How realistic is The Wind That Shakes the Barley?

Kotek Besar wrote: »

I know it's not a true story as such. The characters and plot are fictional, however based in a real situation.

But how realistic is it?

Does it portray the Irish as romantic, idealistic resistance fighters who take to violence only because there is no other self-respecting course, while portraying the British as blood-thirsty, sadistic, murdering psychopaths? How accurate is all this? Is the movie fair and balanced, or is it biased?

I was particularly fond of the little Leprechaun chappies, and the bint who chewed the poisonous apple.

Just watching it all always think the same.... No wonder it took us 800 years to get them out...

We were gob****es.

Bambi wrote: »

although it's biased, most of it is factually accurate. it also shows most of the pro treatyites as me feiners which has to be a good thing

As far as I'm aware the civil war was fought over the failure to achieve a republic. The whole capitalists/socialists thing seems like a load of crap. The Labour Party were hardly committed republicans.

Anastasia Nutty Beach wrote: »

I laughed through the whole film because of their stupid accents.

you obviously weren't paying too much attention to the subject matter if you laughed the whole way through

Kotek Besar wrote: »

I know it's not a true story as such. The characters and plot are fictional, however based in a real situation.

But how realistic is it?

Does it portray the Irish as romantic, idealistic resistance fighters who take to violence only because there is no other self-respecting course, while portraying the British as blood-thirsty, sadistic, murdering psychopaths? How accurate is all this? Is the movie fair and balanced, or is it biased?

You do realise the 'Brits' in question in this film were the Black and Tans? The most savage group of armed mercenaries ever to set foot in this country.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

There was a big socialist movement in Ireland in the early 1900's. Sure look at the founders of many of the trade unions and look at some of the early big republican names, James Connolly etc.

Even in 1916 there was lots of commie bollox thrown into the mix because they needed to get the workers army involved.

But is there any evidence it had anything to do with the split in the movement? Again, the Labour Party didn't walk out on the Dail with the rest of those who disagreed with the Treaty.

Confab wrote: »

What about Cromwell's lot?

Actually Cromwell is very misrepresented in Irish history, but let's not ruin a good UK-bashing thread with facts!

How is he misrepresented? There's plenty of British people that would agree that he was a complete cnut!

When rebels in Drogheda refused to surrender to him, they took refuse in a church. Cromwell ordered for it to be set alight, burning them alive and all the local priests were killed.

Irish people thought that Britain were engaging in a religious war against them, and it made many more people join the 'struggle'. He exacerbated the situation completely by how he led

My name is URL wrote: »

How is he misrepresented? There's plenty of British people that would agree that he was a complete cnut!

When rebels in Drogheda refused to surrender to him, they took refuse in a church. Cromwell ordered for it to be set alight, burning them alive and all the local priests were killed.

Irish people thought that Britain were engaging in a religious war against them, and it made many more people join the fight. He exacerbated the situation completely by how he ruled

I surmise that Confab might be alluding (at least in large part) to Tom Reilly's book about Cromwell which basically argues that Cromwell was misunderstood and he was "an honourable enemy".

Reilly is an amateur historian from Drogheda (or at least he was before he published the book!). I have yet to hear a professional historian support his thesis.

Cromwell was typical of commanders in Europe at the time - slaughtering the citizens of the first town you besiege as a warning to everyone else was standard practice of the time. Wexford is vaguer, as its difficult to tell if he order the massacre or not.

In fairness it was barely a war, only a couple of thousand were even killed.

You can besure Connolly and his lads were only interested in independance so they could start their own armed workers revolution to create a socialist state. We're lucky he got the bullet

PK2008 wrote: »

You can besure Connolly and his lads were only interested in independance so they could start their own armed workers revolution to create a socialist state. We're lucky he got the bullet

Yeah, watch that, Justin Barrett. There are reds under the bed everywhere. To paraphrase - or not - a man years ago: inside every Irishman is a good commie trying to get out.

PK2008 wrote: »

In fairness it was barely a war, only a couple of thousand were even killed.

You can besure Connolly and his lads were only interested in independance so they could start their own armed workers revolution to create a socialist state. We're lucky he got the bullet

According to wiki, 'The Civil War may have claimed more lives than the War of Independence against Britain that preceded it, and left Irish society divided and embittered for decades afterwards. '

As for socialist state... if he redistributed wealth and got rid of the Church that could have only been a good thing.

My great uncle was in the South Dublin Brigade (actually from Wicklow but for some reason alot of Wicklow guys were put in the South Dublin Brigade)

Anyway the stories that came down through my family were that the Tans were atrocious but by the time Independance was coming it was all about sectarianism, on both sides.

I know that once independance was achieved he backed out of the whole thing, went back to being an engineer. I assume he either became disillusioned with all the sectarianism or was pro treaty, either way I know my grandmother was staunchly republican and there was friction there afterwards cos she would never talk about him (in spite of having been one of his biggest fans when he was fighting).

One thing that people tend to forget is that there was alot of catholic people in the South that were seriously sectarian and were only too happy to have the country partitioned because they didnt want unionists in an Irish government.

The film is a good depiction of events that happened but to explain Irish history and give all sides a fair say in 2 hours is impossible.

2 things that I was surprised by in the film was they didnt re-enact the burning of Cork City, and they didnt really show too much of the civil war.