MovieChat Forums > Hidden Agenda Discussion > Truly Hidden Agenda?? (spoilers!)

Truly Hidden Agenda?? (spoilers!)

posted 17 years ago by cherns-2
15 replies | jump to latest

I saw this film at a film festival or something, because I remember that the director or writer or somebody similar speaking for a couple of minutes before it started. Unfortunately, he didn't appear *after* the film, so I never got to ask him about it. Maybe this might be a place were I can exchange ideas with some others with similar questions.

(What follows is based on my recollection of the film, which I suppose is about 17 years old. I'd welcome corrections.)

As I recall, the film starts with a phone call luring the American human-rights activist to an ambush in which he's killed. His girlfriend (wife?) arrives to investigate, along with a CID inspector who's been sent up from London to find out what's going on, and if the local cops were cooperating with the Protestant gangs. (I seem to recall that there was an actual investigation along these lines--the name of the cop will occur to me a few minutes after posting this.)

(Later: the actual investigation, into the alleged "shoot to kill policy" (in which police or army members killed suspects instead of trying to arrest them), was conducted 1984-86 by Deputy Chief John Stalker of the Greater Manchester Police. Wikipedia: "On 5 June 1986, just before Stalker was to make his final report, he was removed from his position in charge of the inquiry. On 30 June, he was suspended from duty over allegations of association with criminals. On 22 August, he was cleared of the allegations and returned to duty, although he was not reinstated as head of the inquiry. The inquiry was taken over by Colin Sampson of the West Yorkshire Police, its findings were never made public." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland )

Girlfriend and cop receive some phone calls from someone who claims to be a captain in the Army Propaganda Corps (or similar) who's disturbed about the work he's been doing, and now wants to help the investigation. He sends them on several wild goose chases, some of which result in their being photographed with some IRA types. He also gives them a tape allegedly made at a meeting of various high business and government types who are plotting to bring down the Labour government (paralleling the "Wilson Plot" of that time)(Later: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Wilson_conspiracy_theories ). They follow this lead for a while, and find that the tape isn't useful evidence because it's a copy. Finally, they learn that their informant, Captain Harris, has been found dead, his face beaten to a pulp.

Now, if this were a mystery instead of a thriller, we'd have to look at who's doing what and why. Captain Harris has the job of covering over any evidence of lethal army or RUC involvement with the Prot extremists. I'm not sure if it's his voice that summons the original American to his ambush, but he's certainly the guy who sends girlfriend and cop around Robin Hood's barn to no good effect. They finally get completely sidetracked by the anti-government plot tape. Finally, a somewhat-unrecognizable body purported to be Captain Harris's makes it impossible to follow up on any of this stuff.

Result: the investigation of the original killing, and of cooperation between the security services and the Prot extremists, is completely sidetracked. If Captain Harris had been doing his job instead of (as he claims) betraying it, and if he then wanted to "disappear," he couldn't have done better, eh?

So: what do others who have seen the film, perhaps more recently, think? Is it a thriller in which girlfriend and cop get close to several plots but are unable to find proof, or is it a mystery in which girlfriend and cop--and viewers--are completely bamboozled by Captain Harris? Or am I just remembering it incorrectly? --Howard

[–] cmcurrie2 17 years ago

I'm curious as well -- you have the plot(s) pretty much as I saw it -- and I saw the DVD recently, for the second time. I realized I didn't have the full story both times I saw the film: of the film, and of any incident that may have been the underlying story.

I suspect you are correct on John Stalker (reality), but on Captain Harris (film): identifying his body would be no problem unless they obliderated all of his fingertip pads, as his prints would be recorded in Army records. But if they were as powerful/ruthless as the plot suggests, records could be swapped.

The end was that the girlfriend tells Kerrigan/Stalker she does not have the tape, but does -- and goes off to make phone calls.

