The Snapper

Bowlardo

it was aired on TV will ruled it out from the oscars..

hypothetically speaking how many oscars nominations and wins would The Snapper have got and what categories?

Sonovagun

Er none.

As good as the snapper was it only appealed to an Irish audience. It would undoubtedly have cleaned up at the IFTAs.

Mental Mickey

Saw it last night. P****d meself laughing. Colm Meaney is a briliant actor.

seamus

I always knew there was something that didn't entirely sit right with me about that movie, and I figured it out last night. The girl playing Sharon doesn't look young. She looks about 30, in fact she was 25/26 making the movie. Sharon is supposed to be 20, and look it.

Classic movie, still brilliant, but especially after reading the book I always knew there was some angle missing, and that was it.

krudler

errr, none? its not a very good film, has some funny moments but the acting is mostly woeful, the scenes with Sharon in the pub with her friends are painful to watch.

Fishooks12

A good majority of Irish films suffer from poor acting (outside of the main cast)

The Wind That Shakes The Barely is a prime example. Some of the acting from the supporting cast is truly woeful (not to mention how unsubtle the plot is)

Babooshka

krudler wrote: »

errr, none? its not a very good film, has some funny moments but the acting is mostly woeful, the scenes with Sharon in the pub with her friends are painful to watch.

But worth the pain when you wait till the scene where Colm Meaney, urging on the Barrystown Wheelies to get a move on, looks at the fat kid who's last on his bike and mumbles "poor little f*cker, he'll saw the b*llix off 'imself". Worth all the pain for that one line.

irishh_bob

get outa me way ya dozey bollicks

Giruilla

If Taxi Driver couldn't win an oscar I seriously doubt The Snapper had a chance..

sensibleken

Fishooks12 wrote: »

A good majority of Irish films suffer from poor acting (outside of the main cast)

The Wind That Shakes The Barely is a prime example. Some of the acting from the supporting cast is truly woeful (not to mention how unsubtle the plot is)

really? like who, i thought they were all believable

best snapper quote: "thats only your water breakin'. sure it could happen to a bishop"

Dodge

Sonovagun wrote: »

Er none.

As good as the snapper was it only appealed to an Irish audience. It would undoubtedly have cleaned up at the IFTAs.

Colm Meaney was nominated for a Golden Globe for his performance in the film.

WHIP IT!

Sonovagun wrote: »

Er none.

As good as the snapper was it only appealed to an Irish audience. It would undoubtedly have cleaned up at the IFTAs.

Well this is simply not true...

Fishooks12

sensibleken wrote: »

really? like who, i thought they were all believable

Look at the scene where they're debating the treaty in the courthouse, hilariously bad acting

Not to mention the fella they shot up the hills for being a British informer

It's little lines here and there from small parts that give it away

Murphy and a few others are good in it but as a whole there's some very bad acting

ziedth

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Look at the scene where they're debating the treaty in the courthouse, hilariously bad acting

Not to mention the fella they shot up the hills for being a British informer

It's little lines here and there from small parts that give it away

Murphy and a few others are good in it but as a whole there's some very bad acting

I must watch it again, usually poor acting puts me right off a film but I don't remember anything bad in that.

YouTookMyName

"Get outta way, ya dozy bollix"

Class.

sensibleken

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Look at the scene where they're debating the treaty in the courthouse, hilariously bad acting

Not to mention the fella they shot up the hills for being a British informer

It's little lines here and there from small parts that give it away

Murphy and a few others are good in it but as a whole there's some very bad acting

have to disagree there. the debate scene was very believable

Tipsy McSwagger

The Snapper is only worth watching for Colm Meaney's performance. It's made out to be a great Irish comedy but apart from Meaney it's not funny at all. Gimme the dark comedy of The Butcher Boy (best Irish film of all time for me) any day over it.

Mickeroo

One thing a I get a great kick from out of the Snapper is the window into a different time it provides. Back when someone could be heavily pregnant and smoke and drink as much as they liked without so much as dirty look from the general public. Good times

seamus

krudler wrote: »

errr, none? its not a very good film, has some funny moments but the acting is mostly woeful, the scenes with Sharon in the pub with her friends are painful to watch.

There's a tendency to consider Irish films (particularly from the late 80's/early nineties) as being boring or poorly acted, but that's because they didn't employ the same techniques as hollywood movies of the era, so they appear very raw. There's a tendency in Hollywood to overact somewhat, so if that's what you measure as a good performance, then looking at that era of Irish movies you'd be lead to believe that the acting lacked passion or emotion, when IMO it was a whole lot more "real" than the Hollywood overacting.

That said, we also have tendency to make some poor casting choices (and we still do), due to the nepotism rampant in the Irish film & theatre scene.

The Commitments is considered another great, but the lead character in that has some terrible acting. But it's saved by a great script and some great performances of those around him.

Likewise in this, Sharon (who isn't actually the lead) has a very poor performance, but flanked by 3 of our greatest actors - Colm Meaney, Brendan Gleeson and Ruth McCabe - as well as a number of other good performances, you can kind of gloss over her weak points.

