"The Wind That Shakes the Barley": Is accuracy important

Jackie laughlin

There is a major lie at the core of this movie. It says in effect that the split over the Treaty ran along left and right lines. It has irregulars quoting the Democratic Programme. This inspiring document was written by Tom Johnson of the Labour Party and was adopted by the revolutionary Dail as a sop to Labour. It is said that if Dev had been present it would never have been allowed to pass. This movie, while essentially a work of fiction, will set the historical record for many people.

FiSe

I don't know any movie based on historical events, which is actually trully historical... Unfortunately, because, as you said, many people will take what they see at the movie as a facts. Without any further basic research or thinking on their own.
But the main positivum of this movie is, by my opinion, that it, finally, starts debate about this "dark" and many times twisted, but important part of Irish history. No matter how limited this debate is so far.
Now I'd like to see some similair movie about Irishmen in the trenches on the Somme and about Irishmen in British army during WWII.

joebhoy1916

Jackie laughlin wrote:

There is a major lie at the core of this movie. It says in effect that the split over the Treaty ran along left and right lines. It has irregulars quoting the Democratic Programme. This inspiring document was written by Tom Johnson of the Labour Party and was adopted by the revolutionary Dail as a sop to Labour. It is said that if Dev had been present it would never have been allowed to pass. This movie, while essentially a work of fiction, will set the historical record for many people.

Are you saying the whole film is lie's or just that point?

A Dub in Glasgo

Surely this should be in the Movies forum. The film is fiction loosely based on historic events.

What film do you recommend that is 100% accurate?

chillywilly

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Surely this should be in the Movies forum. The film is fiction loosely based on historic events.

What film do you recommend that is 100% accurate?

titanic?:p

SpitfireIV

No matter how bad the movie in question may be, it cant be any worse than 'Michael Collins', thats for sure.

Jackie laughlin

I'm talking about this one inaccuracy which is central to making the position of the Irregulars seem comprehensible.

This problem is of course part and parcel of the "faction" genre.

Jackie laughlin

FYI The thread started under "politics" and was moved to "movies", where it attracted not a single comment. It then moved to "History".

Chinafoot

Jackie laughlin wrote:

This movie, while essentially a work of fiction, will set the historical record for many people.

You're right, it is a work of fiction. If people are going to take it as 100% historically accurate then more fool them. As the others have pointed out, no film of this nature is 100% true to history.

Probably should have stayed in 'movies' tbh.

ozt9vdujny3srf

Its Ridiculously Biased, it innacurate in places, and incredibly sensationalist.

And it's a really good movie.

I really enjoyed it and I think the idea behind the film (to follow one column throughout the war of independance + civil war) was a good way of looking at things.


Anyways, the DeValera / Anti Treaty Heads should all agree with its version of events fully!

Jackie laughlin

Peachypants,
Forgive me but I think you are being naive. Faction is creating problems with people's understanding of events. It's not useful to dismiss their approach as foolish. Moreover, in this instance it's not a question of 100% inaccuracy. It is a fundamental decision to distort and OK there may have been artistic or storyline reasons. Indeed, the lie is necessary to enable the irregulars to appear other than crazies.

Truckle,
Surely you find some kind of contradiction between your first two sentences. I'm reminded of the man who was listening to a critic going on about a movie being "beautifully observed" and "having wonderful effects". He replied, "Oh, it was that bad, was it?"

The lie is that there is not the slightest chance that DeValera et al would have had any time for the Democratic Programme. They were into oaths of allegiance!

Chinafoot

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Peachypants,
Forgive me but I think you are being naive. Faction is creating problems with people's understanding of events. It's not useful to dismiss their approach as foolish. Moreover, in this instance it's not a question of 100% inaccuracy. It is a fundamental decision to distort and OK there may have been artistic or storyline reasons. Indeed, the lie is necessary to enable the irregulars to appear other than crazies.

Jackie it's a movie. It's, as another poster said, loosely based on past events. The people creating the movie need to make it as appealing to the audience as possible. This doesn't always allow for 100% accuracy and some leeway should be given for artistic licence.

