Land and Freedom

Land and Freedom is Ken Loach and Jim Allen's tribute to the ordinary volunteers that risked their lives for a better world in the fight against fascism. Unfortunately as Allen argues instead of building socialism those volunteers were betrayed by the Stalinists who preferred instead the fascist regime of Francisco Franco. The Spanish Civil War was a subject Allen had long wanted to pursue. The fight against fascism; volunteers from many lands; a people's army; collectives and workers' co-operatives; in fact socialism in action. These were his abiding passions, according to Loach who wrote Allen's obituary for the Guardian in June 1999. All these sentiments drive the story of the film.

The movie pins the defeat of idealism represented in the Civil War on Stalin's perfidy. That was the selling out the POUM in the hope of gaining recognition from the `respectable' world. This simplistic argument ignores the deeper problems that beset the Republic and Stalin from the beginning. It is fair to point to Stalinist inspired deceit and to an extent the debate on securing the support of the West against Fascism was a salient factor uppermost in Stalin's mind in the late 1930s. But has history vindicated his actions? Without such tactics might the Soviet Union have faced the Nazi onslaught earlier and in an isolated position risked military defeat? Maybe so and the discussions on the issue goes on. But the film has attracted criticism because of its restricted view of events too. Veterans like Bill Alexander, a British commander in the (Communist) International Brigades, complained that the focus on the participants in the POUM undermined the role of those that fought in those Brigades. In other words the film suggests that it was merely the POUM that was betrayed and other volunteers were not equally as idealistic nor courageous in their defence of the Republic.

Of equal significance in any appraisal of the demise of the Republic/Idealism must be the reaction of the `respectable' Western Powers to the war. The treachery and cowardice for example of the British, French and American governments' provide a wider and clearer picture of the situation. While claiming to be officially neutral all the Western Powers ultimately aided Franco. By exploiting their majority on the absurdly named Non Intervention Committee established to police the International crises, Britain and France rendered the body a mere Fascist poodle by meekly kow-towing to German and Italian demands. Shallow British Conservative Party commitments to democracy were matched by the fragility of the French in their support of the Republic. Covert British Naval support, underpinned by the Higher Ranks fear of `Red' insurgency, was another negative factor. Moreover, Roosevelt's willingness to sell the Franco regime oil was also invaluable to a mechanised army.

After that brief explanation of the International situation now to the film. The basic structure Land and Freedom is as follows. A left-wing young Scouse communist goes to Spain, joins the Marxist POUM militia, and experiences at first hand serious political differences with the Communists and their competing militia. The story is based on the story of Eric Blair (George Orwell) described in his book Homage to Catalonia. There are also elements of Walter Gregory's book, Shallow Grave, in the tale too. While in the POUM this young man becomes further convinced of the right of their cause by the courage, ingenuity, generosity and radical nature of the armed struggle.

There is also a neat combination of different nationalities in the POUM ranks. Recruits come from America, Ireland (ex IRA inevitably), Italy, Germany, France, Scotland and of course Spain. These accurately although not perfectly reveal the Internationalist composition of the forces arrayed against Franco. However it is also worth bearing in mind that the Fascist enemy had an international flavour too. As well as Spaniards there were Moroccan Riffs in the Army of Africa along with Italians, Germans, Portuguese and British. Franco also received political assistance in America from Irish/American lobby groups concerned at the flagrant disregard of the Catholic Church in Republican areas. These were assisted by Joseph P Kennedy the father of JFK an enthusiastic American/Irish catholic and also a nazi sympathiser.

The movie stays faithful to this rather anti-clerical nature and to the situation in the country during the 1930s. A summary execution of a village priest symbolises the hatred felt by the working class toward such a conservative institution. Many peasants and industrial workers were deeply disillusioned with the Catholic Church's message of self-sacrifice for the masses while the Church continued to amass power and wealth for itself. These deep-seated feelings of anger go some way to explain why only 20% of the population in Spain attended mass. A figure inflated to an extent by the higher attendance of those at the top end of the social ladder. But it was not merely Republicans that killed priests. Nationalists murdered priests in the Basque country because they backed local autonomy from Madrid.

Feminist independence is also addressed as during the first half of the film women serve equally with men at the front in the POUM. They are just as brave as the men and in an early scene it is a woman who refuses to drill during training regarding it unnecessary. But once the Stalinist counter-revolution is successful the women are once again reduced to a subordinate position in the ranks. Their new duties become more traditional such as driving, cooking and nursing the wounded. Consequently the real social revolution is lost and the forces of reaction have indeed won the day. Later when the Stalinist forces, wearing orthodox uniforms and driven in military trucks, attempt to disarm and disband the POUM it is the killing of the woman that indicates the death of idealism.

