Shell to Sea - The Pipe: Nice film about Mayo but a political sell out?

[Scolaire bocht]

but again bizarre no mention of the attack on him at gunpoint and the scuttling of his boat for example.

Thats what I want to know? This whole film was basically about Pat O'Donnell and his struggles at sea against the solitaire etc, and very interesting it is too, but it is frankly incredible that we don't get a simple mention, even at least in the closing credits, that O'Donnell's boat right in the middle of all this was hijacked by armed men with foreign accents and scuttled. Wille Corduff, who is also, rightly, highlighted in the film, was likewise beaten up very badly in mysterious circumstances which again went unmentioned. To be honest my heart sank when I read about funding from the Irish film board etc, and it will take a lot to persuade me that they didn't have a hand in that select and deadly censorship, which does cast quite a cloud over the integrity of the producers of the film. Its a very interesting film otherwise though....

[MediaBite]

Agree with Sean R that people are entitled to make whatever film they want and the perspective you took is as legitimate as any other. It's a beautiful film and for this viewer it does a fantastic job of realising a few of the real people behind this story. But it is flawed in a way that was entirely avoidable in my opinon.

There is a basic logic, if that's the right word, that would apply to the making of any film about this issue - that certain core facts about the situation would need to emerge for the audience even to be able to comprehend what the situation is actually about - whatever creative or editorial prism you are looking through. Willie and Mary Corduff and Pat O' Donnell must surely at some stage have discussed with you the trauma they experienced after Willie was beaten at the Glengad compound or when Pat's boat was sunk at gun point, eg. Taking you entirely on your own terms, it seems bizarre that there is nothing about these and other comparable events in the 80(?)minute film.

Saying all this has nothing to do with wanting the film to be a different sort of film. Again, if people going to the cinema know nothing about the situation before seeing your film and discover afterwards that these things happened they are quite likely to feel almost deceived by you, imo. For international audiences it's a great pity - a sadly missed opportunity.

I think it's disingenuous to say that all you are doing is giving voice to the people themselves. As you well know I'm sure, your editing is where your personal/subjective, editorial narrative of the film is obvious - certain peoples' voices and particular views are weighted far more heavily than others.

The idea comes across quite strongly, eg, that writing letters to important people and pursuing the proper channels is the way to get things done. In fact all of that has been a spectacular, soul-destroying failure overall as many people in Mayo have attested. But by the end of the film, it nevertheless almost seems as if these tactics have won the day and that the community has somehow been victorious in challenging the forces ranged against them. No it is not said explicitly, but the editing leaves that idea hanging there, in my opinion. Coupled with the inexplicable and near total silence about the solidarity camp people and their interaction with the same people and community, to anyone close to the situation it's pretty obvious what is being implied. As said already, the portryal of Maura Harrington was clearly intended to dismiss hers and other like-minded peoples' efforts to challenge what was being done to them via other forms of protest. This is striking because so far as Pat and Willie themselves are concerned and in so far as they have been successful in delaying the dreaded pipeline, it is direct action that has wroked. At any rate, your caricature of her was so successful that in the cinema I was at, some people actually laughed when they heard Maura had been sent to prison - as if she was some sort of joke character.

Sure, interpreting a film is every bit as subjective as editing it is, but even so, I don't think you can disown the substantial mistaken impressions that are given as a consequence of your editorial choices. The film could have been every minute the sort of film you wanted to make without leaving these enormous great holes in the account of what has gone on. You have of course every right to make the film the way you did as others do to express their opinions about it. For what it's worth, I'd looked forward hugely to seeing the film, and along with lots of other people have done my 2cents worth in encouraging people to go and see it. But this is a situation that like many other people I care a lot about and having been to Mayo several times, spoken with many people there at length -and written about it at length too, I have to say I'm dismayed by how misleading it is in certain respects.

At the end of the film a list of additional facts about the people and the situation scroll up the screen. I thought 'surely now there will be at least some fleeting mention here about the things not discussed in the film', but no, not a peep - not even the fact that Pat O' Donnell spent several months in prison. Extraordinary. BTW, did you ever meet Nial Harnett on your travels?

