'Bloody Sunday' the movie

Wednesday September 18, 2002 16:10

by Pat C

This is a mail from Don Mullan regarding "Bloody Sunday" the movie. It is not commercially motivated; rather it is an attempt to popularise the truth about what happened on that bleak day in January 1972. PC

___________________________

'Bloody Sunday' the movie

Dear Friends,

This is a general email to everyone on my mailing list. I'd be grateful if you would read this email and then send it to everyone on your own mailing list with a request that they do likewise and so on. I am hoping that from my PC in Dublin the word will go out to hundreds of thousands of people worldwide regarding the award winning movie 'Bloody Sunday' which is about
to open in the United States and Canada and many other countries around the world.

'Bloody Sunday' is a critically acclaimed low budget movie with a big impact.
It truthfully recounts the events of Sunday, January 30, 1972, a traumatic afternoon for my community in Derry, when British Paratroopers shot 27 people, 13 of whom died that day.

Since 1996 I have worked closely with the Bloody Sunday families as part of their campaign for justice and truth. With their support, I published 'Eyewitness Bloody Sunday' (Wolfhound Press 1997) a book which became an
important catalyst in their campaign for the establishment of a new Bloody Sunday Inquiry.

The book was also the inspiration for two British filmmakers, Mark Redhead and Paul Greengrass, to make the movie. They invited me to be co-producer
and, with the support and cooperation of the Bloody Sunday families and wounded, we set about making the first full length feature film, simply
called 'Bloody Sunday'.

By Hollywood standards our budget was small ($4.3 million). However, despite the low budget our cast involved over 10,000 people. In Derry, upwards of 7,000 people volunteered in freezing cold and wet weather in February 2001
to help us recreate the original march for the purpose of the film.

When the film was shown to the Bloody Sunday families and wounded in Derry
earlier this year, it was, at its conclusion, given a standing ovation. For the filmmakers, it was both a humbling and encouraging endorsement. Since then, the film has astounded us by the impact it has made and the awards it
has received worldwide. In Italy, for example, the demand was such that four copies of the film soon spiralled to over 60 showing across the nation, netting over $1 million in box office sales! To date, the film has won six
international awards (Australia, Croatia, Germany, Israel, Portugual and the
USA) including 'Best Picture Awards' at the prestigious 'Sundance Film
Festival 2002' and the 'Berlin Film Festival 2002'. It has now been selected for the New York Film Festival from which it will begin a tour of the United States, Canada and other worldwide territories, promoted by Paramount
Classics.

Eventually 'Bloody Sunday' will be available in North America and elsewhere
on video and DVD. However, it was made primarily as a theatrical piece and,
as such, its full impact can best be experienced in that medium. Together
with the families who lost loved ones on that day, we are hopeful that the
film will be supported initially in New York and in other cities and towns
throughout North America. I am writing especially to encourage as many
people as possible in the New York area to come and see the movie.
Paramount
Classics have predicted that if New York in particular leads, the rest of
the country will follow. So, we appeal to those in the New York area, and the east coast in general, to come and see it and encourage your families, relatives, friends and associates to see it also.

I genuinely believe that 'Bloody Sunday' is one of the most important films to be made about the 'Troubles' in the last 30 years. It contextualises the destruction of the non-violent Civil Rights Movement and the accendency of the armed struggle. One critic described our movie as "a pain-filled masterpiece".

What is most important is that it was made by Irish and British people together. Those participating included families of the victims, the wounded, eyewitnesses to the massacre in 1972 and former British soldiers who had served in Northern Ireland. The making of the film was, in reality, a mini peace process. It has a very authentic feel about it.
Everyone on its production worked with integrity to tell the truth about the horror and consequences of that terrible day.

With the Bloody Sunday families support, I was co-producer of the movie, consultant and march organiser. I worked alongside English director, Paul Greengrass and English Producer, Mark Redhead, two of the most honourable people I have ever encountered in my professional career. The movie was a co-production between Granda Films and Jim Sheridan's 'Hell's Kitchen'.

The movie has been critically acclaimed throughout the world. For example,
the following is a quote from Peter Traver's review in the September 2002 edition of 'Rolling Stone' magazine:

"Look for Paul Greengrass' volcanic re-creation of the massacre in Northern Ireland on January 30th, 1972 - immortalized in the song by U2 - to take on the giants in the race for best picture of 2002. The film is also a triumph for actor James Nesbitt, who plays civil-rights leader Ivan Cooper with an intensity of feeling that will leave you shaken. And to think this stunner of a film cost less ($4.3 million) than it takes to keep Harry Potter in wands."

Travers went on to predict: "Bloody Sunday star James Nesbitt may be the actor of the year."

The movie will open at the New York Film Festival on 2nd October at the Lincoln Center.