You may not find it "useful to dismiss their approach as foolish" but what would you suggest? That all films of this nature are completely historically correct to prevent people from believing that what they see at the cinema is fact? If people are going to be foolish enough to follow this path and not actually go and educate themselves on the issues then leave them be in their ignorance.

A Dub in Glasgo

chillywilly wrote:

titanic?:p

Now hang on, everybody knows about the engines :eek:

imdb wrote:

# Factual errors: The reciprocating engines were controlled from a platform between the two engines about midway between the floor and the top of the cylinders, not from the engine room floor. Even if the engines were controlled from the floor level the controls would have been at the opposite end of the engines since we are looking at the aft end of the engines, and the boiler rooms are forward of the reciprocating engine room. Also, it would have been quite impossible to see those engines from the vantage point we are given since the watertight bulkhead between the reciprocating engine room and turbine engine room would prevent us from being able to stand back far enough.

Jackie laughlin

Faction of this kind is reletively recent and people do expect it to be realistic but not 100% accurate. Historical novels are expected to be well researched and accurate.

This is well researched and chooses to tell a major lie.

boneless

From what I remember of the film, only one character (the former ICA man) quoted the Johnson document. There was a comment by another figure to the effect that it was a load of red guff, but as far as I remember that was the extent of the exchange... most of the anti-Treaty characters were of the "pure" republican view.

Still think it was a well made film.

Jackie laughlin

Boneless,
True. It was quoted just once and I think held in his hand duing argument in a later scene but this character's politics was made central to the reason for the split and the irregulars' refusal to accept the treaty.

ScottishDanny

partition was also mentioned, and the allegiance to the king - these caused divisions between pro and anti-treaty sides that are not based on the democratic programme. The ICA man may have had a different agenda from the others who were on (his) anti-treaty side also, as the ICA men had a different outlook of what the republic would be (from the IV) back in 1916. Loach and Laverty used different characters to represent different protagonists in the conflict (women, Trade Union men, Protestant Landowners etc).

arbeitsscheuer

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Faction of this kind is reletively recent and people do expect it to be realistic but not 100% accurate. Historical novels are expected to be well researched and accurate.

This is well researched and chooses to tell a major lie.

If what you say is true (I haven't seen the film yet) then what I've highlighted there is the bottom-line for me.

Inaccuracy in films I can deal with, and I don't particularly have a problem with it. In any case, 100% Accuracy is an impossible objective. Nonetheless, it is something that filmmakers should strive for, and not ignore purely because 'it's difficult to be accurate and tell a compelling story at the same time' and all that b0llocks.
It's when lies are deliberately perpetrated that I get really fúcking mad - films which have done this include Black Hawk Down, which was supposed to be based on one of the finest researched accounts of combat I've ever read - and I'm very unforgiving of those who are responsible for such fraudulent film-making.

But like I said, I haven't seen it yet... So I'll reserve judgement.;)

monosharp

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Boneless,
True. It was quoted just once and I think held in his hand duing argument in a later scene but this character's politics was made central to the reason for the split and the irregulars' refusal to accept the treaty.

I didn't think that at all from watching it. This characters politics was central to the reason for HIS split, he got a clap or 2 but it didn't make it look like that was the reason for everyone splitting at all.

The rest of the anti's seemed like good decent republic loving republicans who couldn't accept partition or the oath.

ScottishDanny

what monosharp said

boneless

monosharp wrote:

I didn't think that at all from watching it. This characters politics was central to the reason for HIS split, he got a clap or 2 but it didn't make it look like that was the reason for everyone splitting at all.

The rest of the anti's seemed like good decent republic loving republicans who couldn't accept partition or the oath.

You put it better than me, mate.

(Although if you read the Dail Treaty Debates, partition gets mentioned very little... the Oath of Fealty was a hotter issue to the anti-Treaty side. It was hoped that the proposed Boundary Commission would render the northern state unworkable... Craig, though, played a blinder in stonewalling this body thus retaining everything he wanted!!)

