Black 47 - new Irish film about The Great Hunger

Spon Farmer

gmisk wrote: »

RE the pigs body, they mentioned they were going to eat it. I would guess they were maybe scared of stealing a pig given the consequences?

You could be right there. I forgot that

the cousin was a rent/tax collector for Kilmichael because it isn't mentioned until after Feeney kills him.

As hungry as they were, people might still have afraid of crossing the authorities.

About the pig's body though, it was there a couple of hours untouched.

Dakota Dan

CatFromHue wrote: »

I heard the director being interviewed and he said this was a problem for them.

they couldn't find any sick or very thin people

There was one woman at the start and she was fairly miserable and thin looking.

Spon Farmer

homerun_homer wrote: »

Thought it was a fairly bad movie. It couldn't decide who the central character was. The cgi work was brutal and distracting. I do hate to criticise a home made movie with grander aspirations but if it starts with a script, then it was a very weak foundation to begin with.

I went to Stella to see it, and the the guy who played Feeney showed up for the Q&A with the director and Hugo Weaving, though he wasn't on the listing to be there. He did most of the talking and was so low toned, boring and drawn out. We were sitting there just thinking "let Hugo speak!!!" I must admit, for all his time in Ireland doing promo for it, Hugo didn't have much to say about it.

Where was the the "brutal and distracting" CGI work? Or any CGI?

gmisk

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Where was the the "brutal and distracting" CGI work? Or any CGI?

The two i remember

the part where he was walking in the "town" with all the houses in it with smoke etc, the train heading to the town as well

Spon Farmer

J Mysterio wrote: »

Saw it tonight and thoroughly enjoyed it. I must confess I was quite ignorant of the CGI abuse - what might be some examples of these horrible CGI moments?

I can see the point RE: 'Famine Rambo'. That's a funny and catchy descriptor for the film, but probably a bit harsh. It was certainly a big challenge to take this subject on and make a 2 hour odd film out of it, possibly one reason it hasnt been done before. I think they covered a lot of bases:

Irish 'taking the kings coin'
Some Irish helping the administration
Crop failure
Indifferent or actively cruel English administration
Land grabs, evictions
Food being transported out of Ireland
Some mention of 'soup for conversion' (but didnt really cover the workhouses so well).
Mass emigration

The film was quite sympathetic to the English characters in Keoghan and Weaving. I doubt there were many examples of individuals displaying that character at that time.

I also thought that the film could have been a bit stronger in terms of showing what people starving to death look like (be it through CGI or whatever). Emaciated bodies etc were not really on show. Equally, disease was not particularly well covered. There were some thoughtful moments though, such as Rea's conversation with Broadbent (the English girl V Irish girl) and the general devastation of Ireland and its people was reasonably well conveyed.

Overall, a good first foray into the topic, but can be inproved upon. 7/10.

I believe the "CGI" being criticised is actually the matte paintings.

I agree the film could have done with people looking much worse. There was talk of disease -

the mother died from "the fever" and that was referenced several more times.

Spon Farmer

gmisk wrote: »

The two i remember

the part where he was walking in the "town" with all the houses in it with smoke etc, the train heading to the town as well

Those were matte paintings - if we are thinking of the same scenes.

Spon Farmer

I got an email a while ago alerting me to a reply to one of my comments but the post isn't here.

Haunted thread:eek:

gmisk

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Those were matte paintings - if we are thinking of the same scenes.

I get that but they looked bizarre and totally took me out of the film.
As I said I didnt really dislike it....i just wanted it to be a bit better, given the people involved.


The only thing I absolutely hated in the film was Barry Keoghan and his wandering accent.

Spon Farmer

gmisk wrote: »

I get that but they looked bizarre and totally took me out of the film.
As I said I didnt really dislike it....i just wanted it to be a bit better, given the people involved.

I'm not disputing that the matte paintings were too obvious, just not CGI

gmisk

Spon Farmer wrote: »

I'm not disputing that the matte paintings were too obvious, just not CGI

So he actually walked into a matte painting?......there wasnt any CGI or similar used? :rolleyes:

I get the idea, and i hated it, I dont really care if it was a painting or CGI or a combo of both.

