Willie Frazer, yes the guy who thinks the IRA was responsible for the horse meat scandal, has recently criticised new film 66 Days, a documentary about Bobby Sands that will be released in cinemas tomorrow, for glorifying terrorism.

In a Facebook video he exclaimed, “Let’s see the films of the Kingsmills massacre, of the butchery of the Protestant people of south Armagh.

“Where’s the film about the Shankill bomb? La Mon? Londonderry? Bloody Friday? Where are these films? They are not there as they don’t glorify terrorism.”

He is not the first Loyalist to be critical of films attempting to deal with the Northern Irish Troubles and claiming they portray a pro-republican view point as it is a criticism that has been levelled at everything from Carol Reed’s Odd Man Out to Steve McQueen’s Hunger. Indeed, many Loyalists have been angered that public money has been used to fund the film. So this got me thinking, Willie may have a point; where are all the Loyalist films?

As someone who has studied Irish cinema at Queen’s University Belfast, I have had to look hard for a likeable or sympathetic character that represents the Loyalist community in film, in fact, it is rare to discover a well rounded protagonist or antagonist. The best example I have found of an occasion when the Loyalist cause has been directly explained or justified is in the little-known television film from 1987 called Naming the Names.

In the film, an Irish Protestant character explains, “The Protestant opposition to home rule was rational. Because at the time Ulster Protestant industries, linen, shipbuilding, were dependent on the British market. Home rule would have ruined Ulster financially.”

So why is the Republican cause generally favoured over the Loyalist cause in film?

Is it simply that the Republican cause is more justified than the Loyalist cause? Or that this is the opinion of an international audience? Well, perhaps.

But the answer may also lie with Margaret Thatcher, whose government contributed significantly in shaping visual representations of Northern Ireland.

For you see, the decisions made by the government throughout Thatcher’s time as PM created an antagonistic relationship between the government and the arts. Thatcher’s disaffection for art could be considered encapsulated in one throw–away remark attributed to her when she referred to revered Irish artist, Francis Bacon as, “that man who paints those dreadful pictures.”

And her dislike for the arts was reciprocated as evidenced by the unflattering portrayal of her on television and in popular music in the 80s and 90s.

In film, figures from an art-cinema background such as Peter Greenaway and left wing filmmakers such as Ken Loach were provoked into the mainstream in an attempt to give a voice to those disenfranchised by the government’s actions.

British cinema became a cinema of resistance and went on to forge an identity that was opposed to Thatcherism in all its forms and the Loyalist cause was seen as just that due to the perception that the Iron Lady favoured those on that side of the divide.

The inclusion of protagonists who were from Republican backgrounds or who were sympathetic to the Republican cause can be seen as an act of rebellion when you consider that the government considered Republicans such a threat that they insisted that TV companies censor the voices of what they considered terrorist spokespeople, such as Gerry Adams.

Another reason was that this new identity that British film was forging in the 1980s, consisting largely of giving a voice to those left behind by Thatcherism, such as the working class and ethnic minorities, could be seen to extend to Irish Republicans in Northern Ireland.

Margaret Thatcher’s handling of the 1981 hunger strikes in the Maze prison also had an impact. Before 1981, films about the Troubles proved unpopular with audiences. Part of the reason for this was that international audiences were largely unaware of the political situation in Northern Ireland.

After world-wide attention was afforded to the 1981 hunger strikes, the film industry was convinced that audiences might now be aware of the conflict to the extent that the topic would be suitable to be dealt with in film. In this way, the decisions made by the government can be seen to have inadvertently made the Troubles and the Republican cause an appropriate issue to be explored in film and this is evidenced by Pat O’Connor’s Cal and Neil Jordan’s Angel achieving critical and commercial success at this time.

However there is an argument to be made that the bias has little to do with Thatcher and more to do with a general wider bias in the media. The idea that the media has a default secular progressive agenda that will always be biased against unionism and the God-fearing conservatism that is at its heart is a long standing fear of those from within the Loyalist community. This has seen a desire within unionism historically to control the media and BBC output; something they had a tight control over during the unionist government’s 50 year rule.

Despite a general bias in the media being an explanation, this doesn’t take away from the fact that the decisions made by Thatcher and the series of propaganda successes for the Republican movement during her time as PM may also have increased the frequency and assertiveness.

Many themes and perspectives born out of this period of upheaval that Thatcher oversaw are still a part of British film’s identity today such as a politicalised form of social realism, music and performance as a form of rebellion and an empowering of minorities. The sympathetic representation of the Republican cause is just one more to add to the list. Willie and other grumbling Loyalists will just have to accept, as ironic as it sounds, internal de-colonisation and being biased against Loyalism is part of British cinema’s identity.