Propaganda Watch - Ireland Edition

This past Thursday, a man stabbed and seriously injured five people, two women and three young children, at a school in Dublin, Ireland.

Anti-immigration protests broke out in response to the attack, which many believed to have been committed by an Algerian immigrant (a claim which has not been officially confirmed), and escalated into a riot, with police being assaulted, buildings and vehicles being burned, and stores looted.

The preceding two paragraphs are my simple attempt to describe in as journalistically neutral a way the calamitous events of November 24, 2023 in Dublin, Ireland. It could certainly use a few more drafts and an editor, but it is professional enough to be passable.

It wasn’t that hard to write those two paragraphs, and yet, perusing the coverage of the terrible events in Dublin on Thursday in the leading newspapers here in the U.S., one finds some egregious journalism, insipid bias, and blatant propaganda on display. When compared to these newspaper’s coverage of similar incidents, it reveals an ingrained bias and insidious level of propaganda that is alarming but not shocking.

Let’s start with the “paper of record” The New York Times.

The New York Times headline on its original article about the Dublin incident reads, “Rioters Clash With Police in Dublin After Children are Hurt in Knife Attack”.

At first glance this seems to be accurate, but when you read between the lines you realize the headline, and the story beneath, are a minefield of managed propaganda.

Let’s start with the phrase “children are hurt in knife attack”. This phraseology is intentionally meant to diminish the horror of the attack. Notice, the children are “hurt”, which is a passive descriptor, and the term “attack” is not a verb here, and is also passive.

Another way to write the headline would be to describe the incident as “children wounded in knife attack” or “children attacked by knife-wielding man”. Those descriptions create a much more visceral response regarding the attack, as opposed to the Times headline which tries to create the visceral reaction in regard to the riot which followed.

It's similar to how establishment media describe death in the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Israelis are “killed” (viscerally charged language – killing is ugly and brutal and the people who kill – the Palestinians – are to be regarded as actively evil) while the Palestinians “die” (passive – as if it’s a quiet and sterile act of God). There’s also the phrasing of Hamas releasing Israeli “hostages” while Israel releases Palestinian “prisoners”. How the establishment media wants you to react to a story is signaled in the semantics of the story.

Speaking of semantics, the term “rioters” is also a very distinct choice that intentionally carries with it a stigma and negative connotation meant to convey judgement and condemnation, placing the reader in opposition to the “rioters” and their cause. But is the term “rioter” the accurate choice?

A riot certainly broke out in Dublin on Thursday, so describing the people doing the fighting with police and burning and looting as rioters would seem accurate…except it didn’t start as a riot, it started as a protest and then escalated/spiraled out of control into a riot. An accurate description would be to say that “protests devolved into riots”.

The New York Times was not alone in their use of the term “rioters” and “riot” as both the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal did the same.

The Washington Post headline ignored the attack on women and children altogether and simply declared, “Far-Right Protestors Burn and Loot in Dublin in Worst Violence in Decades”. You’d be hard pressed to find a more biased headline than that to describe the events of November 24, 2023 in Dublin.

The Post article then goes on to describe how “…rioters, some wielding metal bars, smashed windows and looted shops in the city center.”

The Wall Street Journal opened with, “Ireland witnessed its worst civil disorder in decades after rioters marauded through Dublin city center looting shops and setting buses and police cars on fire in a spate of violence…”.

“Rioters marauding” is quite the creative flourish, and would make for a great band name or album title.

The picture painted by the Times, Post and Journal is pretty clear, that the “riot” and the “rioters” are much worse than the “incident” where five people were stabbed. Hell, The Washington Post ignored the attack in favor of the riots in their headline. These corporate media outlets make it even more clear of their intention by only quoting police and government authorities in their stories.

There are quotes from Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, who deemed the “rioters” to be “thugs”. And from Irish Justice Minister, Helen McEntee, who stated, “a thuggish and manipulative element must not be allowed use an appalling tragedy to wreak havoc…”.

There are numerous quotes from police officials, who blamed the riots on a “lunatic, hooligan faction driven by a far-right ideology”.

What was missing from every single article I read, and not just in the big three newspapers mentioned above, was a quote from someone who was actually attending the “riot” and/or participating in it.

As someone interested in journalism, it seems to me that finding out why these people are crazed enough to riot would be a pivotal piece to the story…but apparently not.

That’s not to say that the “rioters” motivations are ignored, they aren’t, as every article claims, without evidence, that the “rioters” are “far-right”, “anti-immigrant” hooligans. The only source for those claims are police and government officials.

You may be thinking, what is wrong with any of the preceding examples of journalism I have presented? Well, when seen in context with the establishment media’s coverage of other similar incidents, it tells quite a story.

Back in May of 2020, George Floyd died while being forcefully detained on a street by multiple Minneapolis Police officers. Floyd’s desperate pleas for his life and subsequent death were captured on video and quickly spread through social media, igniting outrage and protests, which descended into a riot which involved violence, burning and looting.

The previous paragraph is a passable paragraph describing the killing of George Floyd and the subsequent civil unrest with a minimal amount of bias injected. The term “killing” could replace the word “death” in the second sentence, but at the time it was not entirely clear what killed him…and frankly it’s still pretty murky to this day. That said, it is relatively accurate.