I'm not as knowledgable as I'd like to be on Northern Ireland -- but at least I understood their reference to Orange . . . I'm not sure most U.S. audiences would. Maybe the film was aimed at a European audience???

[–] cherns-2 17 years ago

(Sorry for the delay in replying)

I'm sure that the film was mainly aimed at a UK audience, which would have the background to get all the references, although I suppose that it makes a reasonable thriller (or, as I suggest, mystery) in any culture.

My vague memories are that:

--the body reported to be Captain Harris's is said to be unrecognizable, and nothing is said about fingerprints. As someone says in _Spartan_ to the protagonist when he expresses confusion about a DNA test that shows something he knows to be false: "They don't have to do the test, they just have to announce the results they want."

--it doesn't matter that the girlfriend has the famous tape, because it's a copy, and thus forensically useless.

Sometime I have to rent the tape, and watch it again carefully, maybe with friends, looking for clues that might confirm or disprove my hypothesis. Cheers, --H

[–] Navrag 16 years ago

My interpretation was that Captain Harris was loosely based on Captain Robert Nairac, whose body was never found. He had been seen in Republican circles shortly before he disappeared, and it was assumed that he was murdered by them. He was never actually an SAS man, but actually a liaison officer between the UDR (Ulster Defence Regiment) and The SAS. He was in British intelligence and has been implicated in the Dublin Monaghan bombings, and the Miami Showband massacre. What he was doing hanging aroung Republican bars has never been understood....

[–] chrisow 16 years ago

My interpretation was that Captain Harris was loosely based on Captain Robert Nairac, whose body was never found. He had been seen in Republican circles shortly before he disappeared, and it was assumed that he was murdered by them. He was never actually an SAS man, but actually a liaison officer between the UDR (Ulster Defence Regiment) and The SAS. He was in British intelligence and has been implicated in the Dublin Monaghan bombings, and the Miami Showband massacre. What he was doing hanging aroung Republican bars has never been understood....

I would agree with your belief that Harris is based on him. However:

* Nairac was a member of 14th Intelligence Company who, in their previous guise of the MRF, were responsible for a number of dirty tricks and handling informers.

* The allegations over Dublin, Monaghan and the Showband Massacre have never been satisfactorily proven. While there is a possibility, I've always felt he was linked because of the high profile nature of his disappearence.

* The most commonly held belief is that he was hanging aroung Republican bars because he fancied himself as a James Bond type who could get IRA members to trust him and then turn them in. Of course this is speculation.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cherns-2 15 years ago

...whereas "Harris" is disillusioned about the side he is fighting for.

Yeah, that's what Harris says; I'm suggesting that it's just an act to throw cop and girlfriend off the rails of the investigation that Harris wants to cover up.

[–] Krautenamese 14 years ago

I just watched this film yesterday. I don't remember Harris's body being described as "unrecognizable," but that he had been "kneecapped" (not sure if this means his knees were broken or he was shot in the knees) and half his face was missing from a gunshot wound to the head. The implication was that British forces had executed him and copied the usual method of the IRA to cover it up.

[–] cherns-2 14 years ago

Thanks for the clarification. Well, having half of your face missing would tend to make identification difficult, and, as I suggest above, since the news of Captain Harris's convenient "death" comes from the authorities, I find it suspect anyway. (If the British authorities had killed him and tried to blame the IRA, it's just as plausible that the whole thing was faked.)

Having just seen the film, you certainly have the advantage on me. Am I right in remembering that Captain Harris sends Inspector and girlfriend on several wild goose chases that help (for instance, by getting them photographed near some IRA bigwigs) derail the investigation?

Maybe I'm just trying to read too much into the film, and I've never seen anyone else express these misgivings, but it just seems to me that, looking at the film as a mystery rather than a thriller, there's just too much suspicious about Captain Harris's actions to take him at face value.

