‘Your Nose Is Pressed Up Against the Ambiguity of It’

As a journalist who has spent years immersed in the complex and often volatile world of Northern Ireland, I can say with confidence that the show we have created is a testament to the power of storytelling in shedding light on the human condition amidst conflict.

Back in 2018, when I published “Say Nothing: A True Story of Murder and Memory in Northern Ireland”, I couldn’t help but feel a sense of pride over my work. However, like any long-term project, there was always that lingering uncertainty about how it would be received or if people would even take interest. Little did I know, the praise that followed exceeded all expectations. The book made numerous best-of-the-year lists and even won the Orwell Prize for political writing. Truly, nobody – including me – could have predicted the audience it found.

As a follower, I found myself deeply immersed in Keefe’s riveting account of The Troubles, the prolonged sectarian conflict between Irish republican paramilitaries and British unionists in Northern Ireland. Through the eyes of several key figures — Dolours and Marian Price, sisters who garnered global attention with their hunger strikes; Brendan Hughes, a prominent leader in the Provisional Irish Republican Army; Gerry Adams, a PIRA strategist turned head of Sinn Féin and negotiator for peace; and the McConvilles, a family tragically affected by the violence — Keefe paints a vivid picture of this complex, tumultuous struggle. In his book Say Nothing, war is made real and personal: gunfire echoes through hedges, and IRA members stage daring prison escapes or endure hunger strikes as acts of protest.

Keefe was wary about bringing Say Nothing to the screen, however. Some of the individuals he reported on are still alive, and the conflict remains a major point of sensitivity for many who live in its wake. He’d had other books and magazine articles optioned in the past, but when interest around adapting Say Nothing started to bubble up, none of those projects were actually made, and the ones that did go through development ended up far afield from his original intent. Yet Keefe has known producer Brad Simpson for years and admired how he and producing partner Nina Jacobson ushered Jeffrey Toobin’s The Run of His Life to FX as The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story and their work on Kevin Kwan’s Crazy Rich Asians, which became a 2018 movie for Warner Bros. “It’s a very different kind of thing,” said Keefe, “but the movie successfully distilled the book’s essence.”

In this scenario, the trio, Keefe, Simpson, and Jacobson, selected Joshua Zetumer, a screenwriter known for his work on movies like 2014’s RoboCop remake and Patriots Day, as their chief distiller. Zetumer had previously worked on the film script for The Infiltrator, one of his early projects in Hollywood, which dealt with The Troubles. Although the character based on Keefe’s book appeared later in the story, many characters were ultimately discarded for the FX series. Simpson had been a producer on The Infiltrator, and despite its lack of success, he introduced Keefe and Zetumer for the project Say Nothing. The writing team also included Joe Murtagh (The Woman in the Wall), Clare Barron (a 2019 Pulitzer finalist for her play Dance Nation), and Kirsten Sheridan (In America). Keefe frequently visited the writing room. The objective was to maintain the book’s balance between depicting the allure of political violence and contemplating its consequences, while also addressing the feeling that history was unfolding in real-time. A significant portion of the writing process took place over Zoom during COVID-19 lockdowns, a period marked by increasing American unrest following the death of George Floyd. Some members of the team participated in the ensuing marches, where they witnessed scenes reminiscent of Northern Ireland: armored vehicles patrolling the streets and a young person using a bullhorn to direct the protests.

I found myself deeply captivated by it,” I admit, echoing Zetumer’s sentiments shared with Vulture in October. “I couldn’t help but wonder: What would it feel like to be that child?

Joshua Zetumer: In our approach, we aimed to convey the intense passion of a young individual yearning to reshape the world, becoming engrossed in a cause, and believing that extreme measures are necessary. This theme guided every aspect: scriptwriting, casting, set design. Contrary to typical perceptions, the vivid hues portray a stark contrast to the turmoil of The Troubles. Despite the widespread violence, it was also a period where these young people experienced their greatest vitality – as some have expressed in interviews. Our focus was also on highlighting the price paid for such violence by both the aggressors and the victims.

As a movie buff, I’d rephrase it like this: It’s peculiar how difficult it can be in our discussions to truly empathize with individuals who arrive at decisions distinct from ours, even when those choices seem unconventional or shocking. This is something that becomes evident in various conflicts. Trying to comprehend their thought process doesn’t mean we approve of their actions, but rather, it’s an attempt to grasp how they arrived at a different point than us without sugarcoating the harsh reality. Such a perspective might be unacceptable to some. To certain folks, the IRA were despicable, inhumane, and psychopathic.

