Disseminating ideology - Bloody Sunday (Paul Greengrass)
Bloody Sunday is, in a formal sense, a fascinating exercise in the dissemination of ideology. The structure employed by Greengrass begins by demonstrating the two factions at loggerheads and their preparations for a "peaceful" march through the city of Derry in Northern Ireland.
The initial stages of the film represent the British Army and the Catholic marchers in an even light. Then, gradually the ground begins to shift and the culpability for the violence and mayhem that ensues is hoistedalmost entirely upon the shoulders of the soldiers. And then as one revisits the earlier scenes it is possible to see that this was always on the cards.
The majority of the British superiors are stuffy, speaking in clipped arrogant tones about the offensive they are ready to mount – stressing its inevitability despite evidence to the contrary. Meanwhile the IRA is only glimpsed in the background (a few bad eggs?) ready to support any insurgency that should develop. And the rioters are represented as exuberant youths fuelled by passion and idealism – dressed and groomed like modern rock stars (bearing a striking resemblance to "Jet"!).
If, in fact, this was Greengrass' intention—to condemn the British while glorifying the rebellion—then it works at a superficial level. Undoubtedly the images of the violent massacre are affecting and deplorable.
But, for me, the film represents a more successful condemnation of violent force – regardless of those wielding it. The rioters desire for violence is palpable when they confront the soldiers and merely reflects their enemies blood-lust. That the soldiers are more efficient at killing is the only thing that separates them.
Bloody Sunday works as cinema – the performances are excellent and the shaky docu-drama approach is particularly appropriate. And though I would typically agree with the politics of the film, the feeling of manipulation was too strong to truly empathise with the director's point-of-view.
The initial stages of the film represent the British Army and the Catholic marchers in an even light. Then, gradually the ground begins to shift and the culpability for the violence and mayhem that ensues is hoistedalmost entirely upon the shoulders of the soldiers. And then as one revisits the earlier scenes it is possible to see that this was always on the cards.
The majority of the British superiors are stuffy, speaking in clipped arrogant tones about the offensive they are ready to mount – stressing its inevitability despite evidence to the contrary. Meanwhile the IRA is only glimpsed in the background (a few bad eggs?) ready to support any insurgency that should develop. And the rioters are represented as exuberant youths fuelled by passion and idealism – dressed and groomed like modern rock stars (bearing a striking resemblance to "Jet"!).
If, in fact, this was Greengrass' intention—to condemn the British while glorifying the rebellion—then it works at a superficial level. Undoubtedly the images of the violent massacre are affecting and deplorable.
But, for me, the film represents a more successful condemnation of violent force – regardless of those wielding it. The rioters desire for violence is palpable when they confront the soldiers and merely reflects their enemies blood-lust. That the soldiers are more efficient at killing is the only thing that separates them.
Bloody Sunday works as cinema – the performances are excellent and the shaky docu-drama approach is particularly appropriate. And though I would typically agree with the politics of the film, the feeling of manipulation was too strong to truly empathise with the director's point-of-view.
