Table of Contents | Next Chapter

 

In the Name of the Father

 

Gerry Conlon .......... Daniel Day-Lewis

Guiseppe Conlon ....... Pete Postlethwaite

Gareth Peirce ......... Emma Thompson

Paul Hill ............. John Lynch

Robert Dixon .......... Corin Redgrave

Joe McAndrew .......... Don Baker

        Universal presents a film produced and directed by Jim Sheridan. Written by Terry George and Sheridan, based on the autobiography "Proved Innocent," by Gerry Conlon. Photographed by Peter Biziou. Edited by Gerry Hambling. Music by Trevor Jones. Running time: 127 minutes. Classified: R (for language and politically generated violence).

            This is a powerful film about a tragic miscarriage of justice. In 1974, Gerry Conlon and some friends were arrested  and convicted of the IRA terrorist attack upon a Guildford pub in which many innocent people were killed. Conlon's father, Giuseppe, and some of his friends, were also convicted of supporting the terrorists. Giuseppe died in prison. After fifteen years in jail, the remaining members of the group were set free on the basis of evidence that they were framed by the police and prosecutors and forced to confess by torture and intimidation.

            Gerry was a thief, though he had no political attachments. His father was even less likely as a suspect, a hard-working, devout Catholic, who sought in vain to inspire his wayward son with homely wisdom.

            The film is fairly true to the history, although it takes some liberties, particularly by adding some characters whose significance in the plot is crucial. One wonders if the actual facts would have made the issue at the appeal less black-and-white than it appears here.

            Day-Lewis's performance is excellent, miles removed from the genteel New Yorker of "Age of Innocence" or the frontiersman of "Last of the Mohicans." His range is truly astonishing. Here as a rough-hewn young Irishman, he is thoroughly credible. The other actors are also very good. The actors get lost in the characters, and that is the key to great performances.

            In addition to the main political/courtroom drama, there is a subplot of reconciliation. Gerry and his father are in the same prison (in the same cell, according to the film, but apparently that was not the way it was historically). Gerry recalls all the anger against his father remembered from his youth. Together, and in very subtle ways, the two men grow to a deeper understanding and acceptance of one another. Gerry grows in self-confidence and in the maturity of his perspective.

            The title of the film seems to be based on the parallel between Gerry's human father and God. Gerry associates the communion service with his mental picture of eating his father. Religion is not, however, a powerful motive for any of the characters. The main thrust of the religious imagery seems to be that a "communion" develops in prison between Gerry and Giuseppe, and that although Giuseppe dies, much of his good character eventually lodges in his son.

            One gets the impression that the filmmakers intend to convey certain political-philosophical messages: Britain should have simply gotten out of Northern Ireland; Anglo-establishment justice cannot be trusted; the death penalty is wrong. On that last point, a judge tells Gerry and the others upon their conviction that he would be happy to sentence them to death if it were legally possible. Several references to this through the film invite us to consider how much more terrible the miscarriage of justice might have been had the death penalty been in force.

            None of these messages come through very plausibly, however. The framing of the Guildford defendants took place at a time when the police and prosecutors were panicked at the prospect of widespread terrorism and were under enormous pressure to produce convictions. That does not excuse what they did, but it does suggest that this is something of an isolated case and should not be made a model of British behavior or of western justice in general.

            Nor does the film produce much of an argument against the death penalty. Indeed, in a way, the film displays some of the reasons in favor of the death penalty. Most opponents of the death penalty take the view that the only legitimate purpose of punishment is deterrence, and then they oppose the death penalty because statistics indicate that it doesn't deter. But this film presents an excellent argument against deterrence as a basis for punishment. When the police and prosecutors framed the Guildford Five, they did it for the sake of deterrence. It was irrelevant to them whether the suspects were actually guilty. What was important was that someone be apprehended and punished, as a deterring example to other would-be terrorists and to reassure the public that their safety was in good hands. The film makes clear that the deterrence mentality can lead to atrocious injustice. One should be arrested and punished only if he is objectively guilty of something and if the punishment is justified by that objective guilt. But what penalty other than death is strictly deserved by mass murderers?

            Of course, I would misrepresent the film if I tried to present it as a political tract. One should simply take it for what it is, as a thoroughly fascinating investigation of events and people.