nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

How realistic is The Wind That Shakes the Barley?

Kotek Besar

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

My name is URL

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

sock puppet

Bambi wrote: »

It's not suprising given Loachs' background. I do remember reading tom barry's ( I think) thoughts around the treaty saying that even before the treaty the guys in dublin running much of the provisional government had started getting used to the idea of power and were looking after their own interests already. Personally I think one of the reasons Ireland wound up such a conservative and "unsocial" country was because we lost so many progressive thinkers due to their opposition to the treaty. Probably much like Spain after their civil war.

Interesting. It's not something I've ever really looked in to. I must do a little more reading on it.

Dionysus

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.

Mr Benevolent

Dionysus wrote: »

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.

Actually I was referring to Mark Steel's ideas about the whole thing.

KerranJast

Didn't Cromwell feck off back to England and leave his lackeys in charge to do the real murdering or did I hear that wrong?

Orizio

Ken Loach's anti-British/commie sentiment aside, it's pretty realistic, and undoubtedly the best WoI film.

Orizio

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.

bleg

tl;dr

answer: not very

red herring

Its realistic and not rose-tinted because it doesn't just show the Irish war of independence, it shows the more bloody and horrific aftermath that was the civil war. The depiction of brother againest brother was genuinely how it happened, entire families were split over the treaty culminating in much hardship for the people who had once fought side by side.
The film also portrays the local west cork men as typical men of their time. The film does not glamourize them, it has gone to great lengths to portray them as ordinary farm labourers, right down to their accents and grammar. It is a pity that for certain individuals the accent of the actors in this film catch their attention, and not the important subject matter itself.

K-9

sock puppet wrote: »

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.

Labour was far from the ICA.

Had the honour of holding the typewritten correspondence from Connolly to his comrades in Scotland from about 1910/11. Amazing feeling, imagining he had these letters in his hands.

The Wind that Shakes the Barley was far better than Michael Collins, but in one area, MC was better. It was the scene with the shopkeeper and the debt. The debate was fascinating and very relevant, even to this day!

abouttobebanned

bonerm wrote: »

More realistic that Michael Collins (1995) anyway.

You posted that from an iPhone didn't ya

BostonB

I like the idea of this film, but I thought the acting was pretty dire in it.

PK2008

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

ParkRunner

Anastasia Nutty Beach wrote: »

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

Cillian Murphy is a Corkman anyway, that is how he normally talks!

Dionysus

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.

brummytom

It'd be hard for anyone to say how realistic it is as no one on this forum was there at the time; but it's evident Loach researched everything well (the depiction of the Black and Tans is, by all accounts, unfortunately very accurate).

The scene where Teddy gets his fingernails ripped off with pliers always disturbs me greatly. I think, especially in scenes like that, and where Damien has to shoot a friend he grew up alongside; it shows just how desperate and determined the men were to rid themselves of British oppression.
I really like the film actually, I'm not quite sure why, it just really interests me.

And yeah, whoever mentioned Cromwell, everyone here knows he was a cunt as well.

Moomoo1

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.

brummytom

Dionysus wrote: »

Christ just watching it for the first time in 3 years and that brings tears to my eyes just watching the Irish guys scream "Michael O'Sullivan is his name! He's 17 years of age! Michael O'Sullivan is his name!" while Mícheál Ó Súilleabháin was being beaten to death inside.

Bastards.

I've just stuck the film on - this scene's on at the moment, an incredibly well done scene, the distant screams over the shouting of the Tans is just chilling. A fantastic film

PK2008

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.

PK2008

Moomoo1 wrote: »

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

Yeh, cos that worked really well in the Soviet Union didnt it

brummytom

PK2008 wrote: »

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)

How strange, same here... my great uncle (from the Dublin mountains) was 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.

Yeah I've heard a lot of horrible stories - my granny and her family grew up in Cork in the 1920s, and it was a horrible, horrible time.

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.

To be fair, I think it's phenomenal just how well it does explain it, and try to give both sides in such a short time.

One nitpicking thing though; I'm sure I've read the vast majority of Tans were actually Scottish, but all of those speaking in the film are English (all Londoners, I think)

PK2008

brummytom wrote: »

How strange, same here... my great uncle (from the Dublin mountains) was in the South Dublin Brigade

Hey, maybe they knew each other? I think it was one of the bigger brigades though.