Jackie laughlin

Boneless,
My concern was with the daft notion that the civil war had anything to do with socialism but you correctly add that the war had nothing to do with partition either. Is it that the big lie in the movie is that it fails to reveal that the civil war was about nothing at all!

ScottishDanny

IMO the scene where the Volunteers debate this shows different characters as representatives of different groups in the conflict.
One guy walks out saying he won't shoot his comrades whatever side they are on - that can be seen as taking the stance Dan Breen and others took. The ICA man's reason are borne from his socialist principles, the civil war had very little to do with socialism as they were a minority in the republican movement but there were some (Liam Mellowes, Markiewicz) and Connolly had tried to include socialist ideas in 1916 - that is evident from reading the proclamation. Another Volunteer clearly wants nothing to do with red politics - a view shared by the free staters and many anti-treaty republicans. The brother who ends up as a free state officer is seen siding with the interests of the shopkeeper and gives his reasons as such, the women are against the treaty as they become marginalised. If you watch Loach's film 'Land and Freedom' you'll see how similar it is. I don't think Loach tried to make it simply left/right at all - class, gender, nationalism, urban v rural they are all in the mix. The republic meant and means different things to different people.

Mad Finn

ScottishDanny wrote:

The republic meant and means different things to different people.

That's the nail on the head. There were some VERY socialist people involved in the independence struggle. There were even some attempts immediately after the treaty to turn creameries and some farms into 'workers soviets' which was the new fangled trendy idealism of the time. But they were quickly disabused of that.

No more than the Spanish Civil War, the Irish Civil War was fought by several factions with many and varied ideals and allegiances. The subsequent splitting of the defeated republican movement at the Republican Congress of the 1930s showed that there was indeed a far-left faction in the anti treaty IRA. Just as O'Duffy's flirtation with the trappings of Fascism showed how keen some people were to dabble with the other trendy international ideology of the inter war years.

I am a long way from being a committed socialist but I love Loach's movies and this one is no exception. he brings out the contradictions and differing loyalties of people supposedly on the same side in a struggle and shows how war presents the opportunity to turn differences of opinion into an excuse for murder and anarchy.

Go and see it if you haven't done so already.

SpitfireIV

A little off the topic, but I seen this movie last week for the first time........what did I think of it? Well I for one wasnt overly impressed with it, from what I heard I was expecting more, maybe too much

It was lacking something that I just couldnt put my finger on, maybe a powerful soundtrack to suit the ambush scene etc. It was a very ehh...'bitty' film too I thought, things just seemed to happen all of a sudden and for no reason with not much explanation. Like the scene where the Auxies and Tans drive into the town and start harrassing the locals, what was that in aid of? It never showed a lead up, or a result of that, whom them took prisoner, if anyone, why they were doing it etc. The part where the Free State soldier lets the IRA guys into the barracks, why did he do that? Who was he?

There was of course some powerful scenes, and that one scene in particular :eek: ...OUCH! Like I said, maybe I was expecting too much from it, but I still think that 'Rebel Heart' was one of the best drama's made that takes in the 1916-1922 period.

Shutuplaura

Yes, i agree, i was a bit disappointed by it. A lot of ham acting on the part of the guys playing the 'tans. in particular. I mean they were shouting their heads off like a bunch of children and not the war hardened soldiers they surely would have been. The scene where they come to town is laughable. It took away from a fine movie in other ways. The amush in paraticluar.

Regarding the actual post - the characters were clearly composites so i wouldn't read too much into it.

Mick86

Jackie laughlin wrote:

There is a major lie at the core of this movie.....This movie, while essentially a work of fiction, will set the historical record for many people.

True. I recall that, after seeing Michael Collins, an aquaintance of mine quoted the film as proof positive that De Valera dunnit at Béal na Bláth.

The film itself was enjoyable enough, if predictable. I would probably have enjoyed it more if I weren't Irish because it trotted out every cliché in the Christian Brothers History of the Irish Revolution.

