Le vent se lève

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.

I am an Australian of Northern English background, no sectarian affiliations and just back from a glorious holiday in Ireland. I saw the movie last night and would like to raise 5 big issues.

i) As a movie it is first rate; brilliantly written, directed and acted.

ii) I appear to be one of few non-Irish people who has read up enough on the history who know it is historically accurate. In 1919-20 the British government repression in Ireland was a dead-set disgrace.

iii) Irish people seem to miss that the same people who were exploiting them in Ireland were also exploiting working people in England and Scotland. My great grandparents in England were not persecuting the Irish, they were too busy being worked to death for the same lousy pay as the Irish were getting.

iv) To English people the events in Ireland in 1920 pale into insignificance compared to (say) the Spanish Armada in 1588. As it said in the movie. to English people Ireland was a 'priest ridden backwater'

v) Ireland is now clearly a prosperous liberal democracy with a seat at the table of the 'rich man's club'. It is good to see the Irish getting on with driving BMWs rather than warring incessantly.

Incidentally, I survived two IRA bomb blasts in London. Gerry Adams never did explain why he tried to kill me. I'm darned if I can understand it either.

"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?

An exciting piece of Ken Loach drama based on events that sparked the Irish war of independence. Despite being labelled 'anti-British' by critics born 60 years after these events took place, the incidents depicted in this film have in fact all been documented by the British government and are a matter of historical fact. Events such as the treatment of the local population at the brutal hands of the infamous convict drafted Black and tans force have all been recorded assiduously by both sides in the conflict. And the civil war that followed a decision to allow the mostly protestant north to be a part of the new British welfare state. A clash of ideals, deftly handled by Loach, it's a real pity that so many will have their minds made up before they've even seen the film.

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.