I can't make it to the debate, so I am putting my money where my mouth is right here on this forum, if that is OK!

[riste087]

Forgive me if I do not reply with a written defense to all criticisms made of the film, I have been bursting my ****** working all day, and it took me 3 hours to travel back from Knock airport where the snow is pure mental.
One thing that does strike me though, is the similarity of all of your responses to the film with John Egan's (head of PR for Shell) :
'It is a beautiful film but it only gives one side, and we think that you set out to demonise our side by your dishonest storytelling'
Neither of you seem to have learned anything from the film, or do not want to learn anything new, or gain any new insights! But I guess for both Shell and their ideological opponents, it is in their interest to keep things polarised - just like George Bush and Al-Qaeda.

[C. Flower]

Forgive me if I do not reply with a written defense to all criticisms made of the film, I have been bursting my ****** working all day, and it took me 3 hours to travel back from Knock airport where the snow is pure mental.
One thing that does strike me though, is the similarity of all of your responses to the film with John Egan's (head of PR for Shell) :
'It is a beautiful film but it only gives one side, and we think that you set out to demonise our side by your dishonest storytelling'
Neither of you seem to have learned anything from the film, or do not want to learn anything new, or gain any new insights! But I guess for both Shell and their ideological opponents, it is in their interest to keep things polarised - just like George Bush and Al-Qaeda.

People reading this thread mainly have not yet seen your film and have open minds. They also understand that some people critiquing the film are committed and well informed. That stands to them, but not against your film.

You are stuck in the middle in the crossfire - not an easy position to be in.

[MediaBite]

It's beyond facetious to suggest that the communities who oppose the conduct of Shell in Mayo are comparable to Al Qaeda. Both of the people on whom your film primarly focuses have been physically assaulted and threatened to within an inch of their lives - Willie Corduff during a courageous direct action; Pat O' Donnell in addition to having his boat scuttled has had his nose broken and been hospitalised many times during protest actions. Yet your film scarcely mentions those incidents? What were you afraid of? What exactly is it that we should 'learn' from these unbelievable, seriously distorting omissions of fact? BTW, I've never made a film but I imagine it's never a good idea to set out to teach people things that way. Maybe your expectation that people should learn from your particular view goes someway to explaining why the film is so full of voluntary redactions: you had a particular lesson in mind for us all.

Sure, John Egan and Shell would have been mightily upset had you given a more complete account and the film would not have had the realtively soft landing it has so far enjoyed in mainstream media. Shell's notion of fair media commentary is that journalists should reproduce their press releases unadulterated by commentary or information of any sort from any other source. Having interviewed people right across the political spectrum in Mayo - from left to right and also the apolitical - I didn't meet a single person who was not disgusted by much of the media's treatment of the issue and who did not believe that Shell has achieved, with a few weakish exceptions, almost total control of how the story is told. Most of the Irish media has been more than happy to facilitate them in that regard. Step forward Pat Kenny and Peter Murtagh, in particular. Having been so long in Mayo one has to ask what it is you were learning yourself if not that much. Your trite comment implies the fallacy that there are two equal 'sides' involved in this situation. Any truly objective assessment of the facts would quickly prove that this is not the case: a small community has been demonised, used and abused by an extraordinarily powerful international conglomerate for whom money is no object when it comes to often devious political, media and corporate lobbying. And this leaves aside altogether the issue of how the entire country has been so ill-used by the establishment in the giveaway of the gas. Did Willy, Mary, Pat really have nothing to say about those things? I don't believe it.

There's nothing in any of this that need have compromised the style of the film or your determination to let people speak in their own words, without voiceovers. Your editing effectively silenced people in some highly critical respects - you made no-go areas - both the film and the truth suffer as a consequence.

