Good films about the troubles?

If his intention was to make me angry at how shit the film was then mission accomplished.

no i think it was probably to make you angry about how horrible it is to live in a warzone

Well it didn't, name me a single society without murders. People get shot in every single country in the world. Except maybe the Vatican.

you seem to be getting caught up in the fact that violence is ubiquitous in human society and overlooking the film's atmosphere which portrays the unique atmosphere of the troubles; what it looked like on those grey days in belfast.

Fifty Dead Men Walking

>guy gets shot and walks away like it was nothing
Yeah, so what? This happens in every society, people don't shoot and then decide they want to do an impromptu marathon.

i am saying that the location of the film is unique and the fact that there is little dialogue draws your attention to the scenery and gives you a feel for the specific setting of the conflict.

watching elephant is like taking a safari through northern ireland.

It really isn't, though, the streets looks the same as literally every other street in the British isles.

i take it youve never traveled there if you think it all looks the same but that aside, people were not being gunned down in every other street in the british isles. try to remember that obtaining a firearm is rather difficult in the uk

>"I'm just an Irish-American kid from the streets of Bawston. My family left the famined fields of Athenry because British stormtroopers were executing them just for being OIRISH. I now return to my ancestral home, to free the emerald isle from British occupation, just as the Founding Faaders once did."

ZAC EFRON STARS AS CODY CROMWELL IN THE EPIC POLITICAL THRILLER "ANOTHER INDEPENDENCE DAY".

I don't need to travel there, I watched the film and it looks identical to my street in Britain

>people were not being gunned down in every other street in the british isles. try to remember that obtaining a firearm is rather difficult in the uk
Yes, but the mere act of someone being shot isn't interesting, you could make a film about London just like it with black people and it would still be shit. There's no point in it if they don't explain the killings.

the point is that the killings cannot be neatly explained and gun violence in london is in no way comparable to what happened during the troubles. for someone who ostensibly lives there you seem to be rather ill informed or perhaps youre just a troll.

Reading this thread has made me realise that Britain/Europe is so peaceful, what we consider to be a brutal civil war in all but name, is just another day elsewhere.

>he thinks The Getaway was a documentary about everyday life in London

I don't live in NI, I said I lived in Britain. And it's true, nobody has handguns here and only a few heavily regulated farmers have shotguns, but East London today is equivalent to NI during the troubles in gun crime.

Article from May 2016
>There were 226 shootings in 2015. So far this year there have been 122, with a particular rise since March.
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36380635

at the height of the conflict in 1972 there were over 400 deaths which is double the statistic you just listed and furthermore the gang violence in london lacks the geopolitical significance of the war in norn iron which is another factor that makes violence there unique

>CODY CROMWELL

Fair enough, but what I'm saying is that people being shot isn't unique to NI, there were no stories it was literally just people getting shot, the fact they didn't explain it is what made it worse.

>person gets shot in london
>person gets shot in NI
Same thing.

>person gets shot in london
>person gets shot in northern ireland due to a republican militant campaign to make the territory ungovernable to the British government in Northern Ireland, in hoping that through enough similar acts the government will simply give in and give NI to the Republic

See, these aren't the same thing. People getting shot on it's own has no inherent ethos, it's simply an event that occurs, they don't explain why it's happening, they don't explain what the person getting shot did to provoke the murder, are they off duty British Army? Are they an ardent Loyalist? Are they a police informant? Are they a republican being killed by a loyalist? We don't know.

And I know, you're probably going to say "That's why it's so good, because this is what life was like in NI", but to me it's worthless because it doesn't go in to the actual reasons behind these actions. If someone finds this in 1000 years time they won't understand the context behind it, which I feel they should put into it if they're going to make something like this.

Look at Threads, the film about nuclear annihilation, it does all this does but it also shows you why it's happening, what effect it has ont he lives of the people it's happening to, it has that context that's needed to make it poignant and to make it relevant and to make the viewer empathise with the issue at hand.

I can see your point of view, but I simply don't agree with it.

if you think the streets in london are identical to those in belfast then i dont know what to tell you

I'm not saying they're identical, I'm saying the exact opposite, by refusing to provide context for the shootings the street may as well be anywhere. They make it so that they are identical, but if they provided context that wouldn't be the case.

i'd imagine that anyone who watches a niche film like elephant would already be at least somewhat familiar with its subject matter. clarke was clearly more interested in producing a snapshot of a time and place rather than a history lesson.