A Dub in Glasgo

Mick86 wrote:

True. I recall that, after seeing Michael Collins, an aquaintance of mine quoted the film as proof positive that De Valera dunnit at Béal na Bláth.

The film itself was enjoyable enough, if predictable. I would probably have enjoyed it more if I weren't Irish because it trotted out every cliché in the Christian Brothers History of the Irish Revolution.

What cliches were trotted out then?

Mick86

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What cliches were trotted out then?

The brutal Brits.
The half wit informer.
The fat, arrogant, overbearing landlord.
The noble IRA man.
Brother against Brother (literally) in the Civil War.

walrusgumble

but sure wasn't that the talk of the day?

the scene when the brits went into town to smash the place up (out of reprisal), one here said that there wasnt a lead up, well the scene before that were the ira lads bursted into the private part of the bar and shot and robbed the local british officers, surely that was enough for many history buffs to realise the town scene which came next was the reprisal for shooting the officers.

one chap mentioned the need for music in the ambush scene which remembless tom barry's kilmichael/crossbarry scene. (am sure most of ye read tom's book guerilla war in ireland and noticed they had the nerve to have a bag pipe player playing for them whilst that went on) anyway that was probaly a good idea to leave off the music, war aint exactly a pretty thing to look at, the last thing ya needed was some romantic diddle iddleey music. loach would have been crucified for doing this.

i thought the film was good, it kept away from mentioning dev & collins much. it also proves that all members of the volunteers were were not a bunch of get the brits out and then what, they had there own minds.

the film also represented all figures of society, like the brave women smuggling guns and doing their bit in the administration of the courts, the socialist from connolly's camp, the brave dockers who refused to carry british troops and equipment, the landless farmer, the milliant, and the professionals

it really focused alot on tom barry's and o'malley's books. whatever about inaccuracy it is a damn site better than michael collins film, and this was done by an english man. what the hell was jordan thinking (dubliner?)

wow sierra

Have to agree, while it may not be perfect, it is ten times better than Michael Collins. The film almost goes too far in its balanced view of everything - every single pro and anti treaty view is expressed in one scene, in one room. This film is a good antidote to Michael Collins and its one dimensional view of the anti-treaty side and the implication that Collins faught the entire War of Independence on his own. I suppose the best thing about it is the debate it is encouraging and the interest in History it is inspiring. If it encourages people to go back to source material by/ about Breen or Barry or Connolly or whoever then great.

1)The brutal Brits.
2)The half wit informer.
3)The fat, arrogant, overbearing landlord.
4)The noble IRA man.
5)Brother against Brother (literally) in the Civil War.

1 - They cry and remind us of the Somme making us feel for them despite nail pulling.
2 - Depicted as lifetime friend of 4
3 - Ok - a bit one dimemsional
4 - see killing of 2
5 - Ok a bit cliched but also true ( and left all cinema crying)

the_syco

I was pleased in the way the film dissappointed me, tbh. It didn't do anything for the sake of it, and made everyone talk about what happened back then.

Depending on where your parents came from, its either a discussed topic, or totally brushed under the carpet. As someone said to me: its the first film about them times that wasn't produced by the yanks. It was a terrible time where families were split, and now, decades on, are we talking about it.

Time may heal wounds, but when you went against your own family members, its sometimes harder to forget some wounds.

SpitfireIV

walrusgumble wrote:

but sure wasn't that the talk of the day?

the scene when the brits went into town to smash the place up (out of reprisal), one here said that there wasnt a lead up, well the scene before that were the ira lads bursted into the private part of the bar and shot and robbed the local british officers, surely that was enough for many history buffs to realise the town scene which came next was the reprisal for shooting the officers.

one chap mentioned the need for music in the ambush scene which remembless tom barry's kilmichael/crossbarry scene. (am sure most of ye read tom's book guerilla war in ireland and noticed they had the nerve to have a bag pipe player playing for them whilst that went on) anyway that was probaly a good idea to leave off the music, war aint exactly a pretty thing to look at, the last thing ya needed was some romantic diddle iddleey music. loach would have been crucified for doing this.

