Bobby Sands: 66 Days

A documentary detailing the hunger strike by IRA member Bobby Sands in 1981 which led to his death. The film centres around the writings of Sands himself while he was on the hunger strike at the Maze Prison. Around that, we have a number of historians, former IRA members and politicians giving their views, interspersed with archive footage of scenes from the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

The dominant interviewee in the film is the Irish journalist Fintan O'Toole. He espouses, at great length, the idea that Bobby Sands was an artist, who in dying, was making the ultimate sacrifice for his art. O'Toole completely separates Sands actions from the political context of the time. Sands was in prison for a second time for IRA activities. He had joined the IRA in 1971, having grown up in a time of violence, discrimination and oppression of catholic people in the 6 counties. This is the context behind Bobby Sands' actions but it is barely mentioned.

The violence perpetrated by loyalists and the British army, against nationalists is never mentioned in this film. Only violence by the IRA is mentioned. The film even mentions the upsurge in violence in 1972, without mentioning the biggest reason for it, Bloody Sunday which occurred in January of that year.

And therein lies the biggest problem with this film. It is determined to present a very one-sided picture of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, where the IRA were the sole aggressors and everyone else, including the British were victims. At the same time, Bobby Sands is separated from the historical context by the constant positing of him as some kind of artist. The film disrespects Bobby Sands and all the hunger strikers by removing their actions from the political context of the time.

And while some of the animated sequences are well done, the editing is poor. Scenes are juxtaposed together which jar against each other. Thus the film doesn't flow very well and can be hard to watch, while certain scenes are unnecessarily repeated.

Ultimately, the film is revisionist propaganda, serving a particular political line. Decontextualising the hunger strikes from other events in Northern Ireland does not do the story of Bobby Sands justice.

This film had potential to present an unbiased view of the history leading up to Bobby Sands' death and the political results of it, but chose to go down a staunchly one-sided path, portraying Sands as a martyr, a hero, a freedom fighter and an artist, while demonising the Unionist side of the community (I'm a firm believer that NI is one, not two communities).

On many occasions, Sands was compared directly with Che Guevara, with one scene morphing the two images together as if one was the reincarnation of the other. Other comparisons with Mao Tse-Tung, Ho Chi Minh and other revolutionaries were woven into the storyline.

The film glanced over Sands' offences and why he was in prison, hinting that his imprisonment was politically motivated and a minor offence of "having gun parts": Sands was arrested after a gun battle with the RUC following a bomb attack on a furniture showroom, in which it was destroyed, which he and fellow hunger striker Joe McDonnell had planned for weeks. (In a previous IRA bomb attack on the same business, four civilians, including two babies, were killed).

The portrayal of Unionists and Loyalists in this film is also likely to cause anger: they were portrayed as Orange Order or Loyalist flute band members, comically bouncing down the roads; as firebrand preachers spouting hatred; or as corrupt politicians. The film stopped short at saying "All Protestants have big noses and their eyes are too far apart." Yes, there are people like this, but they represent a very small proportion of the Protestant side of the community, and most people who call themselves Protestants would distance themselves.

While Sands may have been an artist and a poet, and there is no doubt he used his artistry to promote his politics (this is still done today), to equate his death to a the ultimate artistic performance is without foundation, except as a posthumous elevation of his status as a Republican martyr.

The biggest issue this film has is not what it says, but what it doesn't say. There were Sands' reasons for being arrested which the film dumbed down, but there was also the IRA pressure on hunger strikers' families not to visit their dying sons for fear they would be talked out of doing what they did, with reports at the time that families were threatened at gunpoint. The film claims that Sands' effectively ran the hunger strike himself, and the IRA leadership didn't have any part in events. Gerry Adams' involvement in the coordination was ignored (but then, he was never a member of the IRA).

Overall, this is a disappointing film if you're looking for historical facts and interpretation of those facts: you're only shown a selected half of the history. It's a shame: this had all the potential to be an absolutely great film. The production was excellent, the use of historical footage was expertly woven with modern footage, and that shot especially for the film.

As an addendum to this review, when we left the cinema, we noticed quite a number of the audience leaving in tears.

When I was offered a chance to view "Bobby Sands: 66 Days", my first reaction was one of surprise. After all, I hadn't heard this man's name mentioned in decades. I knew who he was....but thought he was an all but forgotten figure in Irish history. Well, apparently he is still remembered and director Trevor Birney has recently completed a documentary about this man.

To remember who Sands was, it's best if you are older. I'm in my 50s and clearly remember the many television news stories about this IRA member during his famous and very well-publicized hunger strike...but younger viewers might not have any idea who he was and why he was important. Back in the 70s, Sands and many other IRA members spent time in and out of British prisons. However, in the late 1970s, the British government decided to start treating these folks like common criminals and not accord them the 'special status' they had previously. Eventually, Sands and a group of other IRA prisoners decided that the way to draw attention to the cause of separation for Northern Ireland was to stop eating and even die if necessary. And so they did...and eventually this did result in lots of attention throughout the world.

Using old footage, photos, modern interviews and even an actor speaking Sands' words, the story is told and without too much in the way of hyperbole and politicization. This is difficult because although the violence in Northern Ireland has relented over the last 15 years, many folks still have very, very strong feelings about the cause--both pro and con. As for me, I was perhaps not the best person to watch the film as although it was very well made, I really was rather ambivalent about the subject matter. I am not an Irish- American, nor British- American, just anti-violence. I did feel the film was mildly interesting...but would be much more interesting to Brits and Irish folks. It most likely would make for a compelling story for these audiences. My only quibble, and it's a minor one, is that the film makes it seem that Sands' death helped the movement succeed but this wasn't exactly the case...at least not in any direct cause and effect way. The violence and incarcerations still continued all the way up until 2001 and Northern Ireland still is part of the United Kingdom. Still, you have to admire these folks for telling his story about as well as possible given the events occurred well over 30 years ago. They did show a real knack for telling his story.

I had the pleasure of seeing this film at a screening in London. It is a brilliant and important film. It is interesting to see a period you remember as history- it is and that's what happens when you get old! Like all good documentaries, the basis of it is the quality of research and contributors. I think it is important that young people see it too, to get a sense of what was going on in Ireland and Britain then. As with any film about the troubles, it is bound to stir up deep feelings and, so far as i can see, it is critisised for being too sympathetic to the hunger strikers and being too anti them by different people, as proof of that. I felt though that this was a genuine attempt to explain the hunger strike within its context and it succeeded. I remember, living in London at the time, the effect the IRA had, in terms of bombs, the constant news from Northern Ireland on the TV news and the effect the hunger strikers had- it was unsettling, the ultimate proof that nothing would stand between these people from their objective, however crazy starving yourself to death seems to most of us.

I was very moved by the documentary and felt it to be fair to both sides though I realize that, as an outsider, there is no way that I can understand the situation which existed in Belfast during that period.

To me the film presents both sides of the bitter feud with accuracy and intelligence though I've no doubt that there will be viewers who will be critical and will find it biased (depending on which side they support). My knowledge of that period is based on British TV reports and I learned quite a lot from the events presented in the film. It's impossible not to feel deep sympathy for the ordinary citizens caught up in such a violent and intolerable struggle and it's sad to realize that a divide still exists after so many years despite the political agreement.

The documentary is an important achievement and hopefully will reach a wide audience.