An anguised Rod Steiger kneels in the street before the dead bodies of his wife and daughter gunned down by a British soldier in the opening scenes of American International’s new film Hennessy. Hennessy —new thriller bearing an old message Forty years ago, the New York film critics shook all the con- ventional wisdom ‘of Hollywood by naming a work based on the civil war in Ireland as the best film of 1935. The film was The Informer, derived by director John Ford and screenwriter Dudley Nichols from Liam O’Flaherty’s novel of the same title. The scenario began auspiciously: ‘“‘...on a certain night in riot-torn Dublin. . . .” and went on from there to win three Academy Awards in addition to the New York critics’ accolades. Now, for only the second time, commercial film makers have again turned to the centuries-old strife in Ireland for thematic material. This time it’s called Hennessy, directed by Don Sharp for American International. The opening shots of the film are reminiscent of its predecessor as the camera breaks on to a riot scene in British-occupied. Belfast. But there the similarity ends. For if Nichols and Ford were genuinely attempting to explore some of the issues of the Irish civil war in their skilful adaptation of O’Flaherty’s novel, the makers of Hennessy were merely looking for a dramatic setting for a shoddy, if engrossing, suspense yarn. Having selected the setting, mind you, director Sharp and screenwriter John Gay seem bent on presenting, either directly or indirectly, some of their own reactionary views on the Irish struggle. FRC schools to commence September is school month and the Federation of ' Russian Canadians school of Russian language and dance is now ac- cepting registrations. --The language courses are available for both adults and children, dance instruction for young people anywhere from pre-school to mid- teens. Dates for registration are September 19 and 26 at 7 p.m., and September 28 at 11 a.m. at the Russian People’s Home, 600 Campbell Ave. Further in- formation is available by phoning 278-8779, 254-3430 or 291-8558. The basic plot is simple enough. Hennessy, the central character, is a. former Irish war hero now working in building demolition. Though he is asked by his old friend, Tobin, now head of operations for the provisional wing of the IRA, for a supply of ex- plosives, he refuses on the grounds that his hero days are over, that he lives now ‘‘only for his family.” But outside, the riot is raging as residents on a Belfast street lob stones and bricks at stranded British soldiers attempting to repair a tire on their truck. Sud- denly, one of the soldiers, half stunned by a demonstrator’s rock, opens up with his Sten gun, mur- dering 18 people. Two of them are innocent bystanders — Hennessy’s wife and only child. Inwardly swearing revenge on the British, Hennessy now hatches _his incredible plot: he will blow up the Parliament Buildings just at the moment when the Queen is to deliver her Speech from the Throne. Providing a hideout for him as he concocts his plans in London is Kate Brook (Lee Remick), the widow of a former IRA man and an old friend of Hennessy’s. Ron Steiger, complete with his stock of disguises and various accents, plays the elusive Hen- nessy, determined to decimate the entire royal family. Richard Johnson is Hollis, the ruthless, violent Special Branch officer of Scotland Yard while Eric Porter plays Tobin who is desperately seeking to thwart Hennessy’s scheme to avoid “‘setting the Irish cause back 50 years.” All of which provide the elements for a good suspense story — if we could ignore all that goes with it. The film did cause quite a stir when it was first released in Britain with several critics complaining indignantly because the film maker had the im- pertinence to include actual newsreel footage of the Queen’s ceremonial entrance into West- minster Hall for the opening of Parliament. Still other critics demanded that it be banned on the grounds that Hennessy’s fictitious plot might inspire a real one, even though the plot, though plausible enough for the movie, is about as likely in reality as a replay of Guy Fawkes’ Gunpowder Plot. PACIFIC TRIBUNE—SEPTEMBER 12, 1975—Page 10 No, these are minor criticism of a film which has political over- tones of greater significance than the unauthorized exposure of Her Majesty. From the beginning, we are asked to accept as a matter of fact, the prevailing myth that equates the provisional, terrorist wing of _the IRA with the entire IRA, a “broad republican movement which has consistently repudiated the tactics of the provisionals. And in case we miss that essential point, Tobin, the provisionals’ operations chief, has just enough plausibility as a political leader for us to complete the equation by our-. . selves. Stereotyped views of the Irish problems, of course, abound. ‘‘You Irish. - if you ’re not down on-your knees prayin’ ,’ Kate cries as she begins tosense Hennessy’s mission in London, ‘‘then you’re shootin’ at one another.” After all, haven’t we always been told that the strife in Ireland is the result of sectarian conflict between Catholics. and Protestants? Following that reasoning, are we not also asked to accept that the British soldiers are needed to ‘‘keep peace’ between the two factions? Perhaps that is the greatest sin of the film: the idea that the mighty British Empire with its traditions of justice and reason will bring. peace and stability to the oldest and most subjugated colony of all — Ireland. Hollis, the Special Branch officer, is admittedly brutal. But he got that way because he was ‘‘corrupted by his duty in Ulster.’’ In contrast, his superior officer is the epitome of reason and refinement. And as the. camera pans up the Parliament Buildings amidst the triumphant strains of “God Save the Queen,” we can hardly miss the implication: Britain has a divine right to rule and only fanatics would want to defy it. Far from denouncing the film, some of the stuffier British critics might have welcomed it. Hardly more could have been ac- complished to bolster the British Empire had the Queen stood up in the middle of it all and sang ‘‘Rule Britannia.” —Sean Griffin COLUMBIA RIVER! Diversion plan will yield little The announcement last week by resources minister Bob Williams that B.C. is considering reducing the water flow to the newly opened Libby Dam in Montana seems to be an effort to salvage something from the enormous giveaway of our resources by the former Social Credit government. The diversion of the Kootenay River, on which the Libby Dam is situated, is allowed by Article 13 of the Columbia River treaty which was signed in 1964. It permits the B.C. government to divert 20 per cent of the Kootenay flow 20 years after the signing of the treaty. The diversion would be allowed in 1984. Article 13 also allows for in- creased diversion, in a series of graduated steps, until after 80 years when up to 90 per cent of the Kootenay flow could be rerouted. However, it is highly unlikely that the Libby Dam _ will still be operational in 80 years’ time. When making his announcement that studies on the impact of sucha diversion have been going on for the past 18 months, Williams made the point that such a move would be ‘‘maximizing the benefits’ of the Columbia treaty for the people of B.C. When . one’ considers’ the “benefits”? of the. treaty, it becomes obvious that no amount of maximization will provide the solution to Canada’s energy needs. One of the results of the treaty is a $720 million dollar deficit that the people of B.C. must bear. A leading opponent of the Columbia treaty at the time of its signing was Bruce Yorke, then secretary of the Columbia River . for Canada Committee. He ap- peared before the External Affairs committee in Ottawa in 1964, giving six hours of evidence as to ‘the treaty provides for. why the treaty should not a ratified. Contacted by the Tribune, Yor said that Williams’ statemell shows that the NDP governmél “is trying to make the best out 0 terrible situation. The mere #4 that they’re considering it sho that it should have been done in# first place.” a Yorke said that the inclusion! Article 13 in the treaty was* “facesaving gesture,’’ designed cover up the magnitude of the give) { away. “The treaty did not give ™) the right to divert 20 per cent of Us| Kootenay flow, it simply deni cent of the flow. It doesll maximize the~ situation at all.’ P have been available had ‘ government adopted a Ca first policy in 1941 as advocate the McNaughton plan. q This plan, conceived by the lalé General A. G. L. McNaught Canadian chairman of the I} ternational Joint CommissiO®| provided the basis for opposition? the Columbia Treaty. It advocal ied a full diversion of the Kool River and rerouting through ¢ Columbia River. Most importa the plan would have left the cont) . of the rate of flow solidly # Canadian hands, not American © Ty The McNaughton Plan would also have yielded 6.9 million-a feet of water per year (enou | water to cover 6.9 million acres of land*to a depth of one ‘oom as opposed to the 1.5 million- acre fee the treaty allows for. The ‘propose | diversion, while welcome in its? cannot undo the treachery W. A: Bennett’s sellout. an Soviet artist mourns. Dimitri Shostakovich The newspaper Sovietskaya Kultura (Soviet Culture) of Aug. 12, 1975 published a letter by Kara Karayev, a prominent Soviet composer, in connection with the death of Dimitri Shostakovich. The letter runs as follows: ‘Death has depleted our ranks by carrying away our beloved Dimitri Shostakovich. The sad news has grieved all the Soviet people and all those who admired the work of the great composer throughout the world. ‘‘Almost thirty-three years of my active life in music have been closely linked with the personality of Dimitri Shostakovich and his work. One can hardly realize at the moment the whole tragedy of the loss we have suffered. This was a man of magnanimity, always ready to help. Invaluable and clever advice we received from him any time we were in need helped us a great deal in our work and life. “Dimitri Shostakovich educated his disciples: to be implacable toward irresponsibility in art. Exacting to himself, he developed this quality in us and strongly believed that Soviet music should be at the service of Soviet society, tell nothing but the truth, and come from the very heart... . “His whole life is a forced example of great humaneness and \ ! DIMITRI SHOSTAKOVICH | | adherence to one’s artistic PM) | ciples, and example of ereatifl | t \ daring and the high morale 9° Communist. ; “The exhausting illness had broken his will until death tore ai pen from his hand. He met de4 boldly and, if I may put it so, ty dignity — he continued to W hard till his very last hour.. “Goodbye to you, our re teacher, father, brother ? friend.”