The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, were all very clear in describing the “rioters” in Dublin the other day. Interestingly enough, they never used the term “riot” or “rioter” to describe what happened in the wake of George Floyd’s death (now deemed a murder).

The headline of the Times’ article on Dublin blared, “Rioters Clash with Police”, but the Times’ headline regarding the unrest following Floyd’s death reads, “Fiery Clashes Erupt Between Police and Protestors”.

Notice how the story in Dublin is framed? “Rioters Clash with Police” makes it clear who is instigating – the “rioters”…not to mention the term rioters makes clear they and their cause are to be perceived negatively and with disdain.

In contrast, the violence between police and “protestors” in Minneapolis appears to simply be an act of nature, like a volcano, as “fiery clashes erupt”.

And of course, the rioters in Minneapolis are described as “protestors” throughout the reporting and never as rioters, thus giving them and their cause nobility and not tainting it with criminality, like the term “rioters” implies.

The Washington Post did the same, with their headline stating, “Protests Continue to Rage”.

The Post article features this astonishing paragraph, “Protesters broke windows and charged over fences to breach a police precinct station in Minneapolis and set it on fire late Thursday as officers retreated from violent confrontations that boiled over days after George Floyd died in police custody.”

The actions described, breaking windows, charging over fences and setting a police station on fire, are all very clearly acts that occur in a riot, and not at a protest…and yet the Post, as well as the Times and the Journal, never, not once, refer to the people who commit these acts as “rioters”. The “rioters” in Dublin all broke windows and lit things on fire, and were called “rioters” for it.

The Post article also quotes one of the “protestors” inside in the police station who is actively lighting it on fire. The quote reads, ““We’re starting fires in here so be careful,” one man shouted as sprinklers doused protesters who had burst inside. Flames began to rise from the front of the building as hundreds of protesters looked on, and soon smoke was billowing from the roof.”

Quoting this man, and the particular quote they use, is an obvious attempt to humanize the man, the “protesters” and the “protest” movement. You see, this “protestor” is concerned for human life and wants to make sure everyone is safe as he burns the police station to the ground. (I actually believe that this quote is manufactured by the reporter as it is just too perfect…but I cannot prove that) Why did the reporter use only that quote and not another? Curious.

Of course, the Post didn’t get any quotes from the protestors/rioters in Dublin, because that would illuminate their motivations and maybe even humanize them, something which apparently is anathema since it is so dangerous to hear their point of view.

The Wall Street Journal, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch and is right-wing, was no different in its coverage of the Floyd “protests”. The Journal’s original article says, “…protesters walked for 2½ miles to a Minneapolis police precinct. Some damaged windows, a squad car and sprayed graffiti. Police in riot gear formed into a line to confront the protesters and fired tear gas…”

The Journal never labels the “protestors” as “rioters”, despite the fact that the police were wearing “riot” gear….which is pretty funny. Why didn’t the police put on “protest” gear?

Another interesting comparison between the Dublin “riots” and the George Floyd “protests” is that these big three establishment media outlets all use police and government officials as sources and for quotes regarding Dublin, but not with regard to the Floyd “protests”.

These police and Irish government official’s claims are taken at face value and never questioned. When these officials call for “law and order” and declaring the “rioters” “thugs” and “hooligans”, it is seen as a positive and their actions noble in a fight against rampant hate and criminality.

In contrast, none of these three mainstream newspapers got quotes from police officials in their articles on the “protests” in the wake of George Floyd’s death. The only government official quoted was Trump who was painted as a tyrannical demagogue for calling the “protestors”, “thugs”.

Regardless of what you think or feel regarding the “riots” in Dublin or the “protests” about George Floyd’s death, the important thing to understand, and why I am writing this article, is that you are being relentlessly manipulated. How you think and feel is not a function of you rationally examining and weighing evidence. It is a result of you being emotionally manipulated through the use of subtle, and sometimes not-so-subtle, propaganda techniques.

The news you read or hear or watch, is manufactured and is a tool to manipulate you to into feeling how the ruling elite want you to feel.

In the case of Dublin, the globalists want you to decry anti-immigration sentiments and to see anyone who resists unfettered immigration as a “far-right”, racist villain, even though these Irish “rioters” may, in the case of Ireland (which has never been a colonizer – only colonized), be in an existential war to save the country and culture their ancestors fought for, and died for, for centuries.

The same manipulation is true regarding the George Floyd “protests”. The ruling elite want you to believe, and polls show an overwhelming majority of liberals do believe, that police are slaughtering unarmed blacks by the thousands every year. That is demonstrably false even though it “feels” correct according to media coverage.

Hyper-racialization and mass immigration are among the most valuable weapons used by the ruling elite to divide, conquer and pillage…and most of the people fall for it most of the time.

The bottom line is that, to quote the great George Orwell, “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”

Unfortunately, with attention spans and I.Q. dropping like flies in our insatiably emotionalist, social media saturated culture, fewer and fewer have the ability, or the will, to see what is in front of their nose and to sniff out the insidious and insipid establishment propaganda that is hiding in plain sight.

So, if you open your eyes and engage in the struggle, you’ll clearly see the mountains of bullshit in which they are currently rubbing your nose.