To address the fundamental political idealism that initially attracted volunteers to the colours and to highlight the essential potential conflicts between them. Loach attempts definitively to define what he means by his emotive linking of two basic concepts of Land and Freedom. At about the half way point in the movie a debate amongst villagers, peasants and POUM militia is meticulously presented that seeks to find an agreed policy for the newly captured territory. One villager wants the transfer of land ownership to pass into individual hands while a woman argues alternatively for collectivisation. A classic Bakuninist position. The American militia member (later to defect to the Communist/Stalinist forces) argues for a more moderate accommodation that allows individuals to own land/property. He points out that only modest land reform can benefit the anti-Fascist Front because by radically altering property rights it will only alienate countries whose assistance the Republic needed to be successful. This takes the Stalinist line of reconciliation with the West rather than the Trotskist argument of International revolution/socialism. Other militia members offer variations of Marxism, which fits neatly into their reasons for participation in the war while after a vote is taken (symbolising peasant democracy) the radical collectivisation policy is endorsed. Naturally when the Stalinists force the POUM into the Internationalist Brigades and the moderate America is with them it can be assumed that such radical ideas are to be consigned to the dustbin.

Having said all that the film is still very good. Movies about the very important war in Spain are a rarity especially since the 1940s. Thus a plus point immediately. On a moral level the tale of betrayal and lost hope is excellent even if the issues are rather shallow. As for the anti-Stalinist line it is irrefutable that Stalin wanted to appease the Nazi's in the period. Stalin was also concerned with the attitude of other Western Governments' and keen to appear `respectable' to them. For the same basic reason, that is a fear of Fascist militarism and what the consequences were for the identified Nazi enemy, the Soviet Union. This better explains the line taken in Spain by the communists than simply a desire to destroy the revolution, as the movie implies. As for the implication of stolen idealism and treachery forced only onto restricted units that fought Franco. Loach in making a film cannot be expected to include all the different kinds of military elements that made up the anti-Fascist alliance. By concentrating on a single entity the unit that Orwell fought and was wounded in, the film stays loyal to its principle source and concentrates focus not constrains it. It might not be perfect but it happens to be by far the best we have on such an important topic.

Though set in Spain during the time of the civil war of 1936-39, Loach's film belongs more to the genre of anti-Stalinist cinema than it does to films about Spain. The main theme of the film is the young man's discovery about the reality of the political movement to which he has devoted his life. And the climactic moment in the film is when he rips up his Communist Party membership card.

The crimes of the Stalinists are portrayed throughout the film -- they deny decent, modern weapons to those sections of the front which they do not control; they actively engage in repression against the POUM and the anarchists in Barcelona; in the pages of the British Daily Worker which we briefly see on the screen, we are shown the daily barrage of lies they spread (such as Trotsky's 'support' for Franco fascism).

Anyone who sees this film as simply a black-and-white, good vs evil portrayal of heroic young people aiding the brave Spaniards in their battle for freedom is missing what is, I believe, its main point. It is not primarily about Spain.

Seeing a film like this, I cannot forget the more typical Hollywood portrayals (at least in the last generation) of Communists. A film like "The Way We Were" shows the American Communist Party only during those moments when its positions would today be considered palatable (supporting the Spanish republic, backing Roosevelt and the US war effort in World War II, and later calling for nuclear disarmament).

It doesn't show the time of the Moscow Trials, nor the real role played by the Soviet Union and its agents in Spain, nor the Communist Party's opposition to fighting Hitler and the Nazis in 1939-41, nor the post-war period when the Party did what it could to encourage nuclear proliferation by passing on atomic secrets to Stalin.

Land and Freedom does try to show one of the Comintern's uglier moments, to its credit.

A film like this was made possible by the fact that Loach comes out of the British far left, and the British far left has long been dominated not by Stalinists but by their Marxist opponents -- primarily the Trotskyists of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). Whatever disagreements I or others may have with the SWP (and they are many), at least they rejected Stalinism.

What we need are more films like this showing the real role played by Communist Parties all during the history of the Soviet regime. For example a film set in any European country during the period between September 1939 and June 1941 (the time of the Hitler-Stalin pact) which honestly portrays Communist parties as allies of the Nazis (even in occupied countries like Norway and France) would be welcome.

The picture begins in recent times when a granddaughter looking for papers aware her grandfather fought in Spanish War Civil (1936-1939) that is the subject matter of the movie. Then happens a long flashback where are developed the facts about David (Ian Hart), a working-class and unemployed young . He's an English communist who leaves Liverpool and comes to join the Republicans troops against the General Franco army . He joined the P.O.U.M. (Partido Obrero Unificacion Marxista) of Trosky ideology, for that reason are called Troskists. There he meets women fighters ( Rosana Pastor, Iciar Bollain) and the International brigades (Tom Gilroy). David befriends the militia people and fights in the trenches of the battles of Teruel and Ebro. David is wounded and while he's in Barcelona occurs confrontation between FAI, CNT anarchists followers of the leader Durruti (who gave name to the Column Durruti), regular troops of the Republican government, Stalinists and Troskists. Then David decides to return to his previous militia.