Dodge

Gleeson's doesn't even have a scene with her. He's a great actor but you couldn't tell that looking at the Snapper, as he hams it up with the rest of them

There's also no point in comparing acting in a serious drama to a comedy. Different films have different needs. Some charachters in the Snapper are dliberately OTT for comic effect. It isn't designed to be ultra realistic. They need to have comic timing and be somewhat belieavble. They all deliver

irishh_bob

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

The Snapper is only worth watching for Colm Meaney's performance. It's made out to be a great Irish comedy but apart from Meaney it's not funny at all. Gimme the dark comedy of The Butcher Boy (best Irish film of all time for me) any day over it.

thought the scenes with his pub mates were good although silly , billy meehan from fair city was one of them :eek:aswell as brendan gleeson of course , didnt like sharon but some of the other kids were good and the mother ( ruth mc cabe ) is a good actress and put in an understated but solid performance , sharons friends were the low point

irishh_bob

Mickeroo wrote: »

One thing a I get a great kick from out of the Snapper is the window into a different time it provides. Back when someone could be heavily pregnant and smoke and drink as much as they liked without so much as dirty look from the general public. Good times

the book must be from the 80,s as even in 1993 , ireland wasnt that innocent

baddebt

Mental Mickey wrote: »

Saw it last night. P****d meself laughing. Colm Meaney is a briliant actor.

they need to show more film's like this on TV .................given all the doom and gloom around , it sure would cheer people up

DRose1

Not a patch on the Van imo, but definitely worth another watch last night.

saa

Ah the nostalgia of it makes me happy, the decor, hoppin on an auld green bus.
TK and a package of King Crips!

Bowlardo

just look up the nominations and winners for the oscars in 1993....fairly big hitters in fairness

http://boxofficemojo.com/oscar/chart/?view=allcategories&yr=1993&p=.htm

Should have got BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE PICTURE???

irishh_bob

DRose1 wrote: »

Not a patch on the Van imo, but definitely worth another watch last night.

only saw the van once , only bit that sticks out was when one particular customer opened his newspaper and the cod he ordered turned out to be something else

its a :eek:

Mellor

irishh_bob wrote: »

the book must be from the 80,s as even in 1993 , ireland wasnt that innocent

It was written in 1990, not 1993.
If you had to date it, its set around 1989. Basing this on the van being based around Italia'90

theteal

irishh_bob wrote: »

only saw the van once , only bit that sticks out was when one particular customer opened his newspaper and the cod he ordered turned out to be something else

its a :eek:

"ah f*ck off, baldy conscience!"

cython

Somewhat neither here nor there, but I always get a bit of a laugh out of the fact that Georgie Burgess (the father of the titular baby) is played by Pat Laffan, the very same as went on to play Pat Mustard in Father Ted - typecasting anyone? :pac:



I am aware he has played plenty of other different roles too

Draupnir

Mellor wrote: »

If you had to date it, its set around 1989. Basing this on the van being based around Italia'90

Well there is a scene when Sharon mentions that Dessie cried during the World Cup. So it probably starts in late 1989, passing the World Cup and finishing in around August/September 1990.

If the films were like the books, The Van could probably sit between the The Commitments and The Snapper chronologically.

bebostalker

Intermission was the best Irish film ever, man.

Mickeroo

bebostalker wrote: »

Intermission was the best Irish film ever, man.

Ara now....

bebostalker

Mickeroo wrote: »

Ara now....

You just don't have the requisite Celtic soul, man.

Mellor

I always took it that that was a very intentional joke from fr ted writers

Mellor

Draupnir wrote: »

Mellor wrote: »

If you had to date it, its set around 1989. Basing this on the van being based around Italia'90

Well there is a scene when Sharon mentions that Dessie cried during the World Cup. So it probably starts in late 1989, passing the World Cup and finishing in around August/September 1990.

If the films were like the books, The Van could probably sit between the The Commitments and The Snapper chronologically.

it wouldn't make sense for it to overlap the world cup, simply because that's when Colm Meeney had the chip van, plus Sharon has already had her baby by the van.
Chronologically, the order is the commitments, the snapper and the van.
I know the line you are referring to, and unless it refers to '86 or a different sport it's a mistake from the writers.

ziedth

I don't think that Meaney in The Van and the Snapper are actually the same character Mellor. So I would take it that the snapper takes place just after Italy '90 too.

Edit: actually ignore that. I see the different names are a copyright issue.

Further edt: I just watched it with the wife and it shows the sons DOB as on the crib as '93

bebostalker

Mellor wrote: »

I always took it that that was a very intentional joke from fr ted writers

Sorry Sheep...I'm gonna' have to put you down man.

Is Meaney also meant to be same character in Intermission

Dodge

Mellor wrote: »

I know the line you are referring to, and unless it refers to '86 or a different sport it's a mistake from the writers.