I suppose. I just didn't feel immersed in it at all. Had they given anything at all, like someone begging for their life and saying something like "I don't even want to be here, my CO consigned me here!" I'd have found it more emotive, because I'd have been able to see how deeply this effected peoples' lives.

again i think the lack of emotion was intentional and central to what clarke was working to communicate through the film

Perhaps. I just feel there were so much better ways to portray the conflict than "bang bang you're dead haha"

then perhaps you should make your own film

Rude.

thin-skinned

Homophobe.

what?

I don't know, I just wanted the last word.

take it if you'd like

>tfw the Troubles is a complex and quite interesting conflict
>gold-tier movie material
>only a few movies have capitalised on it well
>it always gets reduced into whether it makes the IRA anthe fenians or the UDA and the brits look like the goodies

Adulthood: realising the fenians made more sense

>implying childhood isn't idolizing the romantic hooliganism of the paras and adulthood is realizing the British Army makes the most sense

your a dorable

This

no you dumb goys we need more holocaust movies

As someone who knows quite a bit about the troubles and it's details, I wish there was a film made about the South Armagh brigade in the troubles, the events and actions that happened there are perfect for Hollywood movies. It was like Iraq but in a civilised western country, they didn't call it bandit country for nothing.

Because you show yourself to be to be, in any artistic sense, retarded.

>mot realising that childhood is picking a side between the fenians and the loyalists/brits, adulthood is seeing that while the Loyalists were arguably the bigger assholes neither side were the "good" guys because the whole thing just turned into an extended campaign of petty revenge memeraides
>not realising maturity is siding with the IRA anyway because loyalists are extremely easy and extremely fun to trigger

...

That doesn't apply here at all, you retard.

The point was that applying "good guys and bad guys" to most historical events is retarded anyway.

The Troubles has a nice sentiment of "muh irish were oppressed" and if you study a chronological chain of events, it begins as a Loyalist campaign of dick-waggling and terror toward irish catholics, which spurred on an uprising.

However, very quickly into the "uprising" the campaign turned into a series of petty revenge attacks with little co-ordination other than "well they got us last week so we'll get them this week."

The British soldiers were supposed to be peacekeepers, or enforcers, but instead just sided with the RUC who were openly in cahoots with the UDA who were essentially just hunting catholics wherever they could.

tl;dr- Nobody in the Troubles can gain the moral high ground, the loyalists shat first and that's about all the bias you can give it.

Now got"BTFO" some other user with one of the other epic comics I bet you saved, you baseless faggot.

>petty revenge attacks with little co-ordination
Because it was a guerilla war between two populations living beside each other, niether was able to drive the other out of the country, but they could sap their resources and manpower to a degree. Simplifying the war like that is retarded.

Your entire post is
>unionists oppressed and persecuted Catholics
>then the Catholics retaliated to defend themselves
>then the British army oppressed and persecuted the Catholics
>then the Catholics retaliated to defend themselves
Hmmm yes its very hard to see who's the bad guy here, clearly both sides are in the wrong.

Idiot

But all I said in my posts was "The British took one side instead of both/neither and the loyalists instigated it."

If you look at catholic "retaliations" a majority of the attacks were just bombings in build up civilian ares.

>muh guerilla war

In a massive majority of the attacks from either side, an outright lack of regard toward civilian lives or any signs of proper co-ordination is very apparent.

The most co-ordinated attack by the IRA was literally "we fucked up this one truck full of guys."

It was a series of revenge attacks, the Catholics had the sentiment of being actually oppressed but didn't really do anything to make them very much "morally superior" to the loyalists.

Retards here always assume that unless you condemn every element of everyone in the troubles you're definitely some IRA-loving communist, when you can quite literally google "chronological list of things that happened leading up to, during and after the troubles" and see a definiutive answer.

Loyalists instigated, Catholics slapped back, both sides bombed each other willy nilly, the British were there but were essentially just giving the RUC a set of brass balls and then everyone signed an agreement stating that the whole thing was fucking silly and that Irish people shouldn't be oppressed in the 6 counties.

Then a bunch of fags decided they liked being in a gang and kept fighting anyway, because they're lower-class retards.

