2 reviews

Director: Ken Loach
Principles: Cillian Murphy, Liam Cunningham, Padraic Delaney, Orla Fitzgerald, Damien Kearney, Myles Horgan

The Wind That Shakes the Barley is set during the Irish War of Independence (from Britain just to be clear) - 1919–21, and the subsequent Irish Civil War of 1922–23, which arose as Ireland fractured into those accepting the partial independence granted, in the Anglo Irish Treaty, and those wanting unconditional freedom.

The title refers to a line from a song by 19th century Irish author Robert Dwyer Joyce.

Loach tells the story of a small band of workers, and in particular two brothers, Damien and Teddy, (Murphy and Delaney) who unite to form a freedom-fighting guerrilla cell. They traverse through secret training camps in barley fields, capture, torture, escape, ambushes, street fighting and close quarter executions. Post treaty, we see the group and the brothers, notably and a trifle predictably, fracture along pro treaty anti treaty lines.

Although no stars were born today, the film is good mechanically in terms of acting, characterisation and drama, but I had issues with its overall focus.

For me, Loach was too focussed on his social microcosm; he failed to capture the grand scale of events that were occurring around them. From watching the film, I did not get the sense of sustained national fervour and a guerrilla conflict involving 60,000 soldiers and 5,000 deaths.

And I think this is key, particularly as an outsider, to understanding the intense sentiment and territoriality felt by all sides, and more importantly key to fully empathising with the main cast of this film.

For me, this is a significant shortcoming, making the film seem disconnected from what was going on around it at the time.

Man in a High Castle 9 Jul 2006

This was a thorough (and reasonably lengthy) film, which left me challenged, informed and mildly traumatised. Through the life of one young Irishman and his friends and relations, it examines the origins and development of what came to be known as the Irish Republican Army, beginning in the 1920s.

And a brutal tale it is. The utterly obnoxious behaviour of the English troops (arrogance, aggression and atrocities) is portrayed boldly and strikingly enough that the viewer begins with great sympathy for the locals’ determination to be rid of them by any means necessary. As the conflict proceeds and said means start to involve execution of Irish collaborators and interference in local justice, the film manages to avoid preaching and allows you to explore the uncertainties and crises of conscience facing the protagonists.

When the English Government pushes through a treaty which some see as a victory and others as a capitulation, there is a pivotal scene in which almost every significant character gets to express their viewpoint. In this age of spoon-fed attitudes, it was refreshing that their contradictory opinions all expressed a fraction of the truth, and offered a genuine glimpse into how difficult of resolution the situation was.

I’ve no idea to what extent, if any, the scene represents historical truth. But to see so many people putting their cases briefly, lucidly, passionately, and without interrupting each other, was evocative of everything that politics seems to lack today. I found myself admiring these sincere, albeit murderous, men and the sacrifices they were prepared to make for their beliefs.

At some point this train of thought had to collide with my attitudes from more recent history. “Hang on: this is the IRA, for goodness’ sake. The same organisation I, as a child during the mainland bombing campaign, used to imagine leaving explosives beneath my bedroom window. Random killers I learned to fear and loathe.”

Obviously, much can change in 40 or 50 years. The film shows the initial stages after the treaty, as Irishmen in uniform and Irish rebels have their first clashes, ending powerfully with one in which the lead character and his brother face a fatal disagreement. It would be interesting to see subsequent stages of the story dramatised as delicately.

This being Ken Loach, the questions are often viewed in socialist terms, discussing land ownership and exploitation of workers as much as purely nationalist issues. This if anything, just introduces more tensions between people who were initially united by what they stood against, but who found, as events unfolded, that they all had differing or uncertain ideas of what they were actually for. Some evidently found it easier to carry on being against, regardless of the adversary.

If you can bear a certain amount of torture and swearing, then I recommend this film.

Ian Threadgill 6 Jul 2006