This interesting historical story is a passionate retelling and a touching warlike drama. The film originated an intense discussion in Spain about its principal theme , the Spanish Civil War . However the intense debate about ownership of lands proceeded in pseudo-documentary style is overlong and dull. Adequate cinematography by Barry Ackroyd , Ken Loach's usual . Perceptible and sensible musical score by George Fenton. ¨Land and freedom ¨ was a Spanish- British co-production and obtained much success in the Spain box-office . The film belongs a splendid trilogy by Ken Loach, developing historical deeds from a thoughtful point of sight , such as ¨Hidden agenda¨ and ¨The wind that shakes the barley¨.

The motion picture is professionally directed by Ken Loach. In the 90s he directed a series of award-winning movies firmly establishing him as one of the best European filmmakers with ¨Riff-Raff¨, ¨Raining stones¨ and ¨My name is Joe¨ winning several prizes in Cannes, and of course ¨Land and freedom¨ which achieved the Ecumenical Prize and the International critics Prize at the 1995 Cannes Film Festival. In the 2000s, Loach went on his special landmark about socialist realism with ¨Bread and Roses¨, ¨The Navigators¨, ¨Sweet sixteen¨, ¨Just a kiss¨, and ¨It's free world¨. This rich human drama appeal to Ken Loach enthusiasts and history buffs.

It is, perhaps, surprising that more films about the Spanish Civil War haven't been made. The Spanish landscape, the sheer ruthlessness of any civil war, and the perceived Spanish emotions all combine to make what would appear to be an attractive proposition for a film-maker. The names of Picasso and Lorca will forever have an association with the war, yet where are the artists representing cinema? All the more surprising then that it should have been British director Ken Loach who took up the cudgels. Loach is probably best known for his gritty portrayals of the British working class (and under-class), something that has, perhaps, made him more approachable outside his own country.

In tackling the Spanish Civil War any writer is faced with the overwhelming complexities that underlie the events. The regionalism (think only of the Catalan and Basque regions, let alone Galicia and Andalusia), the monarchy, the Catholic Church, landowners, trade unions, anarchists plus the leaderships of the Nationalist and Republican movements all combined to create a very tangled web. Add to that outside involvement, principally from Mussolini and Stalin, the vacillation of Britain and France and, of course, the omnipresence of Hitler, and anyone might wonder where to start.

Loach and Allen take their approach through the eyes of an unemployed Liverpudlian, David Carr (admirably played by Ian Hart) who, as a card-carrying member of the Communist Party, answers the call to fight for the Republic. We follow his exploits through a number of episodes, involving battles, falling in love, injury and, ultimately, a degree of disillusion as the reality of Stalin's views eventually come to dominate, and eventually destroy, his cause. The film is supremely well-made, highlighting the horrors, the camaraderie, and the political divisions. In particular, the debate amongst the militia about collectivisation after they have taken a small town takes no sides, but simply allows a number of valid arguments to be exposed within the context of the shifting sands of the war.

There is still ample material for the industry to go on to make more films on this important period in history. But Loach has set the benchmark.

Applause for Mr. Loach. As a person who is majorly into history (Spanish and Irish in particular), I loved seeing this film for the first time, and that was hundreds of times ago. This movie is about a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain, played brilliantly by Ian Hart (who is also in "Michael Collins", another favorite of mine) who goes to Spain in 1936 to fight in the Spanish Civil War. He is persuaded to join the Partido Obrero de Unificacion Marxista, or POUM. This was a militia dedicated to world revolution, not to socialism in one country. The film very accurately portrays the beginning of the war, when it was clear cut who was on which side. And it keeps with its accuracy in showing how Joseph Stalin manipulated the country of Spain for his own needs, eventually using his influence there to end the life of Leon Trotsky. "Land and Freedom" also shows the May days in Barcelona, when 500 people were killed in a mini civil war within the forces of the anti-fascist Republic. This film is amazing, both in its ability to show how personal the conflict was for many people and how it was not a clear cut good guy bad guy war after 1936. I would like to say that, although when discussing the Spanish Civil War one will always find their bias, Mr. Loach certainly shows his. Very little mention of the mass murder of priests and nuns is included, except in one scene where a priest is shot for informing on the militia. This was not always the case. The militias would go into a town and simply kill clergy because religion to them was fascism. I'm not trying to defend Franco. I am trying to give some wider perspective on what happened. This film is a very good film, but as I said with regards to "Michael Collins", another film Ian Hart is in, one would be better seeing this film, then reading extensively on the subject of the Spanish Civil War to get the full picture.