Sure, it's more fun to be on the "republican" side now because the "loyalist" side is the heart of all the ridiculous "WE R OPPRESSED MUH CULTURE" nonsense today but you assuming that I am secretly speading bias toward the republican cause just because I refuse to stop saying that both sides acted like american ghetto-tier gangs that I have some agenda is ridiculous.

Do some research, then neck yourself.
The Troubles is interesting , but jut about every combatant involved fucked up in a massive way and *nobody* should be "proud" of their part in it.

Elephant is great

Honestly I think the fact that you didn't get to know any of the circumstances made it all the more intriguing. It made the movie colder, the murders seem more senseless and more realistic

Then clearly we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't subscribe to this
>lul every1 but me is retarded :DDDDD
And I can tell from your post that i won't convince you either

>If you look at catholic "retaliations" a majority of the attacks were just bombings in build up civilian ares.
do you mean IRA attacks by this or what?
you'd be wrong for most groups in that case

>In a massive majority of the attacks from either side
wrong

>the Catholics had the sentiment of being actually oppressed but didn't really do anything to make them very much "morally superior" to the loyalists.
who are "the Catholics"

>and then everyone signed an agreement stating that the whole thing was fucking silly and that Irish people shouldn't be oppressed in the 6 counties.
so it wasn't silly and had a purpose

I don't want to come off as too obnoxious despite the regular mannerisms of this site, it's my genuine belief that neither side has the right to call themselves "better" than the other.

I don't think either side adopted a good policy toward civilian casulties.
Saying that "The brits and loyalists killed more civvies than the IRA so they are the baddies" is retarded because a "civilian" could easily be a driver, informer or other non-combatant aid to the IRA and therefore arguably a legitimate target in the same way the IRA targeted prison officers and whatnot.

The argument that "the loyalists started it by oppressing the catholics!!!" is equally retarded because while yes, the Troubles arguably came to be because of Loyalist fuckery the fact remains that the IRA weren't exactly saviors in shining armour.

I have that graph saved too. I don't think "killing less civilians" makes the IRA the good guys, since it took all of about 3 seconds for their "campaign" to just turn into a series of bombings. Some retards will say "they were attacking the infrastructure!!!" or "it's hard to avoid civilians in a guerrilla war!!!" but many of the bombings seemed to have a blatant disregard for the safety of non combatants.

The Troubles doesn't have a "good side."
If anything, the only "goodies" were the brains behind the GFA or the peace process that followed, and several of them can arguably also be blamed for things getting as bad as they did.

If someone brings to me either:

>Here is why a majority of the attacks carried out by the IRA were strategic and not just "we'll bomb somewhere that might kill a target, but will probably also kill lots of civilians"
>Here is why a majority of the UDA/British Attacks where carried out with the same aforementioned mindset

then maybe I will sit down and accept that one side was better or worse than the other.

Unfortunately I just don't think this is the case.

>I don't think "killing less civilians" makes the IRA the good guys, since it took all of about 3 seconds for their "campaign" to just turn into a series of bombings.
what do you mean by "the IRA", they were splintered to all shite so don't make it out as though it were one homogeneous organization with orders coming down from a single authority when this was furthest from the truth

killing less civilians on average than the British Army themselves and not targeting civilians certainly gives them the moral high-ground, crazies operating under false acronyms that muddy the water were mostly responsible for the tit-for-tat style murders that you see with Darkley and members of INLA, Kingsmill and members of the PIRA

>Some retards will say "they were attacking the infrastructure!!!" or "it's hard to avoid civilians in a guerrilla war!!!"
phrasing it like that doesn't make it not true, that is literally what they did, meanwhile you say a MASSIVE MAJORITY of INNOCENT CIVILIANS targeted DELIBERATELY by TERRORISTS as though you're writing a headline for a fucking British newspaper

>If anything, the only "goodies" were the brains behind the GFA or the peace process that followed,
yeah I get it, you're opposed to muh violence and support le peas process, grand stuff

stop making comparisons between the two like all the other brain addled "EVERYONE WAS AT FAULT GUISE" faggots, look at the stats posted and that you apparently have saved and look at that huge discrepancy in numbers of civilians killed and total kills with Loyalist and Republican paras, it isn't comparable