This is just anecdotal, but I'm pretty sure it's not unusual. I've talked about the film with people who have never been to Mayo and whose knowledge of the situation is based on RTE 'News' etc. NONE of them realised from watching the film that Pat O' Donnell was the man who had been jailed this year or whose fishing boat had been scuttled. They loved the film, and it surely made them think how such obviously decent people could be so misrepresented. When I expalined how much more there was to their stories than your film showed they were as puzzled as I am. How much more powerful and compelling the film could have been than it is.

The only question that remains for me is why you did this.

[riste087]

'It's beyond facetious to suggest that the communities who oppose the conduct of Shell in Mayo are comparable to Al Qaeda'
- how can I have a logical discussion with you when you twist my words like this? The reason I filmed the story of the people who live in the path of the pipeline is that they are the only people who's word I can trust - which is more than I can say for you or Shell!

[Scolaire bocht]

"The reason I filmed the story of the people who live in the path of the pipeline is that they are the only people who's word I can trust"

To be honest you sound like some smooth talking PR type person, almost as if you were trained in information warfare somehow, not like a real, grounded, sort of person. Ok so you have arrived home a while now, you have had your consoling cup of tea, would it be reasonable to ask then if you could explain now clearly why you left out of even the closing credits of the film any mention of O'Donnell's boat being seized by armed men etc?

[C. Flower]

'It's beyond facetious to suggest that the communities who oppose the conduct of Shell in Mayo are comparable to Al Qaeda'
- how can I have a logical discussion with you when you twist my words like this? The reason I filmed the story of the people who live in the path of the pipeline is that they are the only people who's word I can trust - which is more than I can say for you or Shell!

Did you have a view on what happened to Willie Corduff and the way that was reported by RTE and the Irish press ? I wrecked my head over it for ages, trying to work out who was telling the truth, until I found a Guardian report which made it all perfectly clear.

Would it have been easier for a non-Irish film crew to have made a film that covered the more controversial events ?

Is Willie Corduff someone who lives in the path of the pipeline ? Your test of truthfulness I must say is unusual, and singularly geographic.

[riste087]

You may find the Frontline human rights organisation's report a better source, although you are right about the failure of the Irish media in relation to Corrib, right across the board, since 2005, and you may find that most of the reasons are not as conspiratorial as you may believe. I gave the Frontline Barrister, Brian Barringtlon, full access to all of my material and research, some relevant to Willie Corduff's case, some not. I suggest you read the report: http://www.shelltosea.com/content/fr...ib-gas-dispute
I think all of the questions posed here are justified and the best way for me to answer them, and I do want this opportunity, is to come to the Q&A in the IFI this Tuesday evening. If you think I am just trying to get you to buy a ticket, contact me personally and I will put your name on the door as a guest.
Richie: thepipethefilm@gmail.com

ps interestingly, it was only when I went abroad that we got fair coverage: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Featu.../ID=1590885523

[C. Flower]

I wish I could come, but at the moment it doesn't look possible. Thanks very much for the offer though.

I read Brian Barrington's report and I believe he read my posts about what happened to Willie Corduff. The only aspect of this that I've ever looked at in detail is what happened on that one night when he was beaten up. There are still unexplained aspects - like the movements and location of the Gardaí and the "masked men" who entered the compound that are still not clear.

The evidence was all there to show that he was beaten up, but it was denied by the Gardaí and not reported properly by Irish journalists. I feel that it was a failure by all of us concerned about social justice, that the truth never came out in the Irish media and also that in general we've failed to bring a coherent and substantiated reportage on the whole Corrib / Rossport history into public view.

[htd]

The more I think about it (and read this debate) the more I'm disapppointingly convinced Risteards censorship strategy was career motivated - he provides no explanation for what he has edited out of the story here and his only response is, make your own documentary - which is pretty defensive.

Hopefully I am wrong. Maybe Risteard could actually respond to the criticisms by explaining his reasoning for leaving out crucial contextual information on the campaign as listed in the above posts?

[onemorething]

I feel that it was a failure by all of us concerned about social justice, that the truth never came out in the Irish media and also that in general we've failed to bring a coherent and substantiated reportage on the whole Corrib / Rossport history into public view.

