widespread violence throughout that region. The narrative jumps around from place to place, checking in with the different players of the day. There is a lot quick cuts here; at times you might only catch a glimpse of a pysched-up paratrooper or 30 seconds tense conversation between march organizers. One of the reasons this movie and its successor work so well is that there are few actors playing the roles and no big names. If you can say the movie centers on any characters they would be Ivan Cooper, the member of Parliament who was head of the Civil Rights Organization and the commanding military officer who authorized the use of force against the demonstrators. They are played by James Nesbitt and Tim Pigott-Smith (who seems to play an evil shite in every movie I've seen him in) respectively. Many of the actors are actually just real people and even relatives of the original victims. In fact, the boy who plays Gerry is the nephew of the actual first person shot and killed on that day. All of this lends to the realism of the picture, rather than asking you to believe that Daniel Pearl's wife is Angelina Jolie.

A huge feature of this movie that makes the premise work is that it is filmed almost entirely with handheld cameras and using no artificial light. A lot of people argue that this is Greengrass' worst trait as a filmmaker; I remember plenty of critics jumping on him about it in 'The Bourne Supremacy'. And while the camera bouncing around all the time might not work for a typical picture it does incredible justice here. You are sucked into believing that some documentary filmmaker was actually there, capturing all the bloody imagery at that moment.

This film, much like 'United 93', is incredible heartbreaking because you know how it is going to end even at the beginning. The drama is in how the events unfold and "How did this actually come to happen?" I can liken it to the show on National Geographic Channel where they explain how specific disasters and industrial accidents happen by taking you through the event minute by minute, piece by piece. As the movie starts at a dual press conference for both sides, the initial tension is already there but it continually intensifies and intensifies until it all bursts. As one person commented on a messageboard for the movie, it all snowballs and gets out of control so fast that it is hard to really pinpoint the exact moment when it reached the point of no return. Ten minutes into the massacre you find yourself thinking, "how did this happen? They were just marching, how did it get to this point?"

Coming away from this picture I found myself wondering about a lot of things and it got me interested in researching the actual events more. Because of that alone this movie works. I'm amazed and sickened by the fact that the paratroopers simply mowed down innocent civilians without any real provocation. It was scary to see them pumping each other up and later bragging about how they had shot helpless men crawling away from the shooting. I'm ashamed to think that in a supposedly forward-thinking and "good" society like Great Britain, murderers can be disguised as heroes, blame can be whisked away, and that justice has still not been done for the families of those victims of that terrible day.

Some quick things:

- The reason this film didn't qualify for the Oscars is that the day it opened in London theaters it was broadcast on the BBC as well. I suppose it was a big event for Great Britain.

- Two of the most striking images for me: the priest waving his white handkerchief in desperation, hoping that the Brits wouldn't shoot him and the people helping a mortally wounded man off the street ....and the Brits coming round the courtyard to catch a fleeing mob in the park and mindlessly shooting them in the back as they run away, unarmed.

- I had really hoped the one soldier with a conscience would give in and tell the truth about his "buddies" shot innocent people in cold blood and then bragged about it. I mean one of the troopers stopped to reload so he could fire some more!

- Ivan Cooper's press conference at the end of the movie, talking about how the IRA had won its biggest victory that day and how he could no longer preach nonviolence to the young kids after what had happened was especially poignant and heartbreaking. Props to James Nesbitt; I've only seen him in comical roles before this but he turned in one hell of a performance.

- Stick thru to the end of the U2 performance during the credits; it really helped tie everything together. This film had to be as agonizing and painful to watch for Irishmen as 'United 93' was to watch for me.