Maybe they're one of these lads here: http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=18492

I was told there was a book written about it which had my great uncles picture in it (he wasnt famous or anything- he just happened to have his pic taken when he was in the IRA), but my family never really spoke about it, especially becaus eof what was happening in the North, they only ever said that the PIRA were nothing like the old IRA and were nothing but a disgrace.

Dave!

Dunno, but it's a pretty good film IMO !

My favourite line (at 6.00m):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wztAxwUjYjk

"It's not too late Damien"
"For me or for you?"

brummytom

PK2008 wrote: »

Hey, maybe they knew each other? I think it was one of the bigger brigades though.

Maybe they're one of these lads here: http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=18492

He's been dead a good few years now, so I wouldn't have any idea what he looked like (he's not talked about too much, to be honest).. but who knows, maybe they did :eek:

I was told there was a book written about it which had my great uncles picture in it (he wasnt famous or anything- he just happened to have his pic taken when he was in the IRA), but my family never really spoke about it, especially becaus eof what was happening in the North, they only ever said that the PIRA were nothing like the old IRA and were nothing but a disgrace.

Yeah it was the same here - he was in the old IRA but I think he left in the late 40s/50s.

I tried to google him just, but I don't even know what name he'd be under! He's sometimes called Patrick, Pat, Paddy, Padraig, Patsy.. and knowing my family, probably another completely different name :pac:

Gingy

Have to say that I really like this film, but it encounters the same rubbish that is associated with anything to do with Irish history. I remember seeing it in the cinema and there were radio people outside interviewing people about the mis-representation of the British and how the Irish were romanticised. The Irish were hardly angels, but were provoked into action by his majesties troops. These days, you're easily branded as a RA-head if you dare say a bad word about Britain, but as I said I think Ken Laoch and Paul Laverty made a top quality film here, that is quite accurate on the actual events.

Sisko

Gingy wrote: »

These days, you're easily branded as a RA-head if you dare say a bad word about Britain, but as I said I think Ken Laoch and Paul Laverty made a top quality film here, that is quite accurate on the actual events.

Indeed, mention anything about how you know... its wrong to steal other peoples countries or its good that we managed to finally get most of it back after so long and all of a sudden your called anti british and so forth.

People want to dissociate themselves so much from the scangers in Celtic tops that write IRA on walls that they'll almost go as far as acting like it was a good thing that the british empire raped this country for so many years.

They associate being sympathetic about what happened to this country and its people in history to being sympathetic to the modern IRA and the **** that goes on in the North.

So people will scowl at anyone discussing Irish history with a rolley eyes 'oh your one of those 700 years people'.

Orizio

BTW, if Ken Loach has decided to depict the Irish in a overly romanticized manner, and then do the opposite with the British soldiers, then that is his prerogative as director. One can validly criticize this as inaccurate or cheap or manipulative, but you can't dismiss the entire film on this sole point (as many have done).

Very simply, although one may disagree with Loach's political views or the 'point' of the film, this is just one point to take into account, along with the writing, the acting, the direction, the editing, the setting etc (all of which are very good imo).

The Aussie

brummytom wrote: »

(the depiction of the Black and Tans is, by all accounts, unfortunately very accurate).

Dont know about the movie as ive never seen it, not sure if i want to either.
But is it true that the Black and tans were basically soldiers that were damaged from the effects from serving on the Somme and the like, i think the term for WW1 was "Shell Shocked" and they did not want to release these damaged goods back onto the street of the Uk.
Disclaimer: I did hear this in a pub so took it with the appropriate dose of salt.

Elenxor

My Grandad uses to shout up the stairs some mornings..."Rise and shine you ruddy 'Sin Finers' in a fake cockney accent..I know for a fact he never travelled outside his own little parish in Nth Cork.
I wish I knew where he heard it. It's too late to ask now.

Sisko

The Aussie wrote: »

Dont know about the movie as ive never seen it, not sure if i want to either.
But is it true that the Black and tans were basically soldiers that were damaged from the effects from serving on the Somme and the like, i think the term for WW1 was "Shell Shocked" and they did not want to release these damaged goods back onto the street of the Uk.
Disclaimer: I did hear this in a pub so took it with the appropriate dose of salt.

Not every single 1 of them was under shell shock but yeah, & btw you really should watch it.