From my perspective as a film enthusiast, it’s fascinating to consider these characters as youngsters even though they were deeply involved in significant events. The night preceding the Old Bailey bombing, they were immersed in merriment.
JZ: Indeed, that detail is straight from the book. Dolours attended a play where she saw Stephen Rea perform; another member of her team went out and got drunk. Even Dolours, looking back, feels embarrassed about their behavior during the mission. Some of these characters were surprisingly young when these events unfolded. Marian Price was barely more than a teenager. We aimed to explore the idea, ‘What if you robbed a bank, then returned home to live with your parents?’ This idea, coupled with their strong moralizing – they were stealing for a cause but not keeping the money – made for an intriguing exploration of youthful exuberance and adult responsibility.

In some instances, I’ve likened the first half of “Say Nothing” to a lively night out, while the second half resembles the subsequent hangover. It was crucial to consider both parts as it would have been unjust to narrate only one without the other. When I was writing the book, there were teenagers from various European cities departing for Syria to join ISIS, and I aimed to comprehend their motivation: What draws them to such actions? What’s the attraction? Similarly, I wondered about an 18-year-old American who enlisted in the Marines after 9/11 and went to Afghanistan. What was it about their youth and enthusiasm that drove them to do so?

Why did it prove crucial to focus the adaptation around Dolours Price?

Particularly, Dolours embodied strong political convictions and an unyielding spirit, ready to go to great lengths for deeply held beliefs. Yet, she possessed a sparkle in her eye that made her relatable. As one who knew her put it, she didn’t seem like a dogmatic ideologue but rather someone you’d enjoy sharing a drink with. Men found her enchanting when they met her. On a deeper level, Dolours was intriguing because her humanity often clashed with her beliefs. By the conclusion of the series, these conflicting aspects converge.

In her lifetime, Dolours stood out as the main attraction in her own life’s production. She possessed an allure, a vibrancy, and an enchanting charm that effortlessly drew people towards constructing a narrative around her.

Reading her obituary in the New York Times over a decade ago, there were several aspects that stood out to me. One was my realization that she was part of the IRA, an organization I had always associated with male-dominated conflict, known as The Troubles. Another surprise was discovering that women like her had participated in hunger strikes before figures such as Bobby Sands in the 80s. What further caught my attention was that this woman’s involvement in the IRA was a shared experience with her sister, and the fact that she harbored doubts later in life intrigued me.

The key in this case is simplification; adaptation essentially means removing unnecessary elements, correct? To create an engaging story, I must identify what can be safely removed. This narrative revolves around characters and emotions. The book’s ending delved deeply into the Belfast Project timeline, which was fascinating yet relevant to the book, but for the series focusing on the Price Sisters, McConville children, Gerry Adams, and Brendan Hughes, it would have been a major distraction if we suddenly shifted focus to Boston College, subpoenas, and other related matters. Instead, I aimed to bring the story to a more intense emotional climax.

One challenging aspect of producing the show was achieving the right balance. As Patrick noted, our team decided to omit the storyline involving the search for the Boston College tapes. Initially, I had written these scenes, and I found them engaging, but ultimately, they didn’t align with the show’s narrative.

The humor lies in the fact that while writing the book, I encountered a predicament similar to the one portrayed in the story – an excess of prison breaks. It was as if I kept thinking, “Is one more too much?” However, there’s a certain limit to how many prison breaks can be plausible in a narrative without it appearing excessive and monotonous. A comparable challenge arose here. Just like Dolours, Brendan also underwent a hunger strike which significantly influenced his character. The scenes depicting Tom Vaughan-Lawlor’s exceptional portrayal of the older Brendan are impacted by this hunger strike experience. After much discussion with Josh, we decided that including more details about Brendan’s hunger strike would only diminish the impact of the Price sisters’ hunger strike scene.

‘Your Nose Is Pressed Up Against the Ambiguity of It’

Here’s one way of paraphrasing: Could you explain to me how that situation was managed? That episode plays a crucial role in the narrative as it delves deep into the sisters’ experiences, focusing on the intense emotions involved in pushing personal beliefs to their extremes. By this stage, Dolours has committed actions for the cause that some might find questionable, and this moment represents her using violence against herself.
JZ:

In essence, the storyline revolves around an idea that Patrick brought up – you were expected to perish but somehow survived, making you a living martyr instead. The narrative opens with Aunt Bridie serving as our initial character because she too exists in a sort of twilight zone following the loss of her hands and eyes in a bomb blast. This concept struck us deeply: that Dolours would find herself in a similar twilight state post-events, which Patrick accurately termed as the aftermath or lingering effects of what we’ve previously witnessed.

