Contents

Talk:'71 (film)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Northern Ireland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Film: British This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the British cinema task force. Ireland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

double agent?[edit]

I'm not going to edit the plot summary until others have commented on this or I can find a further source, because I've only seen the film once, but I'm not at all sure that any of the British intelligence officers are "IRA double agents". It seems to me that the very strong implication is that they are playing the sides off against each other for their own purposes, rather than actually working for one or the other. Barnabypage (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It was explained that the IRA was fractured between two factions vying for control -- the old and the new. The newer faction being far more violent. I think the film portrayed the army using that to their advantage, but without actually caring which side they worked for at any given time. Divide and conquer. Also, there may have been profit in allowing guns to fall into one sides hands or the other. Whatever corruption was involved, I did not get the impression that Capt. Browning and the others really cared for the political/class/social implications of the long term struggle as long as they could pit the two IRA factions against each other. The real reasons were more sinister. Afterall, Browning wanted Hook dead as much as everyone else did, telling me he had no loyalty to any side Iwhether Catholic, Protestant or his own country) and that he did not want his corrupt enterprise disclosed any further (though the army knew) more than he cared about the right or wrong. I doubted Browning and his ilk were acting under orders, though the army turned a blind eye toward the incident leading to leaving Hook behind and Thomas' death. They seemed rogue to me.

Legaleze (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The British undercover guys (MRF) are at all times very worried that Hook and the little blond kid saw the bomb-making. It's something they need to keep super secret. We don't need to know why. Either because blowing something up and making it look like one IRA faction is making war on the other is what they are up to or because bomb-making is outside what they are allowed to do -- doesn't matter. The fact Hook saw it means they have to take him out. Note as well how, as they go on what is supposed to be the mission to rescue Hook, they tell the regulars to be sure to stay back and not come in until they are called. It's repeated several times for the viewer's benefit. These MRF guys -- not just one but all -- want control before they let the regular army guys in.

As for the final resolution, that just underscores the fact that the regular army lets the MRF do the dirty work and looks the other way. The MRF is rogue by definition and not to be second guessed. The officer in that scene tells Hook "we take care of out own" or something like that. The statement goes also to the fact that he protects the MRF guys. That's right: we take care of our own. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The plot clearly depicted the MRF as merely playing chess with IRA figures. The bit about convincing every faction that the other factions were out to kill them is classic disruption. The only person who might have been a double agent was Boyle, and it seemed to me he was mostly trying to keep channels open, enforce treaties, and hang on to his rapidly eroding control of the IRA activity in his district. (He also seemed to suffer from a certain amount of common decency that was interfering with his commitment to a vicious and escalating war.) Laodah 03:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the movie a while back and was confused by who was on who's side, especially with those two characters with the long hair and goatees. Here are some things I don't completely get: • How is Darren, the little boy, Gary Hook's brother? Does it explain that he's his brother? • I feel as if we should add more specific plot details, like Thommo's death and the names of the IRA members. - Theironminer (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're told what the relationship is. We assume brothers cause nothing else makes sense. A different film could have used Gary's mom for these bookend scenes or maybe his buddies. But one theme of the film is innocence, loss of innocence, and the corruption of youth. And Gary is on his knees in the hall hugging his brother at the end, the same height, a boy again. Just my read. 2600:1000:B012:2551:D4E3:24E5:2B95:E66 (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression that the Protestant boy is an orphan and that Hook is taking him under his wing upon being discharged. RichardBond (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Plot section is now 757 words. It needs to be trimmed to under 700 words per WP:FILMPLOT, which allows 400–700 words. Softlavender (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]