Follow me on Twitter: @MPMActingCo

©2023

The Wonder: A Review - If You Hate the Irish, You'll Love This Film

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 2.25 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT/SEE IT. Some solid performances and beautiful cinematography are tainted by the film’s Hollywood narrative and truly ugly anti-Irish ideology.

The Wonder, directed by Sebastian Lelio and written by Alice Birch and Emma Donoghue based on Donoghue’s novel of the same name, is a new Netflix film that tells the story of an English nurse sent to a rural Irish town in 1862 to investigate the supposed miracle of a young girl who hasn’t eaten in four months.

The nurse, Elizabeth “Lib” Wright (Florence Pugh), must struggle against patriarchal forces, local custom, and deeply-ingrained religious belief to try and find the truth about what exactly is happening to Anna O’Donnell (Kila Lord Kassidy), the allegedly miraculous young girl.

The Wonder has a lot of things going for it in attempting to keep me interested. First of all, the film stars Florence Pugh, an actress of great talent and skill who thus far has never failed to impress me. Even in the recent cinematic disaster that was Don’t Worry Darling, Pugh delivered a worthy performance. No small feat in such a bad movie.

Secondly, my grandfather grew up in an impossibly tiny, rural village in County Mayo in the West of Ireland which was very close to the town of Knock. Knock, for those who don’t know, is a religious shrine and place of pilgrimage because in 1879 apparitions of the Virgin Mary, St. Joseph and St. John the Baptist all appeared to a group of villagers.

The Catholic Church has long since put its stamp of approval on the Knock incident and such notables as Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis, Mother Teresa and arguably the most Holy and most notable Catholic of all, me, have visited the shrine.

The Wonder reminds of the mystery at Knock because of the question of religious validity at the heart of its narrative as well as the rural and somewhat foreboding and forbidding nature of the setting.

All of this is to say that The Wonder had me intrigued simply from its premise, but unfortunately it makes certain choices, some odd, some predictable, some rather vicious and ignorant, that greatly diminishes its value.

For example, the film opens with the shot of a movie soundstage accompanied by a voice-over telling viewers “This is the beginning of a film called The Wonder. The people you are about to meet, the characters, believe in their stories with complete devotion. We are nothing without stories. And so we invite you to believe in this one.”

The camera then turns its attention to a movie set populated by actors, and through voice-over the narrator sets the scene telling us that its 1862 and English nurse Elizabeth Wright is headed to Ireland and the story begins…but not without a small comment that speaks volumes about the film’s ugly ideology – but more on that later.

I found this attempt at an unorthodox artistic opening to be painfully patronizing and distracting as it needlessly creates a hurdle to suspending disbelief while speaking down to its audience. The detached narrator later resurfaces in the film but not enough for it to be profound or to make any sort of narrative or artistic sense.

Once the actual story begins, we are treated to two positive things, firstly, Florence Pugh once again proves her worth as she gives a very solid performance as the lead “Lib”.

The rest of the cast all do solid work as well, with Brian F. O’Byrne, Ciaran Hinds, and Toby Jones doing dutiful work in supporting roles. Kila Lord Cassidy is also good as the young girl in question, Anna.

In addition to the acting, the film is beautifully shot by cinematographer Ari Wegner, who makes the most of the Irish setting and the candlelit era. Wegner scored an Oscar nomination for her work on The Power of the Dog last year and I wouldn’t be surprised if she snags another this year with The Wonder.

The problem though is that the window dressing of Wegner’s crisp and luscious cinematography and Pugh’s pointed performance are overshadowed by the smug, deplorable politics of the film and the pedestrian nature of its narrative, which ultimately spirals into preposterousness and banality.  

I’ll refrain from going too much further into the plot of The Wonder so as to avoid spoilers and conserve the viewing experience for those interested, but I will say that the Hollywood nature of the narrative ultimately fails to live up to the artistry of Pugh and Wegner.

The surface politics of the film are predictably trite with the usual misandry and anti-religious (more accurately anti-Catholic) sentiments of our vacuous era front and center. Pugh’s “Lib”, like every female protagonist nowadays, struggles against the all-powerful patriarchy which infects the entirety of the world with its singular evil. Yawn.

To give an indication of the film’s intellectual vapidity and political crudeness, “Lib” is the female “liberator” – how subtle - trying to free a young woman, Anna, from the grips of backwards Irish-Catholicism and bring her to a progressive utopia. Eye roll.

As formulaic as the ‘patriarchy as villain’ storyline is, the thing that really repulses is the unabashed anti-Irishness of the film.

Now for that small but revealing voice-over comment I referred to earlier. It was made by the narrator at the tail end of the unorthodox opening to the film. The narrator explains that “Lib” is an Englishwoman traveling to Ireland while the potato famine of the previous decade is tapering off, and then we are told with a seemingly straight face that “The Irish hold the English responsible for that devastation.” Ummm…No shit. “The Irish hold the English responsible for that devastation” BECAUSE THE ENGLISH WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT DEVASTATION!

