In the Name of the Father - Justice or travesty ?
John Smyth
:I've heard that there are factual inaccuracies in "In the Name of the
:Father," for example, that Gerry Conlon did not share a cell with
:his father. Does anyone know what the other ones are?
The story of the GuilFord Four and the Maguire Seven, as portrayed in
the movie takes many liberties with details. It is easy to see how some
of these changes made sense in order to make an entertaining movie. However,
given the almost hysterical attitude of sections of the British press towards
anything IRA-related (i.e. the very lukewarm reception in Britain of The
Crying Game), the movie-makers (principally Jim Sheridan) should have
realised that every factual inaccuracy adds to the critical backlash.
The problem is, of course, how to portray a long and complicated saga as
a movie. I feel that perhaps, a mini-series would have addressed the story
better. Irish television (R.T.E.) have already made a T.V. movie about
the relationship between Guiseppe and Sarah Conlon (his wife). Called
"Letters to Sarah", it was essentially based on the correspondence between
Guiseppe and his wife during his incarceration.
Because "In the Name of the Father" involves two sets of
injustices, (the imprisonment of the Maguire family and the Guilford Four)
the movie, IMO, makes an error in trying to tell both stories. The convictions
of the Maguire Seven depended on forensic evidence, which was subsequently
shown to be seriously flawed. Annie Maguire never confessed to any crime.
This is not shown in the movie, and to a detached observer, one might well
wonder if the police could force the Guilford Four and the Maguire Seven
to confess to crimes they didn't commit.
Similarly, the Maguires and the Guilford Four
were not tried and convicted together, as shown in the movie. Another
inaccuracy, which I have seen commented on in various papers, is that Gareth
Pierce did not dramatically expose the Prosecution Counsel in court, as
shown in the movie. However, I think in this case, the dramatic licence
did make for a more exciting climax to the movie.
The convictions of the Guilford Four were overturned
because it was shown that evidence was withheld from the Defence Counsel at
the original trial. This evidence included an interview with a man who provided
an alibi for Gerry Conlon and Paul Hill. This man is shown as a "homeless bum"
in the movie. In reality, the witness was a young man working in a shop.
Why the film chose to downgrade the character, and by implication, the
trustworthiness of the witness, is a mystery. It doesn't make sense that
the police would be worried by his evidence (in the movie). In addition,
Paul Hill and Gerry Conlon were not together on the night of the Guilford
bombing.
As Greg pointed out in his post, Gerry and Guiseppe Conlon spent very little
time together. As this father-son relationship is at the heart of the movie,
it is difficult to reconcile that so many of the scenes (between Daniel Day
Lewis and Peter Postlewaite) could be fictional, while watching "a true story".
So, is the movie still a "true story" ? I think it is.
It is not the true story of a father-son relationship. It is, however, a true
story of injustice. One cannot help but feel outrage at how the police and
judiciary were prepared to pervert justice in order to be seen to getting
results. Of course, I`ll willingly admit that, being Irish, I watched the
movie with certain preconceptions, and that, for me, the importance of
the message in the movie meant that I focussed less on the factual
inaccuracies. One could compare the movie to Alan Parker's "Mississippi
Burning", where some of the actual incidents were fictional, but the story
and message still rang true.
Is the movie anti-British ? While the police get a fairly
bad raking-over, it's a pity that the movie didn't emphasise that it was
many British citizens that led to the release of the Four. Indeed, Emma
Thompson's portrayal of Gareth Pierce failed, for me, to adequately
demonstrate the steely resolve and fierce determination that it must have
taken to handle what was, for many years, seen as a hopeless and very unpopular
case (She was also involved in the Birmingham Six campaign). Thompson's
performance, which is really just a cameo, seemed almost hysterical, at least
in the courtroom scene, which is fictional, anyway.
The film might also have shown that the Irish Govt.
did nothing at all for the Four (or the Maguire 7/Birmingham Six/Ward cases)
and in some cases, actively obstructed the various campaigns. In fact
most Irish people took little notice these cases for many years.One wonders
that if not for the book, "Error of Judgement", by British Member of
Parliament Chris Mullen, would the Birmingham Six be in prison yet ?
I believe, though I'm open to correction on this, that the forensic testing,
used to convict the Maguires, was discredited by a British lab. Maybe
someone can confirm this.
Is the film helpful ? I think it's important
that this story is told. There are still those who reckon that "there's
no smoke without fire". No police officer has been convicted for perverting
the course of justice. A trial of former police officers involved in the
investigation of the bombings collapsed, on the grounds that, given the
publicity, they'd never get a fair trial (they did get half a page in the
Telegraph, where they insisted that they had done nothing wrong).
Interestingly, in the Irish Republic, two IRA suspects have escaped
extradition to Britain, principally because of the adverse publicity
they received in the British press.
It would be unfair of me not to point out
that there has been a backlash of sorts in Ireland too. Paul Hill, one of
the Four, also confessed to his part in a murder in Northern Ireland
while being questioned about the Guilford bombings. He is, at present,
appealing this conviction in Belfast on the grounds that that confession
too was obtained by foul means. He is married to Courtney Kennedy who
has attended the appeal hearing with other members of the Kennedy family.
The Sunday Independant saw fit to launch a vicious personal attack on
her last Sunday, (which has led to much criticism in other parts of the Irish
media).
Anyway, I've gone on much longer than I intended. I would recommend
seeing the movie. It is a good film, with two great performances by Day Lewis
and Postlewaite. But it's just a movie, one person's interpretation of
the events.
John