Below is a Paramount Classics link which gives more details about the movieincluding access to a trailer:

<http://www.paramountclassics.com/bloodysunday/

Just a couple of days after Bloody Sunday the bereaved families had to endure another wound when, through their New York Consulate, the Government of Prime Minister Edward Heath disseminated lies to the world media about the dead and wounded, suggesting that many were gunmen, bombers. They also alleged some were on the Army's wanted list. At the time the families did not understand the power of the first sound bite. However, their epic struggle for justice has reached historic proportions and they are an inspiration to people around the world who are fighting against powerful forces for Human Rights and Justice. This movie is dedicated by Paul Greengrass, Mark Redhead and myself to the Bloody Sunday families and all who seek Truth, Justice and accountability for Human Rights abuses throughout the world.

Please forward this message to everyone on your email list with a request that they to forward to everyone on theirs. Most importantly, please come to see this remarkable movie and encourage your families, relatives, friends and associates to see it also. Remember, 'Bloody Sunday' opens in New York on October 2 and thereafter, will be in all the major US cities during October
and November 2002.

I would be grateful if everyone who does forward this email would include the following email address so that I can tract the success of this letter
appeal:

[email protected]

With thanks for your kindness and consideration,

Yours Sincerely,

Don Mullan.

save preference

Comments (18 of 18)

Jump To Comment:

Hi Ray/Pat

by Daithi

Fri Sep 20, 2002 13:42

macsithd at tcd dot ie

I'm following this with interest - I was always of the opinion that the "radical" part of Indymedia was about the method of creating news.

I think that the really exciting bit about Indymedia is in the process. It's the most radical thing in news-gathering in quite a while - the whole notion of editing is turned on its head - and the newsgatherers are quite often the participants/protestors. For example, were there to be a rally where two factions of the left ended up fighting with each other, Indymedia would see first-hand accounts from both sides in a way that no other media could ever see.

The reason, IMHO, that Indymedia is left/"radical" politics-dominated is that it's plain to see that the media is conservative. In fact, I would argue that a private-enterprise model of media ownership can rarely lead to any other result (with honourable but uncommon exceptions). So the alternative media - student radio, zines, and Indymedia - has become a place where left activists can get their message heard without compromise.

Look at how we covered RTS. The Gardai didn't need to come and post here because they have their own press office and organised response method. But first of all we had reports, and then video and audio (not much...but that was my fault) and photo - all taken at ground level, up close, totally a radical way of getting the news (for Ireland). We had first-hand accounts from participants, and we had spirited opinion pieces and discussion pro- and anti-Gardai.

This, to me, was radical. Our processes, especially if/when we move to Dada, are so removed from the old-fashioned model of news, that they are unrecognisable.

That's why I'm involved in Indymedia.

ray

by pat

Thu Sep 19, 2002 16:06

i suggested you remove the entire sentence.

imc are making indymedia redundant.

Should we also remove 'passionate'?

by Ray

Thu Sep 19, 2002 15:31

That rules out bored people posting stuff.

It doesn't say "Indymedia is a news site for people that we think are radical". I've checked the editorial guidelines, and no-where could I find a sentence reading "These guidelines are for conservatives only - radicals can post what they want."

I'd argue that an independent, unbiased news source is _in itself_ radical.

Thu Sep 19, 2002 15:10

"Indymedia is a democratic media outlet for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth."

ray,

you should remove the above sentence based on what you have been writing.

pat

The first sentence says it all

Thu Sep 19, 2002 14:54

"Indymedia is a collective of independent media organizations and hundreds of journalists offering grassroots, non-corporate coverage"

and the name of the site is

'independent media centre'

libertarian capitalists and fascists would no doubt describe themselves as 'radical' ('Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions'). Should they also be given privileged access?

take radical out of the blurb then.

Thu Sep 19, 2002 14:40

'individual examples can always be argued out'

Thu Sep 19, 2002 13:56

Exactly.
Which is why a double standard with one set of rules for 'radicals' and another set for everyone else is bound to end in disaster.
Its a level playing pitch. Everybody has the same access, everybody follows the same rules. No bias to any side.

INDEPENDENT media, exactly as it says on the tin.

Thu Sep 19, 2002 13:43

as a radical outlet imc are redundant if they can't differentiate.

you are clutching at tactical straws now; individual examples can always be argued out.

imc seem to be losing the radical strategy as outlined in the sentence i've quoted.

more questions

Thu Sep 19, 2002 13:29

Are The Shining Path a radical organisation?

Are The Wolfe Tones radical singers?

Are FilmFour (distributors of Bread and Roses) a radical independent company?

'Redundant' means superfluous, or unnecessary. Where is the Irish open-access, independent, unbiased news source whose work indymedia is supposedly duplicating?

Thu Sep 19, 2002 13:05

if imc can't differentiate between ff & radicals;

if imc can't differentiate between Shelley & Sugarbabes;

if imc can't differentiate between Loach & Liman;

if imc can't differentiate between Tesco & the Food Co-op

then imc is effectively redundant.

I think the word you're looking for Pat

Thu Sep 19, 2002 11:38

is 'unbiased'.

We all agree that the corporate media is unbalanced, biased, slanted, however you want to put it.

You seem to want indymedia to be just as unbalanced, biased, slanted... just in the other direction.