Banjaxed82

Passed the million Euro mark. Impressive stuff. Might be a bit cynical here, but I assume the box office is on the back of "look, there's a movie in the cinema about the famine" and not because it's a must see. I'm guessing it pulled in that demographic of audience who last went to the cinema when Michael Collins came out.

Was a pretty decent movie, but far too uneven in story/character to be satisfying.

Spon Farmer

gmisk wrote: »

So he actually walked into a matte painting?......there wasnt any CGI or similar used? :rolleyes:

I get the idea, and i hated it, I dont really care if it was a painting or CGI or a combo of both.

Where did Frenchville "walk into a painting"?

I think you are confused about how movies are made. Not an ideal place for a roll eyes emoji.

You can criticise yo your hearts content but it is silly if you have facts wrong.

Spon Farmer

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

Passed the million Euro mark. Impressive stuff. Might be a bit cynical here, but I assume the box office is on the back of "look, there's a movie in the cinema about the famine" and not because it's a must see. I'm guessing it pulled in that demographic of audience who last went to the cinema when Michael Collins came out.

Was a pretty decent movie, but far too uneven in story/character to be satisfying.

Has it been getting much publicity?

I saw (part of )one TV spot a couple of weeks ago. Surprised my local cinema even had it on. Last Irish movie they showed was The Stag, I think.

Banjaxed82

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Has it been getting much publicity?

I saw (part of )one TV spot a couple of weeks ago. Surprised my local cinema even had it on. Last Irish movie they showed was The Stag, I think.

On buses, etc so considerable enough exposure. To be honest, I'm using my uncle as the litmus test. He's been to the cinema about 5 times in his life and he went to see this, so I'm guessing this film is getting all sorts out of the woodwork.

Spon Farmer

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

On buses, etc so considerable enough exposure. To be honest, I'm using my uncle as the litmus test. He's been to the cinema about 5 times in his life and he went to see this, so I'm guessing this film is getting all sorts out of the woodwork.

I went to an early showing (my local cinema does very little business before 5pm - the girls tell me they only open the place for me ) and the other people at the film were definitely all over 60.

Based on the gasps it seems to have been the most violent thing many of them had ever seen.

Technocentral

What did me and 6 of my cinema buff friends miss? We all thought it was piss poor? Central character a plank, no directorial vision, amateur production? Can't understand the acolades!!

Spon Farmer

Technocentral wrote: »

What did me and 6 of my cinema buff friends miss? We all thought it was piss poor? Central character a plank, no directorial vision, amateur production? Can't understand the acolades!!

I haven't seen any reviews or of those accolades you mention - not saying you are wrong, just that that I haven't seen them - but who is granting the accolades?

That would be other "cinema buffs", my good man.

You didn't miss anything. It just wasn't your kind of thing. It was for others.

I had a similar experience with Moonlight. It was about nothing (and not in a good Seinfeld way) and I also don't understand the praise, the awards, etc. but there we go.

gmisk

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Where did Frenchville "walk into a painting"?

I think you are confused about how movies are made. Not an ideal place for a roll eyes emoji.

You can criticise yo your hearts content but it is silly if you have facts wrong.

So the scene with him on horse going into the 'village' how was that done? No cgi involved? Enlightenment me honestly.

Spon Farmer

gmisk wrote: »

So the scene with him on horse going into the 'village' how was that done? No cgi involved? Enlightenment me honestly.

Now you are not only confused about how a movie is made, you are clearly confused about what I'm saying to you.

Re-read what I actually posted and watch the movie again. Your answers are there.

TerrorFirmer

I thought all things considered - namely a small budget - it accomplishes an awful lot and is quite a solid film that captures something as broad as the famine quite well even though the famine is just a backdrop to the narrative.

Could it'd have been better with increased funding? Definitely, it certainly lacked a convincing sense of scale and depth in a lot of it's portrayal of the famine, but all-in-all it achieves a lot with very little.

Yes, the matte painting scenes were glaringly obvious, (maybe even a trifle nostalgic!), but it works fine in the context of what it is, honestly.

I really enjoyed it. It's not the sort of film I was expecting at all, but I think they did the best they could with the resources they had available and the end result is a highly competent, will-made indie 'western' transplanted into the Connemara landscape and the famine.