What makes it even worse is that the narrative of the film is such that it doesn’t just minimize The Great Hunger, which killed a million Irish and displaced twice as many, its sub-text is that the famine was the fault of the Irish – to the point of being their choice. I mean, this is a story about a girl who doesn’t eat – and thus may be starving herself for ulterior motives. That’s pretty explicitly saying the Irish are liars responsible for their own starvation – which is obviously historically wholly inaccurate.

Imagine if a film about Jews in Europe in 1948 opened with a voice-over stating that in regards to the Holocaust “Jews hold Nazis responsible for that devastation” and then dramatized how Jews were actually the ones who caused the Holocaust, and the protagonist is a Nazi sent to liberate a Jew from other Jews. Or a film about former slaves in the American South in the wake of the Civil War describing slavery with “blacks hold white southerners responsible for that devastation”, and then dramatized that blacks were actually responsible for slavery and a white Southerner is the intelligent protagonist trying to free a black man from stupid and backward black people.

People in our current culture of outrage would be apoplectic at such an insidious and insipid twisting of history being imposed on those two groups that are officially-approved as victims. But with the Irish no one bats an eye at their attempted extermination first being downplayed and then actually blamed on them.

The Netflix show The Crown is currently getting some heat because Queen Elizabeth II recently died and they aren’t being adequately respectful to her or something, but The Wonder minimizes and Brit-washes the genocide of the Irish, and then blames the Irish for it, and no one says a word. Yes, let’s respect the Queen, symbol of British colonialism that murdered millions not just in Ireland but across the globe, and let’s portray these victims of the British Empire, like the Irish, as the true brutal monsters who brought the horrors upon themselves. Insane.

The Wonder maintains this aggressive anti-Irish attitude throughout, portraying the Irish as a cruel, backwards, barbaric and utterly savage people with Lib being the English voice of reason/saviour.

The film, not surprisingly, does the same with Catholicism. Of course, audiences are so conditioned to hate the Catholic Church in modern film (and culture) that I doubt anyone will care. And to be clear, it’s not like the Catholic Church over the years hasn’t dutifully earned the scorn it receives. It’s just that singling out a specific religion as an abominable institution, while whitewashing the evils of the British Empire, is a bit much and feels ever so slightly hypocritical.

Director Sebastian Lelio, a Chilean, may very well be ignorant of the history of Ireland, the British responsibility for the genocide of The Great Hunger and for centuries of violence and oppression across the globe. But if you’re going to make a movie about Ireland you might want to read up a bit on the place and the people. Lelio’s ignorance is on him. And if it isn’t ignorance, and if he really thinks this way, then that says more about his moral and ethical depravity than it does about the Irish and Catholicism.

The film’s co-writer Emma Donoghue, who authored the book it’s based upon, is an Irish woman. Her take on Ireland, the Great Hunger, and the relationship with the English is stunning for its imbecility. Donoghue’s Irish self-loathing is no doubt fueled by her having grown up a lesbian in Ireland, which at the time was a robust Catholic country. I assume that wasn’t easy, but hating Catholicism for its sins is still no excuse to ignore history and reflexively lick English boots.

It's fascinating to see Lelio and Donoghue’s hierarchy of beliefs play out in real time in their movie. I’ve no doubt both are devout liberals and believe they are profoundly expressing those beliefs with this story. But their blind spot is that they’ve placed anti-Catholicism, and by extension anti-Irishness, higher on their hierarchy than anti-British colonialism, which is both astonishing and revealing. This choice speaks to the current tortured state of the bourgeois, capitalism-addicted liberal mind and its accompanying depraved and trans-actional morals and ethics.

Despite the rancid ideology of the film, The Wonder is bursting with cinematic possibilities, but unfortunately the potential complexity of the premise is scuttled on the rocks of simplicity due to acute artistic vacuity and story-telling conventionality.

To the film’s credit, it did keep me captivated for a good portion of its 103-minute run time, but ultimately left me deeply dramatically and narratively unsatisfied at the end. In addition, it’s aggressive anti-Irishness left me aggravated and agitated.

The Irish have been through a lot through the years, from conquest to occupation to subjugation to discrimination to genocide to civil war to terrorism and all the rest. We’ve survived it all, and goodness knows we’ll survive some rather forgettable anti-Irish movie streaming on Netflix too.

©2022

St. Patrick's Day : The Five Best Irish Films

The following article is republished from St. Patrick's Day 2015

Estimated Reading Time : 7 Minutes

I am Irish-American. Most of my best friends are Irish. Among the loveliest of the plethora of lovely ladies in my prodigious gaggle of gorgeous girlfriends are Irish. I love the Irish. I love being Irish. But...I do not love St. Patrick's Day. St. Patrick's Day is the day people of all types get to embody the most base and degrading stereotypes of the Irish. They dress in kelly green, wear "Kiss Me I'm Irish" pins, get roaring drunk and vomit all over themselves and anyone unfortunate enough to be within vomit radius. For some reason I can't quite understand, stereotyping of the Irish is permitted by our culture which is so quick to take offense when other groups or nationalities are stereotypically portrayed. Ironically, in attempting to celebrate Irishness, people end up being incredibly and disgustingly disrespectful to the Irish and what it means to be Irish.

