Vientos de libertad

"The wind that shakes the Barley" is a film about the Irish war of independence, that was fought from 1919 - 1922.

This war resulted in the Free State Ireland, which had some independence from the United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland. In 1937 the Free State Ireland became the Irish Republic, which was wholly independent from the United Kingdom.

Films about Ireland are mostly about the tensions between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland during "The troubles" (1966 - 1998). "The wind that shakes the Barley" puts this troubles in a historical perspective.

The film consists of two parts. Part 1 is about violence on the side of the English occupier, part 2 is about Irish disunity.

The English violence in the movie did cause some discomfort at the time of release. We are accustomed to warcrimes perpetrated by Germans, but the English? It should however not be forgotten that the English used World War One veterans in the Irish war of independence. Particulalrly the "Black and tans" were notorious.

When we think of Irish disunity we think of the religious divide between Catholics and Protestants. In this film the central division is that between the Irish who are willing to accept the Free State (at least for the time being) and the ones who want total independence right now.

Another division which is somewhat overshadowed in the film, is that between Irish nationalists and the Irish socialists. I found this a little strange, because after all we are talking about a Loach movie. In some scenes though, this division did come to the surface. I am specifically talking about the scene in which a loan shark is convicted by an Irish "peoples court". This loan shark however also happens to finance weapons for the IRA. The question arises what the ultimate goal of the independece war really is? Is it only to change the accents of the powerful and the colour of the flag, or is it something more?

Saw it at private screening too.

Editorial from a Cork newspaper sums it up well:

This wind shakes more than barley

In Ireland we are in rare position internationally when it comes to our media. Most of what we read, listen to and watch is usually interpreted in two perspectives, through our own media and through that of our near neighbours across the Irish Sea. There are other instances of large and small neighbours with a common language (Germany and Austria; USA and Canada; Australia and New Zealand), but nowhere is the penetration of the larger nation's media into the neighbouring market as pronounced as it is in Ireland. Viewership of UK TV stations and readership of UK owned newspapers in Ireland is at a level that makes them as significant to our view of the world as our own media. This breeds a familiarity with our neighbours that can make us Irish assume the British know as much about us as we do about them. Nothing could be further from the truth however as has been graphically illustrated by the reception given in Britain to Ken Loach's Palme d'or winning movie The Wind that Shakes the Barley. There is no question that this film makes the British forces look bad, but of course the reality as all Irish people know is that they were. In the UK normally reasonable and intelligent reviewers and commentators cannot cope with this depiction of occupying British forces as violent repressors of a largely defenceless native population. It has been described as unbalanced and portraying the valiant British soldiers in an unfair and unflattering light. The truth is that the vast majority of British citizens couldn't tell you where Galway is and why should they? They're ignorance of their own colonial past so close to home and denial of it shouldn't surprise us; it is not something to be proud of. This is not to attack Britain, but to remind Irish readers of UK newspapers and viewers of UK television that Britain is indeed a foreign country. They view the world through an entirely different perspective than us, and in truth our views are inconsequential to them. That's why Loach's film, which tells essential truths, will not get a general release in the UK. Despite the fact that Anglo-Irish relations are probably better now than they have ever been the truth about Britain's history in Ireland is something that they just aren't ready for, and probably never will be.

The remarkably low rating that this film has so far received (4.1 as of Thursday 8th of June) is indicative of its ability to raise the hackles of people who haven't even seen it. How can it be otherwise when the film has not yet been released? 135 people have voted; have all of these 135 people actually watched the film? Of course not. They're just voting on the basis of their perceptions or assumptions concerning its political agenda. IMDb voters are not alone in this; already Simon Heffer in The Daily Telegraph, Dominic Lawson in The Independent, Ruth Dudley-Edwards in The Daily Mail and Michael Gove in The Times are attacking a film they haven't seen (by their own admission). These attacks are the predictable reaction of empire apologists unable to abide the depiction of the dark and brutal underside of that imperial machine, or the suggestion that anyone on the receiving end of that brutality might be justified in rebelling against it. The title of Dudley-Edward's lazy hack-job says it all, really: 'Why does Ken Loach loathe his country?' Loach is a traitor, and must be punished, the rotter.

It's a pity that this political controversy seems poised to overwhelm discussion of the film, because it's an extremely able piece of cinema and deserves to be seen as such. Barry Ackroyd's cinematography is superb, ably capturing the beauty of the Irish countryside without indulging in it. We are rooted in a locale without being lavished with pretty pictures. The acting is also excellent. The charismatic Cillian Murphy carries the movie, but the support from Liam Cunningham, Orla Fitzgerald, Aidan O'Hare and Padraic Delaney is also commendable.