[–] Krautenamese 14 years ago

Sorry I didn't reply earlier, just noticed your post now. As far as I can recall, Captain Harris didn't send them on any wild goose chases. They were photographed covertly while waiting to meet him in a Republican pub. This wasn't revealed however, until near the end of the film when the Conservative politician (I forget the character's name) threatens to blackmail Kerrigan, as the photographs show Ingrid (McDormand) leaning in close to him, and whispering into his ear, which could be misinterpreted.

[–] cherns-2 11 years ago

Sorry for the long delay--guess this is a really stretched-out conversation about a movie now 23 years old.

As far as I can recall, Captain Harris didn't send them on any wild goose chases. They were photographed covertly while waiting to meet him in a Republican pub.

That's what I was referring to--was it only once? Captain Harris says he's going to meet them in a certain pub; unknown to them, there happen to be some high-level IRA folk about; they're covertly photographed hanging around the pub with those people; Captain Harris never shows up; but the photos do, just in time to derail the investigation. Certainly seemed to me like a set-up by Captain Harris...

[–] susansweb 10 years ago

Hi - I just saw this last week. I know very little about British - Irish history so I will just comment on what happened in the movie. I think the movie is pretty clear that Harris is who he says he is. In the beginning when he surreptitiously gives the tape to Sullivan, the soon to be murdered reporter, he is chased by some men led by the British intelligence officer that later gets the tape back from the police. This is shown from his point of view after Sullivan has gone so if he was trying to set them up, this wouldn't have happened. Later, the Irish reporter that earlier had tried to show some photos of police atrocities to Sullivan and Jessner, lets Jessner and Kerrigan know that Harris wants to meet with them at a republican club. Kerrigan says just before they go to the club that it is an IRA hangout but Jessner counters that not all republicans are IRA members. In the club the duo are taken to Harris as planned. This is also where the photos are taken, which I find to be the weakest point in the movie. How could the police or military be able to do that in a club like that? Oh well, artistic license and all that. Later when Jessner is driving to Dublin to get the tape from Harris, there are many shots of her being followed by the intelligence officer and his cohorts so it seems rather obvious that when Harris is picked up it is by the British and not the IRA.

The character of Jessner is shockingly naive, especially since she cut her teeth on this kind of reporting in Chile during the Pinochet years.

[–] cherns-2 10 years ago

Well, it's been a long time since I've seen the movie, so thanks for the update. I clearly have to see it again sometime to get all this straight in my mind.

[–] shewasmyrushmore 10 years ago

i have just watched it now and the last reply is pretty dead on.

it was definitely british security forces who murdered harris and covered it up to look like the IRA.

also he was straight with the two from the start, just was very careful about security as the british were after him and had him under surveillance.

just regarding the photos within the republican club - it may be a bit farfetched, but the british did have many informants among republican circles so it was possible.

[–] cherns-2 10 years ago

Thanks for this. I guess that's the consensus among those who have seen the film recently.

I can't get over the fact that we hear of the murder of Captain Harris only second-hand, and it's said that he has been badly beaten and his face is not recognizable. I'm willing to believe that the British murdered him, but it seemed to me at the time that they were just as easily giving their agent a way to disappear.

[–] shewasmyrushmore 10 years ago

no, it shows the british army following her as she drives to dublin - in a white van and a dark car. it shows the drivers communicating with each other and with headquarters, and then that same white van is used to bundle harris up and abduct him.

then i just checked the wording used - he says 'first they knee-capped him, then blew half his head away, it's typical IRA'.

he doesn't say anything about him being beaten or being unrecognisable.

i can't imagine they'd give him another chance to 'disappear' - he had clearly been trying to be a whistleblower for a long time and had gone to great lengths - i spose it's technically plausible, but it makes no sense within the plot of the film.

maybe if it were fresher in your mind you may see it differently - i only say that because my own brain changes films so much over time that sometimes i have an entirely different plot and feel in my head by the time i watch it again (then again i do daydream a lot during movies haha).