Irishness, contrary to common beliefs, is not about leprechauns, shamrocks and pots o' gold. Nor does it entail wearing green, getting drunk and puking. Rather, Irishness is a complex combination of fierce defiance, intellectual curiosity, contemplative melancholy, and roguish charm that outwardly manifests itself in artistic, cultural and spiritual works of immense depth and genius.

So, as an actual tribute to the Irish, instead of drinking green beer and eating corn beef and cabbage today, I recommend you dive into the plethora of fantastic Irish works of art. Whether in the form of music, literature or film, true Irish culture is worth exploring in order to get a sense of who the Irish really, truly are, and what has made them that way. Go read the works of James Joyce, Sean O'Casey, W.B. Yeats, George Bernard Shaw or Seamus Heaney. Go listen to some traditional Irish music, or put on some Van Morrison, Rory Gallagher or U2. Or, since this is an acting coaching website...go and watch a great Irish film!

With that in mind, here are a list of my favorite Irish films which I thoroughly encourage you to watch. Instead of going to a crowded bar and being surrounded by idiotic jackass phony-Irish wannabes and taking the risk of getting covered in your own vomit,  or worse, someone else's, sit down and watch these films and come to understand the heart and soul of the greatest people on earth.

TOP FIVE IRISH FILMS

1. BLOODY SUNDAY directed by Paul Greengrass : 

Bloody Sunday (2002) is the true story of the 1972 shootings of innocent protestors in Derry in the occupied six counties, by British Army paratroopers. The film is masterfully directed by Paul Greengrass, who later went on to direct some of the Bourne films and United 93. 

Through the dynamic use of handheld camera, Greengrass creates an intimacy and immediacy that is riveting, and that impacts the viewer on a visceral level. In addition to Greengrass, lead actor James Nesbitt does spectacular work as Ivan Cooper, the organizer of the peaceful protest that ends is bloody slaughter. Nesbitt's performance is the centerpiece of an outstanding ensemble.

Bloody Sunday may be difficult to watch, but it is a truly great film that is must-see.

2. HUNGER directed by Steve McQueen :

Hunger (2008), is the story of the 1981 hunger strike by Bobby Sands and other members of the I.R.A. at the H.M.S. Maze prison. This is Steve McQueen's first feature film, which he later followed with Shame and the Academy Award winning 12 Years a Slave.

McQueen proves right out of the gate that he is an artistic and creative master as a director with Hunger. The visuals of the film have such a unique grit and texture to them that they can, and often do, tell the story all by themselves. Along with McQueen's brilliant direction, Hunger boasts Michael Fassbenders tour-de-force portrayal of Bobby Sands, which elevates the film to a transcendent work of genius. Fassbender's performance in Hunger is as intricately crafted and delicately human as any captured on film in the last twenty years.

Again, Hunger is not for the feint of heart. It is a brutally unforgiving film. Yet, it is such a finely crafted film, that it takes its much deserved space in the pantheon of great Irish films.

3. JIM SHERIDAN FILMS - IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER (1993), IN AMERICA (2003), MY LEFT FOOT (1989), THE FIELD, (1990), THE BOXER (1997)

Jim Sheridan is the Grand Master of Irish filmmakers. No other director has been as consistently great as Sheridan. In fact, Sheridan's work is so superlative that I couldn't pick just one film to put in my top five, so I gave him a top five list all to his own.

1. In the Name of the Father (1993): Based on the true story of the Guilford Four, four people wrongly convicted for the 1974 Guildford Pub bombing by the I.R.A. which killed five people. Daniel Day-Lewis stars as Gerry Conlon, a wayward Irish youth who gets blamed for the bombing, as does his father, family members and friends. Day-Lewis' gives a powerhouse performance that propels this film to the tops of the Sheridan list.

2. In America (2003) : A semi-autobiographical film about the Sullivan family, husband Johnny, his wife Sarah, and their two daughters, Christy and Ariel who move to New York City from Ireland in 1982 in the wake of the death of their young son Frankie. Samantha Morton stars as Sarah and earned an Oscar nomination for her stellar performance, as did Djimon Hounsou in a supporting role as their HIV positive neighbor. The entire cast, particularly the two young actresses, Sarah and Emma Bolger, are outstanding. In America is a deeply moving, and insightful look into the struggle to find forgiveness and peace in a new land.

3. My Left Foot (1989) : The film that put Sheridan on the map, is the story of Christy Brown, an Irishman born with cerebral palsy, who can only use his left foot. Brown overcomes his obstacles and becomes a writer and painter. Daniel Day-Lewis won his first Best Actor Oscar for his remarkable work in the lead, and Brenda Fricker won a Best Supporting Actor as Bridget Brown, Christy Brown's mother. An excellent film buoyed by sterling performances.

4. The Field (1990) : The story of an old Irish farmer, Bull McCabe, trying to hold onto a strip of land, his family and tradition. McCabe is played by Richard Harris, who earned an Oscar nomination for his fine performance. Have you noticed a pattern? Actor's get Oscar nominations when they are directed by Jim Sheridan, which is why so many great actors want to keep working with him.