Initially, our discussions about these episodes were mere bullet points on a whiteboard. However, there was always an implicit understanding that episode five, portraying the Old Bailey bombing, would be grand and extensive. These children, raised in a limited, provincial environment during a provincial era, experienced a shock when they arrived in London and discovered the city’s vastness and brilliance. It was an unusual contradiction: They were there to wreak havoc, but their arrival also marked an exciting period for them, which is why she attends the play and they go out together.

The plan was for episode five to embody a Michael Mann-like intensity, making it akin to a procedural heist. Characters would be setting bombs, and viewers would find themselves engrossed in the unfolding drama. Then comes the shocking detonation moment. However, an underestimated naivete was present: What if we get caught? And also, What are we doing here? Are we really prepared to harm 200 people – maim them, blind them? Post this expansive episode, the intention was to contract the atmosphere with episode six. All of a sudden, you’re in a confined space, a protective shell. From the start, the intent was to create those two distinct feelings in these two episodes.

One aspect that “Say Nothing” delves into is the complex issue of armed struggle. Although Patrick provides more insight on this matter in his book, he doesn’t clearly support or condemn the effectiveness and morality of political violence. When working on the adaptation, I aimed to preserve a similar nuanced tone. The goal was to create a drama where viewers might find themselves sympathizing with characters at times, but also questioning their actions regarding the question of whether peace can be achieved without resorting to armed conflict. We strived to maintain a sense of neutrality when addressing some of the larger ethical questions, just as the book does.

In my book, I found that much of the existing literature on The Troubles felt somewhat oversimplified or exaggerated, with both sides appearing overly convinced of their perspectives. What struck me as a writer was an overwhelming sense of ambiguity rather than clear-cut opinions. This complex feeling made it challenging for me to align myself completely with one side or the other. In writing the book, I aimed to bring readers as close as possible to these individuals, so they could almost touch the human complexity inherent in The Troubles. Readers often shared their discomfort when they found themselves sympathizing with Brendan Hughes and then realized he had been responsible for setting off 18 bombs in Belfast on the next page, causing a sudden sense of unease or nausea.

As a movie reviewer, I found this series remarkably authentic because it didn’t oversimplify its characters or present them as one-dimensional figures. Brendan Hughes isn’t portrayed as an outright villain, nor is he glorified for his actions. Instead, the series presents him as a complex individual, which feels more true to life. This isn’t a political discourse or a debate; it’s a deep dive into the lives of these characters, aiming to unravel their complexities and shed light on underlying issues.

However, let me point out, it’s quite likely that viewers of this series will have varying and intense opinions about the characters, sometimes even vehemently disagreeing on their feelings. I find such diversity delightful. It would be disheartening if everyone ended up with a one-dimensional perspective on any of these characters.

Despite ongoing debates regarding the involvement of Gerry Adams in the IRA and Marian Price’s role in Jean McConville’s murder, both the book and the show present these facts with clarity. It’s striking to observe how the show transforms these contested subjects into undeniable truths through its meticulous research and fact-checking.

In your argument, you’ve brought up a subtle yet significant detail. While I understand that there seems to be no room for ambiguity regarding Gerry Adams’ membership in the IRA and Marian Price’s involvement in the shooting of Jean McConville, what I believe you’re suggesting is something slightly different. You’re indicating that while it’s appropriate for a journalist to analyze evidence and offer their interpretation, it’s another matter entirely to exclude the journalist from the equation altogether.

In simpler terms,

It seems to me that this portrayal of Marian is perhaps the most compassionate representation she could ask for. On the contrary, some critics might argue, “I am familiar with Marian Price and her past actions, and yet this characterization appears too empathetic given her history.” As for Adams, it’s hard to say what he might find objectionable in the series. He has expressed disagreement with the very concept of the project, as he continues to assert that he was never part of the IRA in the first place.

Have you had any interactions with Adams’s circle during your work on the book?
PRK: I did, but we didn’t follow up during the series production. However, based on his past behavior regarding the book, I suspect he won’t acknowledge the show. It seems fitting given the title.

The show is set to premiere during a time of sensitivity, given the five years you’ve spent on this adaptation and the ongoing discussions about political violence. With the recent escalation of the Israel-Gaza conflict, it seems the context surrounding the show has undergone a significant shift. How do you think this change affects the show’s impact?

As a movie enthusiast, I’ve been captivated over the past five years as this book has been translated and interpreted across various cultures. I’ve had the privilege to visit Colombia twice and Catalonia this summer, and each reading seems to reflect their unique history. Just like Josh mentioned, there were numerous events unfolding in the U.S. during the show’s creation that resonated within the story in intriguing ways.

2024-11-21 17:56

‘Your Nose Is Pressed Up Against the Ambiguity of It’

Read More

Minority Mindset