I'd rather see an indymedia that presented _all_ of the news, and let the readers make up their own mind.

If you start down the road of describing indymedia as 'for radicals', the obvious problem is deciding _who_ is radical - and who is radical _enough_? Are Maoists radical? Stalinists? Trots? Anarchists? Primitivists? Environmentalists? Labourites? NGOs? Republicans? Nationalists? Objectivists?
Should we be biased in favour of all of these? If not, which ones?

ray, from what you've just written, i can only assume that imc is redundant rather than radical.

by pat c

Thu Sep 19, 2002 11:20

Radical or reporting

Thu Sep 19, 2002 10:59

As far as I'm concerned, the purpose of indymedia is to provide people with an alternative news source. That's it.

Its not indymedia's job to tell people how to vote on Nice, who to vote for in elections, or even whether they should go to RTS.

Indymedia is here so that _you_ can tell people how to vote on Nice, what _you_ think of elections, why _you_ think people should go to RTS on Sunday.

Naturally, most of the people using indymedia will be activists, radicals, and lefties. They're people with something to say, who don't get to use the corporate media.

But that doesn't mean that they own indymedia, and that anything they say is fine, while anything 'the opposition' says should be banned.

I'm sure there'll be lots of articles next week talking about how great RTS was. But if someone wants to write an article opposing RTS, they should be free to use the newswire, same as anyone else. If a garda wants to write an article saying we're all bastards for breaking the law, that's fine too. Indymedia is an open forum, for anyone who wants to use it. People should not be banned because they're not radicals.*

Equally, when editorial guidelines are decided on, they should apply to everyone. You can't ban a rightwinger for using racist language, but accept it from a radical - something to remember when talking about Israel and Palestine. You can't ban Fianna Fail from posting their election manifesto, but say the Socialist Party is okay. And you can't ban advertising from one group but allow it from another.

The newswire is, or should be, open to _everyone_ who obeys the rules. If you don't like the political content of a post, then write a comment to that effect, don't try to ban it. Equally, the same rules must apply to _every_ post that appears on the newswire.

Ray

*That doesn't mean indymedia should be actively seeking out 'anti' voices, any more than it should be running around looking for people to write about Carrickmines or the anti-war campaign. Indymedia shouldn't be commissioning articles of any description. If someone wants to write an article, that's great. If they couldn't be bothered then we shouldn't bother chasing after them.

radical or redundant?

Thu Sep 19, 2002 10:21

i was under the impression that imc was a "radical" organisation dedicated to the "passionate telling of truth".

it really takes a strange "radical" mentality to be unable to diferentiate between indy movies radical books & those produced by capitalists.

i think some in imc are more intent on being redundant rather than radical. they really seem to be bothered by all these pesky articles people post.

so how is imc any different if you treat radicals & independents the same as capitalists & FF?

using this type of logic you should have balanced coverage of the rts event next sunday & also report from the garda point of view.

how about it commissioner o'brien?

Indymedia policy

by Bookworm

Thu Sep 19, 2002 10:16

It seems to me a genuine radical Indymedia is not neutral between corporate interests and grassroots groups fighting the corporate agenda.

That after all is the whole purpose of the thing.
Chief Censor Aidan the now says Globalise Resistance or Fianna Fail are all the same to him and they're out.

A book by a socialist on Shelley celebrating his radicalism falls into the same category as an advert for the Sun and is cut therefore.

Can't help feeling that Chief Censor Aidan hasn't quite got the hang of this radical thing.

Can someobody explain it to him in words of one syllable or take his blue pencil and razor blade away?

Pat and Ray

by Aidan

Thu Sep 19, 2002 02:06

Pat generally likes to feel that rules should be applied more stringently to mainstream and corporate than to left wing groups.

To wit an advertisement for a leftwing low budget film is okay, as is an advertisment for a book he thinks is interesting.

Ray argues that rules should be applied in a balanced manner no one should recieve more lenient treatment.

Essentially the first point of view is Indymedia should become a clique for left wing groups and puinish right wing groups.

There was a debate a few monthes back about Globalise Resistance recruiting on the newswire. Editorial members argued that allowing globalise resistance to advertise meant that if Ogra Fianna Faíl wanted to do likewise they should be allowed.

Essentially should the rules be applied evenly and to everyone?

I'm of the opinion yes they should. No one group or cause should recieve better treatment. Advertisments for books that we like or approve of shouldn't be let slide because that way leads to a bias, a real bias.

Wed Sep 18, 2002 16:27

the mail is from don mullan, he is pushing this independent film which tells the truth about what happened on bloody sunday. this is not a hollywood blockbuster. people who want the hollywood version of the north can see "patriot games".

i don't think there is much point in rehashing the arguments re shelley.

lets just agree to disagree on this.

Go see the film I made

Wed Sep 18, 2002 16:22

This is not an advertisement?
Sure the guy feels strongly about the subject, but its not as if all proceeds go to charity, is it?

How is this different from 'go buy the book I wrote?'

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

'Bloody Sunday' the movie

Comments (18 of 18)