5. The Boxer (1997) : The story of a boxer recently released from prison, who was a former member of the I.R.A. Once again Daniel Day-Lewis stars as Danny Flynn and is really incredible as the boxer trying reform his ways in the ever more complex world of "The Troubles". Emma Watson plays Maggie, Flynn's former girlfriend, and gives a subtly compelling performance. Day-Lewis' continuous commitment to realism in the portrayal of a boxer wins the day, as his seamless portrayal is as spot on as any in film history.

4. ONCE directed by John Carney

Once (2007), is an Irish musical film about the trials and tribulations of a Dublin singer/songwriter street musician as he tries to make a career in the music business. The "guy", played by Glen Hansard, meets and falls for a piano playing Czech immigrant "girl", played by Marketa Irglova. The two lead actors have a phenomenal chemistry and charm. The music is heartbreakingly good.  Once is joyously exhilarating in its artistic spirit, its musical power and its heart felt honesty. An absolute gem of a film.

5. THE WIND THAT SHAKES THE BARLEY directed by Ken Loach

The Wind That Shakes the Barley (2006), is the story of two brothers, Damien and Teddy O'Donovan who join the Irish Republican Army and fight in the Irish War of Independence (1919-1922) and the Irish Civil War (1922-1923). Cillian Murphy stars as Damien and gives the strongest performance of his fine career. The film excels due to Murphy's complex work and also because of director Loach's clear, detailed and specific dramatic explanation of the wars for Ireland and what caused them and why. Definitely worth your time if you enjoy Irish history. 

In the spirit of the day, I leave you now with the words of one of the great Irish poets.

Had I the heaven' embroidered cloths,

Enwrought with golden and silver light,

The blue and the dim and the dark cloths

Of night and light and the half light,

I would spread the cloths under your feet:

But I, being poor, have only my dreams;

I have spread my dreams under your feet;

Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.

- He Wishes for the Cloths of Heaven by W.B. Yeats

And thus concludes my St. Patrick's Day sermon.  Go forth, spread the word and try to remember what it actually means to be Irish today. Sláinte Mhaith!! 

© 2015

St. Patrick's Day : The Five Best Irish Films

The following article is republished from St. Patrick's Day 2015

Estimated Reading Time : 7 Minutes

I am Irish-American. Most of my best friends are Irish. Among the loveliest of the plethora of lovely ladies in my prodigious gaggle of gorgeous girlfriends are Irish. I love the Irish. I love being Irish. But...I do not love St. Patrick's Day. St. Patrick's Day is the day people of all types get to embody the most base and degrading stereotypes of the Irish. They dress in kelly green, wear "Kiss Me I'm Irish" pins, get roaring drunk and vomit all over themselves and anyone unfortunate enough to be within vomit radius. For some reason I can't quite understand, stereotyping of the Irish is permitted by our culture which is so quick to take offense when other groups or nationalities are stereotypically portrayed. Ironically, in attempting to celebrate Irishness, people end up being incredibly and disgustingly disrespectful to the Irish and what it means to be Irish.

Irishness, contrary to common beliefs, is not about leprechauns, shamrocks and pots o' gold. Nor does it entail wearing green, getting drunk and puking. Rather, Irishness is a complex combination of fierce defiance, intellectual curiosity, contemplative melancholy, and roguish charm that outwardly manifests itself in artistic, cultural and spiritual works of immense depth and genius.

So, as an actual tribute to the Irish, instead of drinking green beer and eating corn beef and cabbage today, I recommend you dive into the plethora of fantastic Irish works of art. Whether in the form of music, literature or film, true Irish culture is worth exploring in order to get a sense of who the Irish really, truly are, and what has made them that way. Go read the works of James Joyce, Sean O'Casey, W.B. Yeats, George Bernard Shaw or Seamus Heaney. Go listen to some traditional Irish music, or put on some Van Morrison, Rory Gallagher or U2. Or, since this is an acting coaching website...go and watch a great Irish film!

With that in mind, here are a list of my favorite Irish films which I thoroughly encourage you to watch. Instead of going to a crowded bar and being surrounded by idiotic jackass phony-Irish wannabes and taking the risk of getting covered in your own vomit,  or worse, someone else's, sit down and watch these films and come to understand the heart and soul of the greatest people on earth.

TOP FIVE IRISH FILMS

1. BLOODY SUNDAY directed by Paul Greengrass : 

Bloody Sunday (2002) is the true story of the 1972 shootings of innocent protestors in Derry in the occupied six counties, by British Army paratroopers. The film is masterfully directed by Paul Greengrass, who later went on to direct some of the Bourne films and United 93. 

Through the dynamic use of handheld camera, Greengrass creates an intimacy and immediacy that is riveting, and that impacts the viewer on a visceral level. In addition to Greengrass, lead actor James Nesbitt does spectacular work as Ivan Cooper, the organizer of the peaceful protest that ends is bloody slaughter. Nesbitt's performance is the centerpiece of an outstanding ensemble.

Bloody Sunday may be difficult to watch, but it is a truly great film that is must-see.

2. HUNGER directed by Steve McQueen :

Hunger (2008), is the story of the 1981 hunger strike by Bobby Sands and other members of the I.R.A. at the H.M.S. Maze prison. This is Steve McQueen's first feature film, which he later followed with Shame and the Academy Award winning 12 Years a Slave.