Its not a mistake. its just artistic license

The 3 films were seperately made and have little/no overlap at all. Colm Meaney plays the same charachter in each film but they're called Jimmy rabbitte, Dessie Curley and Larry rabbitte for example

The "world cup line" was added into the screenplay (ie its not in the book) and it works well

Draupnir

That's exactly what I meant, they had already been forced to change the family name and lead characters name due to copyright issues. I think the movie timelines are a bit different to the literary version. I've read the trilogy and am aware that the timeline there is clear.

Mellor

Dodge wrote: »

Its not a mistake. its just artistic license

The 3 films were seperately made and have little/no overlap at all. Colm Meaney plays the same charachter in each film but they're called Jimmy rabbitte, Dessie Curley and Larry rabbitte for example

The "world cup line" was added into the screenplay (ie its not in the book) and it works well

Mistake was the wrong word. After all Roddy Doyle did the screen play.
Anachronism is more fitting. .

And as a stand alone film, the line works well I agree. But I think of them a trilogy. and the line is out of place in that sense. Maybe due to the convoluted profuction, Doyle didn't think there ever would be a trilogy of movies. or that they'd be linked due to name changes.

Draupnir wrote: »

That's exactly what I meant, they had already been forced to change the family name and lead characters name due to copyright issues. I think the movie timelines are a bit different to the literary version. I've read the trilogy and am aware that the timeline there is clear.

I get what you were saying, but imo you are mistaken.

Think about it, Sharon (renamed) is in the van, with her newborn baby. Remember the nappy scene. Therefore its has to take place in the same timeline as the books, immediately after the snapper.
The world cup comment is an anachronsim, but was intentional.
There are a dew other things out of place too I remember.

Arianna_26

I'm kicking myself that I missed this the last night

ziedth

Mellor wrote: »

Think about it, Sharon (renamed) is in the van, with her newborn baby. Remember the nappy scene. Therefore its has to take place in the same timeline as the books, immediately after the snapper.
The world cup comment is an anachronsim, but was intentional.
There are a dew other things out of place too I remember.

I honestly don't think (in the film) it's suppose to be Sharon. Like I said earlier in the snapper when the baby is born it has his date of birth on the cot and it says 1993. I agree with you though that they obviously didn't know that they would get a chance to film the van then they would have changed the date and possibly even have left out the world cup joke. Although it's a great line.

Dodge

ziedth wrote: »

I honestly don't think (in the film) it's suppose to be Sharon.

Its the same charachter alright. Just different name etc

Like I said earlier in the snapper when the baby is born it has his date of birth on the cot and it says 1993. I agree with you though that they obviously didn't know that they would get a chance to film the van then they would have changed the date and possibly even have left out the world cup joke. Although it's a great line.

There's no 'they'. its 3 seperate films/production companies

the purple tin

cython wrote: »

Somewhat neither here nor there, but I always get a bit of a laugh out of the fact that Georgie Burgess (the father of the titular baby) is played by Pat Laffan, the very same as went on to play Pat Mustard in Father Ted - typecasting anyone? :pac:



I am aware he has played plenty of other different roles too

Georgie bleedin Burgess!:D

Rodger_Muir

I caught it for the first time the other night and thought it was pants.

johnny_ultimate

I also think it's ho-hum. And that's being generous to counter arguments of begrudgery!

There are some funny moments - a handful - and there's a hint of darkness that never quite fully kicks in. But for a film made in the 1990s it's hopelessly dated already, and the characters are a hugely unlikeable bunch.

Having been forced to sit through many apparently stellar examples of Irish cinema as part of college (this included), the only one that stands out as anything above average is The Butcher Boy. I haven't seen I Went Down, but have been led believe that is a fine piece of work too.

JP Liz V1

cython wrote: »

Somewhat neither here nor there, but I always get a bit of a laugh out of the fact that Georgie Burgess (the father of the titular baby) is played by Pat Laffan, the very same as went on to play Pat Mustard in Father Ted - typecasting anyone? :pac:



I am aware he has played plenty of other different roles too

No matter what I see him I always shout thats Georgie Burgess

Dodge

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

No matter what I see him I always shout thats Georgie Burgess

And I bet he thinks you're so original and funny

JP Liz V1

Dodge wrote: »

And I bet he thinks you're so original and funny

Yes I'm sure he can hear me through the screen

Draupnir

Mellor wrote: »

Mistake was the wrong word. After all Roddy Doyle did the screen play.
Anachronism is more fitting. .

And as a stand alone film, the line works well I agree. But I think of them a trilogy. and the line is out of place in that sense. Maybe due to the convoluted profuction, Doyle didn't think there ever would be a trilogy of movies. or that they'd be linked due to name changes.



I get what you were saying, but imo you are mistaken.

Think about it, Sharon (renamed) is in the van, with her newborn baby. Remember the nappy scene. Therefore its has to take place in the same timeline as the books, immediately after the snapper.
The world cup comment is an anachronsim, but was intentional.
There are a dew other things out of place too I remember.

The family in the Van only has 4 members, granted some could never be on screen but I think that would be a stretch since some of the girls in The Snapper are younger than the youngest boy, you'd assume they haven't moved out by the time The Van roles around.