Agree, and pity the film, though great in many ways, falls short on that count too. Interesting that Risteard puts Willie and Pat as the truest source (and who wouldnt having met them) yet leaves out what they have to say about the scuttling and the beating, for example. I heard it from them both first hand, and have no doubts at all about what I heard. That is what has informed my comments on this thread. Can't say the same for John Egan who is of course paid by Shell to have 'views'. Sorry Risteard, but dont see any similarity between me and him, (unless my cheque is in the post).

That the mainstream Irish media have let us down is well known, and not unconnected to the links between beneficiaries of the gas exploration (government, Tony O Reilly for example) and the same media. There are honourable exceptions - Lorna Siggins on page 306 of the Times, and Village Magazine which published first had accounts of both incidents.

[C. Flower]

Agree, and pity the film, though great in many ways, falls short on that count too. Interesting that Risteard puts Willie and Pat as the truest source (and who wouldnt having met them) yet leaves out what they have to say about the scuttling and the beating, for example. I heard it from them both first hand, and have no doubts at all about what I heard. That is what has informed my comments on this thread. Can't say the same for John Egan who is of course paid by Shell to have 'views'. Sorry Risteard, but dont see any similarity between me and him, (unless my cheque is in the post).

That the mainstream Irish media have let us down is well known, and not unconnected to the links between beneficiaries of the gas exploration (government, Tony O Reilly for example) and the same media. There are honourable exceptions - Lorna Siggins on page 306 of the Times, and Village Magazine which published first had accounts of both incidents.

We should know better than to expect the mainstream media to publish material counter to the interests of Shell, particularly in Ireland which is a small country with limited Press.

The critical gap was a simple thing, the lack of photos showing Willie Corduff's bruising. I eventually found them on a video on the Guardian website, many weeks after the incident, when it was too late to correct the incorrect reporting of the event.

When it's one person's word against another, evidence has to be produced and the truth established and made public. Willy Corduff was not only beaten up, but the impression was wrongly left in the media that he might not have been telling the truth. Brian Barrington's report was worthwhile, but got very little publicity. I don't think we should wait for the mainstream media to provide it, but challenge them to, at the same time as doing our best to do it for ourselves.

I fear I may be off-topic, as I haven't yet seen "The Pipe" and really don't know what my reaction to it would be.

[onemorething]

The critical gap was a simple thing, the lack of photos showing Willie Corduff's bruising. I eventually found them on a video on the Guardian website, many weeks after the incident, when it was too late to correct the incorrect reporting of the event..

It wasnt the availabilty of evidence but its limited circulation. Photos were published in Village, Willie spectacularly dropped his trousers for two government ministers at a videod public meeting, and Indymedia covered the issue too with pictures (which I took). It is sites like these (and Political World) that are making a difference when mainstream media are choosing very obviously not to show material readily available to them, precisely to misinform.

The Pipe does fail to cover these and other critical incidents, though it does, and deserves credit for imo, letting the world see that the Corduffs and Pat O D are entirely credible and reliable winesses, which presumably is what irks John Egan and Shell about the film. Pity though that it fails to do the same for Shell to Sea and Maura Harrington.

[riste087]

I do respect your position and unfortunately I do not possess the investigative brilliance of Paul Williams! What I have done is try to allow one side to tell their story from 2006 to 2008. Incidents that happened before or after I was filming on the ground are impossible for me to present as fact, in the way that everything else in the doc is 100% factual and pretty much incontrovertible. That is not to imply in any way that I do not believe Willie and Pat, quite the opposite in fact is the case, however it needs to be dealt with in another platform namely: 1) a full and independent investigation by credible authorities and 2) the results of this investigation need to be communicated through credible and far reaching media channels. I cannot do all of this. The credibility of my film stands and falls by what I was there to bear testament to with my camera, and to represent that as honestly as I can. If people don't want to accept that, that's fine and I absolutely respect their right to do so.

p.s. there won't be a Q&A in the IFI tonight but I am available to come along and answer questions there if I know in time as I have to drive back to Galway tomorrow night. We will definitely have a well publicised Q&A after Christmas in the Light House Cinema in Smithfield though.