McQueen proves right out of the gate that he is an artistic and creative master as a director with Hunger. The visuals of the film have such a unique grit and texture to them that they can, and often do, tell the story all by themselves. Along with McQueen's brilliant direction, Hunger boasts Michael Fassbenders tour-de-force portrayal of Bobby Sands, which elevates the film to a transcendent work of genius. Fassbender's performance in Hunger is as intricately crafted and delicately human as any captured on film in the last twenty years.

Again, Hunger is not for the feint of heart. It is a brutally unforgiving film. Yet, it is such a finely crafted film, that it takes its much deserved space in the pantheon of great Irish films.

3. JIM SHERIDAN FILMS - IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER (1993), IN AMERICA (2003), MY LEFT FOOT (1989), THE FIELD, (1990), THE BOXER (1997)

Jim Sheridan is the Grand Master of Irish filmmakers. No other director has been as consistently great as Sheridan. In fact, Sheridan's work is so superlative that I couldn't pick just one film to put in my top five, so I gave him a top five list all to his own.

1. In the Name of the Father (1993): Based on the true story of the Guilford Four, four people wrongly convicted for the 1974 Guildford Pub bombing by the I.R.A. which killed five people. Daniel Day-Lewis stars as Gerry Conlon, a wayward Irish youth who gets blamed for the bombing, as does his father, family members and friends. Day-Lewis' gives a powerhouse performance that propels this film to the tops of the Sheridan list.

2. In America (2003) : A semi-autobiographical film about the Sullivan family, husband Johnny, his wife Sarah, and their two daughters, Christy and Ariel who move to New York City from Ireland in 1982 in the wake of the death of their young son Frankie. Samantha Morton stars as Sarah and earned an Oscar nomination for her stellar performance, as did Djimon Hounsou in a supporting role as their HIV positive neighbor. The entire cast, particularly the two young actresses, Sarah and Emma Bolger, are outstanding. In America is a deeply moving, and insightful look into the struggle to find forgiveness and peace in a new land.

3. My Left Foot (1989) : The film that put Sheridan on the map, is the story of Christy Brown, an Irishman born with cerebral palsy, who can only use his left foot. Brown overcomes his obstacles and becomes a writer and painter. Daniel Day-Lewis won his first Best Actor Oscar for his remarkable work in the lead, and Brenda Fricker won a Best Supporting Actor as Bridget Brown, Christy Brown's mother. An excellent film buoyed by sterling performances.

4. The Field (1990) : The story of an old Irish farmer, Bull McCabe, trying to hold onto a strip of land, his family and tradition. McCabe is played by Richard Harris, who earned an Oscar nomination for his fine performance. Have you noticed a pattern? Actor's get Oscar nominations when they are directed by Jim Sheridan, which is why so many great actors want to keep working with him.

5. The Boxer (1997) : The story of a boxer recently released from prison, who was a former member of the I.R.A. Once again Daniel Day-Lewis stars as Danny Flynn and is really incredible as the boxer trying reform his ways in the ever more complex world of "The Troubles". Emma Watson plays Maggie, Flynn's former girlfriend, and gives a subtly compelling performance. Day-Lewis' continuous commitment to realism in the portrayal of a boxer wins the day, as his seamless portrayal is as spot on as any in film history.

4. ONCE directed by John Carney

Once (2007), is an Irish musical film about the trials and tribulations of a Dublin singer/songwriter street musician as he tries to make a career in the music business. The "guy", played by Glen Hansard, meets and falls for a piano playing Czech immigrant "girl", played by Marketa Irglova. The two lead actors have a phenomenal chemistry and charm. The music is heartbreakingly good.  Once is joyously exhilarating in its artistic spirit, its musical power and its heart felt honesty. An absolute gem of a film.

5. THE WIND THAT SHAKES THE BARLEY directed by Ken Loach

The Wind That Shakes the Barley (2006), is the story of two brothers, Damien and Teddy O'Donovan who join the Irish Republican Army and fight in the Irish War of Independence (1919-1922) and the Irish Civil War (1922-1923). Cillian Murphy stars as Damien and gives the strongest performance of his fine career. The film excels due to Murphy's complex work and also because of director Loach's clear, detailed and specific dramatic explanation of the wars for Ireland and what caused them and why. Definitely worth your time if you enjoy Irish history. 

In the spirit of the day, I leave you now with the words of one of the great Irish poets.

Had I the heaven' embroidered cloths,

Enwrought with golden and silver light,

The blue and the dim and the dark cloths

Of night and light and the half light,

I would spread the cloths under your feet:

But I, being poor, have only my dreams;

I have spread my dreams under your feet;

Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.

- He Wishes for the Cloths of Heaven by W.B. Yeats

And thus concludes my St. Patrick's Day sermon.  Go forth, spread the word and try to remember what it actually means to be Irish today. Sláinte Mhaith!! 

© 2015

Brooklyn : A Review

****THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SOME MINOR SPOILERS!! CONSIDER THIS YOUR OFFICIAL MINOR SPOILER ALERT!!****

MY RATING: SKIP IT IN THE THEATRE, SEE IT ON NETFLIX OR CABLE.