But it's the collaboration between Loach and his scriptwriter Paul Laverty that makes the film something like a masterpiece. The grim progress from the murder of an Irish youth to the growth of an armed I.R.A. campaign, with its attendant violence (shown in stark and horrifying detail) is expertly managed; the only let-up comes not far from the end, after the signing of the 1921 peace treaty. Loach tries to show the brief jubilation and relief that ensues, but in terms of momentum almost drops the ball. The pace is re-established in time for the inexorable tragic denouement, and the film's final emotional impact is considerable. The load is occasionally lightened by the odd touch of Loach's characteristic wry comedy, such as the belligerence of the opening hurling game, the teenage message-boy who loses his message, the melodramatic pianist accompanying the newsreel announcing the momentous news of the creation of the Free State.

One of the most disturbing scenes occurs when a group of I.R.A. men return from a successful battle and discover a farmhouse being attacked and destroyed by a group of British soldiers. The rebels, who have no ammunition left, are forced to look on, concealed in the bushes; they watch powerless as the farmhouse's inhabitants are abused. We watch along with the characters, just as helpless as they are. Why do we watch? Do we want to intervene, to play the hero and save the day? Do we perhaps enjoy it? The trouble with many so-called anti-war films, as Loach has said, is that they outwardly condemn the violence while at the same time encouraging (intentionally or not) a vicarious pleasure in the thrill of it all. We want to take part, we imagine how we would behave in such circumstances (of course, we usually imagine ourselves behaving with impeccable bravery and surviving to fight another day). This scene, rather than placing us in the thick of the action, forces us to occupy the position of impotent bystander. Perhaps this is what being a film-goer is all about: powerless voyeurism. As we watch the country tear itself apart in civil war, manipulated by a devious and callous colonial master, this point becomes all the more pertinent. A quietly devastating film.

This is a truly great film and well deserving of the Palm D'Or.

It has been said that it is pro IRA or IRA propaganda. I disagree. In fact I think the reverse is the case. It shows up both the brutality of war and the even greater brutality of civil war that sets nation against nation and brother against brother. The film provides an understanding of how Ireland became independent in 1920-1921. It is well documented (e.g. visit the BBC or CAIN websites) that the Black and Tans were a brutal and oppressive irregular force sent to put down the rebellion. The IRA reacted with similar brutality. The film records both with equally graphic scenes. But that is only the first half of the film. The second half deals with the civil war. That's even more tragic and brutal.

Who was on the right side or the wrong side? The film presents the arguments but I really don't think the film takes sides. More of the anti British and anti treaty argument is advanced. But this is understandable because it is historically accurate that West Cost was ferociously anti British and mainly anti treaty. That's why Michael Collins was destined to die there. And it is more important to understand why people/nations go to war or civil war rather than why they don't.

Understanding the reasons does not mean support for war. The film highlights the futility and awfulness of war. Misery destruction and death. Is there such a thing as a just war (apart from 2nd World war)? Aside from the historical debate, the story, filming and acting is magnificent. Much better than the Green Berets on the just war by USA in Vietnam! Blackhawk Down brilliantly covered Somalia from the external US perspective. This film brilliantly covers the 1920/21 wars from the Irish perspective. We need all perspectives.

Well worth seeing with an open mind. Then read the history if you want.

Revolutions are never neat and tidy. The British occupation of Ireland was nothing short of barbaric and brutal. Despite some claims of exaggeration, it is hard to deny the fact that Ireland faced centuries of oppression during the occupation. While Irish independence is still a contentious issue, it is unequivocally wrong that the British acted the way they did in the 1920s.

The Wind That Shakes the Barley is a film that doesn't shy away from the unrelenting terror and bloodshed of the revolution. The working-class accents and dialects are authentically preserved, with constant debate and war never ceasing. The film raises an important question about whether the Irish Revolution was a socialist or nationalist one. The IRA supporting landlords for arms highlights the fact that class warfare and nationalism do not always intersect. Removing the British is not the same as building a better society. If Ireland remains capitalist, then what do the poor actually gain?

This film presents rural Ireland as a character in its own right, a land of green beauty covered in the blood of a savage revolution. The Irish War of Independence turns into the Irish Civil War, with brothers turning on each other. This is a film of tough and awful choices. Ireland's path to independence has been complicated, and the original Republican goals have still not been fully achieved. The film also shows men fighting to remove the British, only to be killed by their fellow Irishmen. It is a stark reminder that just because someone is on your side, it doesn't mean they share your principles.