Thumbs up from me! Well worth a watch...just don't go in expecting anything other than a very well-crafted, labor-of-love low-budget production and enjoy it for what it is.

Spon Farmer

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I thought all things considered - namely a small budget - it accomplishes an awful lot and is quite a solid film that captures something as broad as the famine quite well even though the famine is just a backdrop to the narrative.

Could it'd have been better with increased funding? Definitely, it certainly lacked a convincing sense of scale and depth in a lot of it's portrayal of the famine, but all-in-all it achieves a lot with very little.

Yes, the matte painting scenes were glaringly obvious, (maybe even a trifle nostalgic!), but it works fine in the context of what it is, honestly.

I really enjoyed it. It's not the sort of film I was expecting at all, but I think they did the best they could with the resources they had available and the end result is a highly competent, will-made indie 'western' transplanted into the Connemara landscape and the famine.

Thumbs up from me! Well worth a watch...just don't go in expecting anything other than a very well-crafted, labor-of-love low-budget production and enjoy it for what it is.

Amen.

Defunkd

Just back and i liked it. Few minor grievances* but i'd watch it again. Took my sister to it and she wasn't impressed - she wasn't aware it was more of an action film. Subtitling was good...nice change from the norm imo. Was surprised at how long it felt and i liked how they included the proselytizing by both religious groups. Some nice humour too given the subject matter.
Would definitely recommend it.

*
The matte landscape of the houses in the background did my head in. Kept waiting for the whole scene to change into an old faded photo or postcard.
1 cgi background really stood out, where the 3 pursuers look into the mothers' destroyed house. The blonde captain really highlighted the greenscreen behind him.
And the spiel out of the translator with the lord, in front of the fire...about how the english maiden would look...found that a bit cringey. Aside from those smallies, i enjoyed it.

fryup

do we really need a movie like this?

we're in the middle of a peace process, movies like these only stir up bad feelings

zapitastas

fryup wrote: »

do we really need a movie like this?

we're in the middle of a peace process, movies like these only stir up bad feelings

Sure is best to bury the past deep down and let it fester, not to mention the GFA is 20 years old

fryup

well if you keep picking at a scab its going to bleed, best to let it be and heal

we're going to get nowhere if we keep dwelling on the past

Pa8301

fryup wrote: »

well if you keep picking at a scab its going to bleed, best to let it be and heal

we're going to get nowhere if we keep dwelling on the past

So movies that are based around unpleasant parts of history shouldn't be made?

Fysh

fryup wrote: »

well if you keep picking at a scab its going to bleed, best to let it be and heal

we're going to get nowhere if we keep dwelling on the past

On the contrary I would say that given the staggering amount of ignorance about Anglo-Irish history displayed by large chunks of the UK tabloid press and political body, it's probably better to have the history dragged out into the open rather than ignored in the basement in the hope that it therefore doesn't cause problems.

Films and popular culture are (or can be) a useful way of getting concepts and ideas into mainstream cultural conversation, and tbh outside of a couple of particular events we don't seem to see much about Irish history in film so I'd like to see more of it.

Defunkd

fryup wrote: »

well if you keep picking at a scab its going to bleed, best to let it be and heal

we're going to get nowhere if we keep dwelling on the past

But this is probably one of the most important era's in Irish history. About 12% of our population died from hunger and hunger related/induced illness; i don't know how many million emigrated but our population has not recovered to the pre-famine levels 170 years later. That's very significant in Irish history.

The film doesn't demonise the English and doesn't portray all the Irish as innocent victims either. It was fairly balanced i thought.
Stop being ashamed or embarrassed by your history for fear of offending others.

J Mysterio

Also thisnis like the first famine film? That in itself is remarkable.

bodhrandude

There's a massive thread about this in the Langers forum in PROC, all arguing about what is the proper Irish history and whether it was genocide or not. http://www.peoplesrepublicofcork.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243323

The Crowman

bodhrandude wrote: »

There's a massive thread about this in the Langers forum in PROC, all arguing about what is the proper Irish history and whether it was genocide or not. http://www.peoplesrepublicofcork.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243323

Troll central, half of the posters on that site are alts.

CatFromHue

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzIz5TYz-m8

Kermode liked it anyway

Riddle101

Saw it today and I think it was very good. Felt like an Irish version of Rambo First Blood, except that it was set during the Great Famine.

