Vientos de libertad

My family came from Clonakilty and were directly involved in the events portrayed. The film struck an authentic note in portraying the young men and their fight. Of course the British forces were shown as monsters in the film as part of the mode of telling the tale, but growing up listening to the stories of the fighters, tales of atrocities did not feature.

The technical detail in the film was accurate and quite excellent and for that reason it may be of interest to point out three anomalies.

First: the men sung the present Irish National Anthem when they were held in the barracks and they sung it using Irish (Gaelic) words. In fact, the popular republican song which became the National Anthem was called The Soldiers' Song and the words were (of course)in English. They went:

Soldiers are we, Whose lives are pledged to Ireland, Some have come, From a land beyond the waves, Sworn to be free, Once more our ancient sire land, Etc

The Gaelic words were not written until ten or fifteen years later and were then promoted by Government as part of the fiction of Ireland being Gaelic speaking. When I was in school in the 1940's we learned the original English version and although nowadays the schools teach the Gaelic words, very few people retain them.

Second: after the men came in from the ambush they were fed at the farmhouse, eating from round bowls. I never saw such a dish in use in Ireland until people started going to Spain on their holidays in the 1960's. We used flat plated or flat-bottomed soup plates.

Third: When asked when he was leaving for England, the young doctor said "at the weekend". He would have said "on Saturday" or "on Sunday". The word "weekend" meaning a segment of time only arrived when the weekend became a defined segment of time. When small farmers worked a seven day week, they had no "weekends" and did not have a word for them in everyday usage.

My word for this film is 'evocative'and it with this sense that it should be watched.

"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?

"The Wind That Shakes the Barley" is a cinematic masterpiece that captivates from start to finish. Set against the backdrop of the Irish War of Independence, the film beautifully portrays the struggle for freedom and the personal sacrifices made in its pursuit. Director Ken Loach's meticulous attention to detail brings the period to life, immersing viewers in the turbulent atmosphere of early 20th-century Ireland. The performances are exceptional, with Cillian Murphy delivering a standout portrayal as a young man torn between duty and his ideals. The film's narrative is gripping, exploring themes of nationalism, betrayal, and the human cost of revolution. Its powerful storytelling is matched by stunning cinematography, capturing both the beauty of the Irish countryside and the brutality of war. "The Wind That Shakes the Barley" is a must-watch for anyone interested in history, politics, or simply compelling storytelling. With its profound emotional impact and thought-provoking themes, this film earns its place as a modern classic.

For the past thirty years I have had a love affair with Ireland and over this time it has never failed to surprise, delight and humble me. This last weekend, much to my surprise, a small town cinema in deepest Hampshire, chose to screen 'The Wind that Shakes the Barley'. I am not sure of its motives for doing so but it brought to this small Saturday evening English audience a stark reminder about the brutality of its colonial past and its recent mistreatment of one of its nearest neighbours. For me the beauty of this film is in its honest portrayal of the momentous events that took place as seen through the eyes of a small Irish community. What is not lost is the knowledge that these same actions, tensions and emotions are taking place in every other community throughout Ireland at this time and it is this common purpose that in the end provides the momentum that forces change. The film does not shy away from the level of brutality that is required to force this change through. For me the uncompromising use of dialect reinforces the small community aspect and constantly acts as a reminder to us English that the Irish were, and still are, culturally different from us and are proud of it. So, if you want to see for yourself then look up your local sleepy cinema and you may be as surprised as I was.

For me the film had an added dimension in that the same catalogue of events are still being played out on the world stage today wherever you have dominance by a colonial power over its neighbour. The same resistance builds against suppression and the common purpose creates the conditions for change. Once the realisation is understood that change is achievable the common purpose takes second place to the aspirations of various factions and the momentum falters while it turns in on itself and the bitter struggle for dominance is played out. This struggle may end in civil war, partition or both. Meanwhile, the colonial power endeavours to try to influence the outcome. Such are the dynamics of the human condition.

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.