I would have liked to have seen a powerful soundtrack to accompany the movie, particularly a good tune playing during the ambush scene, the type of song that makes the hairs stand on your arms


I still dont think there was a good link between the death of the officers and the scene of the Auxies and Tans were raiding the town, and I still dont get that raid scene, the 'brutal Brits' came in, smashed some windows, shouted, lined people up against a wall.........but for what? Being a history buff is one thing, but what about ordinary Joe Soap? Not everyone that watched that movie is familiar with them times. Did they get anyone, take prisioners? Then that scene was over, no more about it. Seemed to me that scene was another one of the cliches mentioned....ie 'the terrible tans harrasing locals, shouting, screaming etc etc'. I'm not saying that it didnt happen......but it could have been done better.

After my brother watching the movie (and he's not particularly interested in that period) he said 'the acting was like 'Fair City' acting, I have to agree with him on that

I think the movie tried too hard to be a patriotic masterpiece, there was too much going on, but in another scence not enough, the story wasnt linked together well and the acting wasnt the best. The advert for ExtraVision mentioned it as being 'one of the masterpieces of this decade' (or something similar, I cant remember the exact phrase), I definately wouldnt go that far.

I watched the movie once and I doubth I'd bother watching it a second time*


*these are my opinions, so no one bash me for them

walrusgumble

ah i see what u mean bout the link now, ye maybe if they had the soliders shouting for say a known flying column and arresting him or even putting a load of men in a truck would have made more sense, or some soldier making a reference to the death of their officer. maybe even recreate the burning of cork city or balbriggan (prob not a good idea,loache might have been watching his back for the english conservatives ranting that it was pro ira etc)

ur right bout the acting of the soldiers, actually it is a fact that many of them are or were active members of the british army, the officer who cried in the cell was a former offier, ya would think they would do better considering their time in northern ireland, faulklands, iraq etc lol.

i do see your way of thinking about the soundtrack, maybe the fact this was a small budget independent movie might have fecked things up to get a decent piece of music (doubt it thou)

michael collins had a load of that stuff (sinead o connors move through the fair during his death scence was powerful)

forgodssake22

Anyone know where i coud get a copy of Rebel Heart

SpitfireIV

forgodsake22, I dont know of anywhere that you could get Rebel Heart, I have it on VHS that I taped off RTE when it was on years back, if I can sort out my VHS to .mpeg I 'might' put it up on YouTube.

Heres the gist of Rebel Heart:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0249312/#comment

It takes part over 7 years and is loosely based on the period, ie the Easter Rising, war of Independance and Civil War, but like many historical movies/drama of years past it has the whole love story too :rolleyes:

luckat

Rebel Heart was very much based on the life of Ernie O'Malley.

Wind that Shakes the Barley also had lots of references to him (the hero is going off to study medicine at the beginning; he never goes, but, oddly, is referred to as 'the doctor' throughout).

The Auxiliaries and Black-and-Tans *were* brutal in Cork and Tipperary. They were occupying troops brought in to suppress an uprising.

And the landlords - sure, there were relatively decent landlords, but if you want to get an idea of typical landlord views, read the recent biography of Edith Somerville (co-writer of the Irish RM stories), whose letters are typical of the type. At one point, during the Land League agitations, she writes: "Uncle Josc’s tenants have paid up £300 and refuse to give more. The amount due is £1,600. Pleasing prospect for Uncle Joscelyn until eviction forces the brutes to pay.”

Informers: the killing of the informer is central to the plot; actually, kneecapping (using a small-calibre pistol, not a shotgun) was what people usually did then - the limp marked the person forever as an informer, and people wouldn't talk in front of them. Brutal, but less brutal than killing.

The politics: I knew a good few people who'd been 'involved', and they were, one and all, socialists. Of course, that was probably the particular strand that hung out together that I knew.

But there was a huge group of socialists - Peadar O'Donnell, Breen, Barry, the Gilmores, Traynor, etc. And virtually all of the women - and *all* of the women in the Dail took the Republican side.