CatFromHue

I saw it today and thought it was good too. I didn't really know what was going to happen next which was a nice experience, granted I roughly knew but I never knew exactly.

There was also around 10 or so people in the cinema watching it too. This was a 5.25pm showing on a Monday so not bad.

What I was wondering was

when the blond English lad gets shot the first time he doesn't seem to be injured by it, just not knocked down!

also I thought Moe Dunford's character was killed but he seemed to be alive at the very end, even though it looked like he died earlier.

I did laugh pretty hard when the main character goes into "take the soup" and one of the other guys in there goes to him "we've been here for ages listening to this shite, don't ruin it for the rest of us"

AMKC

CatFromHue wrote: »

I saw it today and thought it was good too. I didn't really know what was going to happen next which was a nice experience, granted I roughly knew but I never knew exactly.

There was also around 10 or so people in the cinema watching it too. This was a 5.25pm showing on a Monday so not bad.

What I was wondering was

when the blond English lad gets shot the first time he doesn't seem to be injured by it, just not knocked down!

also I thought Moe Dunford's character was killed but he seemed to be alive at the very end, even though it looked like he died earlier.

I did laugh pretty hard when the main character goes into "take the soup" and one of the other guys in there goes to him "we've been here for ages listening to this shite, don't ruin it for the rest of us"

Only seen it today myself as well and there must have been at least 10 maybe more people in the cinema. I thought it was very good but also sad. You really feel for the characters.
There was a few laughs in it all right. There was some nice twists in it too and the acting is good as well.

as well as a few gruesome scenes like the pigs head on the landlord that he kills and the headless pig outside. I thought the fighting scene at the end was very good. "

spurious

The train annoyed me. Was it supposed to be in Connemara in 1847?

Other than that I enjoyed it. Yes, the 'special' effects were indeed a bit special and the Irish dialects meandered a bit, but overall I thought it was a good old bash at a subject that afaik hasn't been tackled before. I loved Stephen Rea's character.

CatFromHue

I was expecting a lot worse from the special effects but they weren't that bad tbh.

The acting was pretty good in general, especially considering the lead is an Aussie.

I like the way they did the subtitles too, very smartly done. Sometimes with sub titles I find that I'm looking away from the action and it's as if I'm doing two different things. The way it was done here it was very easy to read and watch.

OwaynOTT

Thought it was an excellent film. Loved it all but have to say I laughed out loud at the bitwhere he snuck up on your man at the fire and walked away backwards. Reminded me a bit of a reverse Nosferatu creep.

Riddle101

CatFromHue wrote: »

I saw it today and thought it was good too. I didn't really know what was going to happen next which was a nice experience, granted I roughly knew but I never knew exactly.

There was also around 10 or so people in the cinema watching it too. This was a 5.25pm showing on a Monday so not bad.

What I was wondering was

when the blond English lad gets shot the first time he doesn't seem to be injured by it, just not knocked down!

also I thought Moe Dunford's character was killed but he seemed to be alive at the very end, even though it looked like he died earlier.

I did laugh pretty hard when the main character goes into "take the soup" and one of the other guys in there goes to him "we've been here for ages listening to this shite, don't ruin it for the rest of us"

AMKC wrote: »

Only seen it today myself as well and there must have been at least 10 maybe more people in the cinema. I thought it was very good but also sad. You really feel for the characters.
There was a few laughs in it all right. There was some nice twists in it too and the acting is good as well.

as well as a few gruesome scenes like the pigs head on the landlord that he kills and the headless pig outside. I thought the fighting scene at the end was very good. "

Funny, there was about 10 people in my cinema as well when I saw it on Friday. Although I saw it at 2:15pm so I assumed most people would be in work.

Chris_Heilong

It was absolutely terrible, really badly shot using plenty of pans/zooms and fast cuts when they were not needed and all with-in the first 10 minutes of the movie, very amateurish. Some of the CGI was poor but that can be forgiven considering the budget and the Acting was TV quality at best. This was the most devastating event in Irish history and it is played as an action film, this should have been our Roots/Schindler's list. Something profound and with an emotional resonance after the movie had ended showing the true real life horror of starvation and death cause by the British, but alas we end up with Deathwish dressed as a period piece.

thesandeman

Addle wrote: »

Where can I get info about the shoot locations? Particularly the landlords house?
Google just tells me 'shot on location in connemara'.

