What messages, ultimately, does this film offer about the Troubles? Does it, like Cal and The Crying Game, reject politics in favor of domestic retreat? Does it take sides or value one stance above another? What would you say is its “moral?”
3 thoughts on “Divorcing Jack question #3”
Comments are closed.
Ultimately in this movie, we see the good guy win, and the IRA, and the U.K. lose. So the message of the film is not about rejecting politics in favor of domestic retreat, but instead is interested in objective truth that’s at odds with the politics at hand: when Dan is breaking down what the differing factions of the film call northern Ireland when asked what he calls it he simply replies “home.” Dan is not interested in what either side is selling him, and the truth to some extent is probably true for the everyman. The moral of this film is to look after yourself because either side won’t take care of you.
I completely agree with your point because the film shows how you can’t trust anyone. This movie shows that even Dan, who thought he could trust Charles, is someone who ends up turning him in. I would say, though, that the Truth in this film shows how much power one stance can have over another, and in this case, Dan being the one to blame was the stance that showed to have the most power.
The film overall shows how hard it can be trying to explain the truth with all of the troubles presented in this film. The result in this film is the characters passing without any fault. Unfortuantely all the blame is put on Dan, which shows how this film doesn’t do Dan justice in the many parts throughout the film, especially the beginning. Dan wouldn’t have imagined that by being with Margret for such a short period of time, his life would change drastically, and the blame would be put on him. The film isn’t overall moral since it has shown how those who tell the truth have suffered the most and are looked at as the bad guys because, in Dan’s case, sometimes telling the truth isn’t enough to help himself and others.