Brooklyn, written by Nick Hornby and directed by John Crowley, is the story of Eilis Lacey, a young woman from the small town of Enniscorthy, Ireland, who leaves her home and starts a new life in Brooklyn, New York in 1952. The film stars the luminous Saiorse Ronan as Eilis, with supporting turns from Domnhall Gleeson, Jim Broadbent, Julie Walters and Emory Cohen. The film has been nominated for three Academy Awards this year for Best Picture, Best Actress and Best Adapted Screenplay.

As the son of Irish and Scottish immigrants, and a native son of the beloved borough in the title, I was very excited to see Brooklyn, as Eilis Lacey's story is not dissimilar to my own mothers. The immigrant tale of Eilis Lacey is one that many, if not most of us, can relate to. As someone who has moved cross country from Brooklyn to Los Angeles, I related to Eilis story as well, not in setting, but in substance. Whether we have moved to another country, or moved to the big city from the suburbs, or vice versa, we all have to leave the nest and venture out on our own at some point in our lives. Brooklyn tells the story of how grueling, but imperative and ultimately rewarding that journey away from our home, and to our new home, can be. "You can never go home again" is a true statement not because "home" has changed, but because "you" have changed by leaving home. Eilis Lacey's circular odyssey in Brooklyn teaches us that the initial fear of leaving the security of home can transform into the exhilarating freedom of being away from the gossip, prying eyes and small minds of a place you have outgrown, if you only have the courage to embark on the adventure. At some point in the immigrant's journey, returning "home" no longer means going back to the place of your past, but rather returning to the place of your present and future, and Brooklyn makes that very clear.  

Another reason I was excited to see Brooklyn, is that it stars Saiorse Ronan, is one of the great actresses working today. Ronan certainly she proves her mettle and earns her OScar nomination in tackling the role of Eilis Lacey. Ronan imbues Eilis with such a vivid inner life that she is absolutely mesmerizing to watch. Director John Crowley, on occasion, wisely lets the camera linger on Ronan well after the action of the scene has ended, and there are stunningly effective moments of brilliance that he captures by doing little more than letting Saoirse Ronan be present and fill the screen.

Ronan's subtlety and mastery of craft are really something to behold. She has a deft touch and never imposes herself onto a scene, but rather inhabits her character so fully that you feel as if she isn't acting at all…which is the goal of all great actors. Ronan is not a showy actress, her strength lies in being genuine and grounded, and allowing the rooted humanity of her characters to shine through. Ronan envelops Eilis in a thick coat of melancholy when we first meet her, a young and awkward girl struggling to make her way in a strange new world. As the film progresses, Ronan adeptly allows Eilis to gradually bloom into a weary and a wary young woman, and then blossom into an adult woman who embraces her incandescent power.

Besides being remarkably talented, Saoirse Ronan also has the benefit of being a classic beauty. She is so beautiful that she would be right at home in any of the great museums of the world, but she is not the typical "Hollywood" beauty. Her beauty is an approachable one, making it a marvelous asset but never a distraction. While the camera loves her face, it is Ronan's immense skill and prodigious talent that fills the big screen. There is not a lone disingenuous moment from Ronan in the entirety of Brooklyn, which is a great credit to her commitment, as the script could have easily led her to moments of melodrama.

As great as Saoirse Ronan is, the film never fully lives up to the stellar work she does in it. The first half of the film is very compelling, buttressed by solid supporting work from Jim Broadbent and Julie Walters. But mid-way through the film, when a love story comes in to play, the wheels come off the wagon. The biggest reason for this is that the love interest, Tony Fiorello, is of no interest at all. He is a one dimensional, cardboard cutout of a character. The actor playing Fiorello, Emory Cohen, does the best he can, but his character is a weak spot in the script and Cohen seems an ill fit for the role. This mis-casting and under-writing is devastating to the rest of the film. The Tony Fiorello character is pivotal for the ensuing narrative of the film to be even remotely believable, and sadly, Cohen's Tony is not believable in the least. In fact, the entire Fiorello family is an albatross around the neck of the film. The characters in the Fiorello family would be more at home in an old Prince spaghetti commercial than they are in Brooklyn.  None of the characters in the Fiorello family are credible and neither is the relationship between Eilis and Tony, which is the death knell of Brooklyn.

In the last quarter of the film, Domnhall Gleeson shows up as local Irishman Jim Farrell, and does his usual quality work, but it is too little too late to save the film. Brooklyn would have been much better served with much more of Domnhall Gleeson's Jim and much less of Emory Cohen's Tony. But alas, 'Twas not to be.

Despite the love story mis-step, Brooklyn does get a lot of things right. It is a well made period piece with flawless costumes and set pieces. Brooklyn is also visually exquisite, as cinematographer Yves Belanger uses a delicate palette to paint a lush picture of 1950's Brooklyn and rural Ireland.

In conclusion, Brooklyn is a gorgeous looking film, highlighted by a wondrous performance from the magnificent Saoirse Ronan. Sadly, a fatal flaw in the script and the casting had a devastating impact on the film that undermines many of the positives it had going for it, rendering Brooklyn a mixed bag at best. In my opinion, Brooklyn is worth seeing on Netflix or on cable, but it is not worth your time and hard-earned money to make the punishing trek to go see it in the theatre.