The Connemara bits were mainly shot around Maam Valley and Kylemore (during the wettest feckin' night of last summer so no CGI there anyway).

Riddle101

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

It was absolutely terrible, really badly shot using plenty of pans/zooms and fast cuts when they were not needed and all with-in the first 10 minutes of the movie, very amateurish. Some of the CGI was poor but that can be forgiven considering the budget and the Acting was TV quality at best. This was the most devastating event in Irish history and it is played as an action film, this should have been our Roots/Schindler's list. Something profound and with an emotional resonance after the movie had ended showing the true real life horror of starvation and death cause by the British, but alas we end up with Deathwish dressed as a period piece.

I look at it like Django Unchained. Django was a spaghetti western (or southern) based during the civil war period and focused on slavery. The movie was supposed to look back at America's horrible past with slavery. However the movie was still a tribute to the old spaghetti westerns and had a lot of action in it too, and it was a revenge film.

With Black 47, we have a movie that is based during the time of the Great Famine, but it was also sort of like a western and a revenge film as well. I don't think the film glossed over the famine though. It showed how people suffered during the time, the starvation and the tyranny of the landlords. It didn't show the British or RIC in a good light either. So I give it a pass because it gave us something quite unique for an Irish film.

Rechuchote

spurious wrote: »

The train annoyed me. Was it supposed to be in Connemara in 1847?

Nope. Part of the way - probably to Enfield at that stage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midland_Great_Western_Railway and after that you'd take stage coaches, and from Galway you'd travel along the Corrib and Lough Corrib before taking horse.

I saw the film yesterday. Blew me away. I recognised a lot of the dialogue as contemporary, and quotes from British politicians, civil servants, newspapers, etc; the fireside joke about the farmer's daughter is still told with a bitter twist of the lips by Connemara people. I'll probably go to see it a second time, to look at it better when I'm not so intent on the story. Superb film.

D3V!L

Awful film, really really awful.

pixelburp

Finally got to see it and was impressed with the deft balance of a narrative that managed to get across the historical bullet points, without derailing the actual story threaded within. Bar the aforementioned matte backgrounds, the budget was put to good use, efficiently deployed to sell the action of the Revenge-Western tropes. Maybe not an original story (returning soldier seeks revenge upon those that wronged his kin), but told confidently and within an original setting to set it apart.

I've read this has done really well at the box office, and hope it spurs other Irish filmmakers to play with genres not immediately associated with Irish history or cinema, merge them with a local perspective to create something new.

igCorcaigh

OT and not related to the film, but this gave me chills...

https://twitter.com/irishhistory/status/1054313675618693125?s=19

BTW, a worthy podcast to follow

NIMAN

It was just alright, thats the best I could say about it.
I'd say a 6/10 would be generous. More likely a 5.
The acting wasn't great all round.

I had read a few rave reviews about it beforehand, and listened to the like of Turbidy extolling its virtues. I think people are too eager to say great things about average things, as long as they are Irish related.

Perhaps I was coming into it expecting better. Overhyped films have generally always disappointed me.

dulux99

Maybe my expectations were too high going into this but I thought it was fairly bland. I make a point of not googling a film too much before going to see it these days, for the most part I've found that to be a good thing, but had I known this was a spaghetti western type thing I don't think I'd have bothered. I was expecting something like the wind that shakes the barley, and it most certainly wasn't that. Not terrible but I wouldn't be endorsing it to any friends.

Rechuchote

Locations for the film: https://www.kftv.com/news/2018/02/23/berlinale-black-47-films-in-western-ireland

Telecaster58

NIMAN wrote: »

It was just alright, thats the best I could say about it.
I'd say a 6/10 would be generous. More likely a 5.
The acting wasn't great all round.

I had read a few rave reviews about it beforehand, and listened to the like of Turbidy extolling its virtues. I think people are too eager to say great things about average things, as long as they are Irish related.

Perhaps I was coming into it expecting better. Overhyped films have generally always disappointed me.

This. I don't think I've read a bad review of an Irish film in an Irish paper though most of them are awful. I generally avoid them like the plague.