Remember, 1916 was a coming together of two armies: the Volunteers (run by a bunch of idealistic Montessori teachers and trade unionists) and the Citizen Army (run by the trade unionists).

For me, the movie fails because of its ending. By killing off the hero at the end, the theme was killed off too; he didn't have to make any decision about his accommodation with the winning side.

vesp

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The film is fiction loosely based on historic events.

Unfortunately it is the same selective view of history favoured by the republican propogandists. 99.99% of the government forces of the time did not go about pulling out fingernails....one or two republicans in Cork claimed one or two black and tans did, so this gets represented in the film as if all black and tans were torturers.
Its a poor film , disappointing in many ways, and boringly predictable. Maybe in an effort to restore balance the director will show the other side of the coin in his next movie eg by filming only about how some Irish protestants civilians were killed in front of their women folk just because they were protestants.

A Dub in Glasgo

Is that the best you can do? :eek:

vesp

n.o.y.b.

A Dub in Glasgo

Hagar

His ban in Politics will be up soon so he will go back there soon and leave this forum alone.

walrusgumble

vesp wrote:

Unfortunately it is the same selective view of history favoured by the republican propogandists. 99.99% of the government forces of the time did not go about pulling out fingernails....one or two republicans in Cork claimed one or two black and tans did, so this gets represented in the film as if all black and tans were torturers.
Its a poor film , disappointing in many ways, and boringly predictable. Maybe in an effort to restore balance the director will show the other side of the coin in his next movie eg by filming only about how some Irish protestants civilians were killed in front of their women folk just because they were protestants.

do you remember that ernie o'malley's book "on another man's wounds"? well about 5-10 pages was banned to be publish by british government until the 1960-1970's, it covers examples of brutality, what about the coverage of the deaths of peadar clancy and dick mckee. britain was well renouned,( and many more countries maybe even our own considering what free staters did to irregulars in co kerry ie blowing them up or getting them to search land mines,) for acts of bruatility to its prisoners of war. my mates great grand father (who i met ten years ago) was suspeted of being in the old ira and was taken out by the black and tans and wiped with thorns and got his two legs broken for his trouble, he had scars to prove it. not exactly the thing to run to the cops to press charges on assault back then.

as i have said in previous threads vesp, what went on in dublin and the attitudes of the crown often greatly differed to the rest of the country. stories like these have been handed down from generations to generations, acts like these do not be forgotten but of course its time to move on. tony blair on coming into power in 1997, on behalf of the government made an apology to the irish nation to his governments actions to ireland over the years, it maybe to a gimmick to make irish relationship better, but it was a nice gesture, better than what other previous governments did/

lol on the bit about a movie on the protestant victims, might actually be a good idea,

Erin Go Brath

vesp wrote:

Unfortunately it is the same selective view of history favoured by the republican propogandists. 99.99% of the government forces of the time did not go about pulling out fingernails....one or two republicans in Cork claimed one or two black and tans did, so this gets represented in the film as if all black and tans were torturers.
Its a poor film , disappointing in many ways, and boringly predictable. Maybe in an effort to restore balance the director will show the other side of the coin in his next movie eg by filming only about how some Irish protestants civilians were killed in front of their women folk just because they were protestants.

"Its a poor film", I suppose thats why it won the Palme D'or (one of the most prestigous awards in film). I thought it was very balanced, it certainly didn't glorify the IRA. The Black and Tans were a brutal bunch of thugs who came over to "put paddy in its place". The Tans were the baddies in this conflict, renouned for their brutality, it beggars belief how you can try to defend their actions!

fits

I thought it was a very good film, and a much better job than Michael Collins.
Agree that the protestant landlord was one-dimensional, but when his character said the country was a 'priest-ridden backwater' he wasnt wrong!

I would like to see the subject of Irish soldiers in the somme and WW2 broached in the movies also, am really glad that Tom Crean has gotten so much recognition in recent years, but there are probably many more heroes we've never heard of.

