Talk:The Long Good Friday

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Satire of Thatcherism?[edit]

It is claimed in the the article that the film contains a satire of Thatcherism. I can't see it myself, just a few references to post-industrial captitalism in general. Besides, the film was produced in 1979 so Thatcher couldn't have been in power for more than a few months during filming and was most definately not in office during the creation of the screenplay and the pre-production work.

-Hmmm. What you've got in this film is two kinds of patriotism at war with each other. It's also an early consideration of the IRA as a kind of Mafia-type organisation rather than a political one (which is what they've become since the GFA, arguably).

Reputation and critical reception[edit]

This is a good, interesting page but somebody needs to put in something about the film's box office success (which I think was modest), subsequent status as a minor "cult" video and reputation - which it had for many years - as one of the best British films of the era. It's lost some of that rep in the last ten years, but nonetheless...

It was first screened on British TV in March 1987, if anyone's interested. Channel 4, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Harold going to die at the end?[edit]

I just wanted to put into question the synopsis written in this article. I think that claiming that at the end Harold is going to die is going too far from what the film is showing, which is, from my point of view, an excellent ending for a situation which was at that moment (1979) into question... The idea of leaving that masterly long shot at the end, with the face of Harold Shand (Bob Hoskins) looking at the IRA men at gunpoint, I think underlies a question mark about the success of the "enterprise culture" (a Thatcherite notion) upon other social and political problems (such as the Northern Ireland conflict).

Patxi (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he is going to die. From his expression right at the end he's realised - if they wanted him dead, he'd already be dead. They've done all this to get him in the position where he knows he can't fight them, but essentially, they want to do business. He's grinning like a loon at the very end.

Sciamachy (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you watch the same movie I did? How can you possibly put such an interpretation on the ending? Harold’s young aide warns him that the IRA is not motivated by money but ideology, and that the British army has been trying to quell them for years. But hidebound Harold cavalierly dismisses this admonition and insists on viewing the IRA as just another crime gang. You actually believe that after he double crosses and murders a high ranking member of their cadre that the IRA is going to do business with him? The business they have in mind for him at the end is far more macabre, I’m afraid. Harold is in shock. That is the expression on his face, not merriment.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Then explain his smile and his barely suppressed chuckle. There's absolutely no reason for him to be alive at that point unless the whole point of the movie has been to get him where they want him. He has to take whatever they offer - they have him and they have his wife. The only value he has to them alive is because of his knowledge of the criminal underworld - and yet there he is, sitting there, alive, no bullet in his head. Sciamachy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
His laughter is ironic. Sure, he's alive at the end of the film, but as soon as the car leaves the city and the bright lights, he won't be. Harfarhs (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)