Jackie laughlin

I had an English visitor last week. She's a lifelong socialist and on the basis of this film she had changed her mind about early 20th century Irish terrorists. OK, perhaps she should have had more sense than to take a work of fiction so seriously but people do and it is why I started the discussion. She had come to believe that these were good, socialist, militia. She's gone home with a bundle of history books and Dev can rest easy that at least one English woman is no longer calling him a socialist!

vesp

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I had an English visitor last week. She's a lifelong socialist and on the basis of this film she had changed her mind about early 20th century Irish terrorists.

The lifelong dedicated English socialist director of the film achieved his objective so by influencing that persons political opinions on the basis of a film which is a work of fiction. Selective propoganda is how one critic described it.

Jackie laughlin

Vesp,
You are correct. Many socialists lose their reason when trying to cope with nationalism and imperialism. They decide that Britain is imperialist and that therefore anyone who fights in any situation is good. It is simply sloppy thinking but very dangerous.

LostinBlanch

vesp wrote:

Unfortunately it is the same selective view of history favoured by the republican propogandists. 99.99% of the government forces of the time did not go about pulling out fingernails....one or two republicans in Cork claimed one or two black and tans did, so this gets represented in the film as if all black and tans were torturers.

Well if the film wanted to show more Black and Tan brutality they could have shown Tans driving from their base in Macroom Castle and shooting farmers working in their fields, or burning Cork, and many more atrocities besides. The first two were highlighted in the recent RTE documentary on the burning of Cork.

As for those complaining about the music or lack of it at the likes of the ambush scenes I think that was part of Loach’s approach not seeking to glamourise war, rather to downplay it. But if they were going to use some big Blockbuster music then maybe something like Mise éire seeing as it was filmed in the Cul Eadh Gaeltacht, home of Sean O’Riada.

vesp

LostinBlanch wrote:

they could have shown Tans driving from their base in Macroom Castle and shooting farmers working in their fields

Was that the incident with the farmers who were armed with guns who fired first ? Thats what happens sometimes when guerillas do not wear uniforms.

walrusgumble

so all the farmers around macroom and its hinterland were all in the ira? suppose you are ok with the british army burning down balbriggan village during the war as a reprisal?

you really love stirring things up.did you know that although many joined or claimed to have joined the old ira, few actually saw service as few were in active service, ie flying columns. rest were in reserve.

i take it you either have no care, idea or you are unabelievably biased towards the british establiahment back in those days. you go on and on (in threads about IRISH HISTORY) about ww1 and ww2 and the horrible things that happened to certain groups yet the mention of these things happening to our fellow irish men and women you scorn upon the idea that it happened or make excuses like the previous. how come it seems ok for the americans and french to seek independence by means some people in the empire might have considered as terriorism? a majority of the nation some how approved of sinn fein's dail eireann and its courts and its police and the war of independence, many people shun the ric. why would have so many civilians have offered shelter, information and support (ya think the money ust came from america and then out of thin air?) how many irish veteran's of ww1 and ww2 got the big welcome home to our shores when the wars were over (unfairly shunned by some of the community)

you seem to continue to have the idea that the opinion that the same word on the street as in lushy dublin from 1916-1940 had the same application as the rest of the 26 counties. since when did you become an expert in guerilla war? ya got an issue with not have to wear glorified pompous uinforms. sure the old ira barely had arms and ammo for all the men, never mind worrying about uniforms if it was ok for the lads in the boer it was ok for us. or would you have preferred another glorious failure like the battle of the boyne or siege of derry perhaps?

as for the film,like all or most history films it has its flaws. but it does give a reasonable balance. a balance of the different struggles the irish solder had as to what kind of an ireland he was fighting for, was it a caholic church dominated ireland, a socialist ireland etc. it often showed how ruthless the ira had to be to their own pwople in order to win the war. it even showed a piece of humanity an english officer had, in the prison cell scene where the officer implied that he did not want to be in ireland and cried of how angery he was with irealnd considering what his people had to put up with in palces like the somme so to make such william 11 wouldnt get his paws on the world.