How realistic is The Wind That Shakes the Barley?

The Aussie · 05-04-2010 02:27PM

yeh i should, but i have to wait for it to come on tv, has it even been on tv yet???

Kotek Besar · 05-04-2010 02:29PM

The Aussie wrote: »

yeh i should, but i have to wait for it to come on tv, has it even been on tv yet???

It was on last night on TV3 at 9pm. Not sure if it's available on their catch-up service.

Kotek Besar · 05-04-2010 02:37PM

Orizio wrote: »

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.

That's fine. What concerns me is that the film is shown to third years students in history classes in Irish schools.

I personally find this disturbing, considering it has fictional characters, a fictional plot (albeit based on a real situation). It is hardly well-balanced, unbiased and entirely factual material and, for that reason, I am astonished that it can be shown in Irish schools as part of a history lesson.

Dublin_Gunner · 05-04-2010 02:44PM

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

And here come the 700 YEARSSSS brigade.

^^Complete fail.

Its probably sort of accurate, but dramatised for the big screen.

Makes me want to shoot people each time I've seen it though, so it should probably be banned or something.

Gingy · 05-04-2010 02:52PM

Kotek Besar wrote: »

That's fine. What concerns me is that the film is shown to third years students in history classes in Irish schools.

I personally find this disturbing, considering it has fictional characters, a fictional plot (albeit based on a real situation). It is hardly well-balanced, unbiased and entirely factual material and, for that reason, I am astonished that it can be shown in Irish schools as part of a history lesson.

This is the anti-Irish historical sentiment that annoys me. This film would give secondary school pupils (over the age of 15) a decent background into the cultural context of the time, without making them want to go out and kill English people. On that logic, should all historical films be banned from schools, because they are not 100% historically accurate?

Kotek Besar · 05-04-2010 02:54PM

Gingy wrote: »

This is the anti-Irish historical sentiment that annoys me.

It's not an anti-Irish sentiment at all. Just pro-truth.

Gingy wrote: »

This film would give secondary school pupils (over the age of 15) a decent background into the cultural context of the time, without making them want to go out and kill English people. On that logic, should all historical films be banned from schools, because they are not 100% historically accurate?

Yes. If it's not accurate, it shouldn't be taught.

Jako8 · 05-04-2010 02:58PM

"We'll sleep in the chicken coop!"

The loved that line when I saw it a while back. The way the old lady says it is hilarious.

gbee · 05-04-2010 03:05PM

Watched some of it last night and remembered why I did not like it in the first place.

It's really amateurish, sorry to say and there is a jumble of stories mixed in there. The main ambush scene was the Kilmichael Ambush but Tom Barry's accountof it is very different.

Gingy · 05-04-2010 03:13PM

Kotek Besar wrote: »

It's not an anti-Irish sentiment at all. Just pro-truth. Yes. If it's not accurate, it shouldn't be taught.

No one is passing this off as a true account, but as I have already said, it would give students a decent context to the events in a more interactive and interesting way than reading about them in a book.

Kotek Besar · 05-04-2010 03:17PM

Gingy wrote: »

No one is passing this off as a true account, but as I have already said, it would give students a decent context to the events in a more interactive and interesting way than reading about them in a book.

Interactive and interesting as it may be, I still feel that if it is unbalanced in its bias, it should not be part of the classroom.

Orizio · 05-04-2010 03:19PM

Kotek Besar wrote: »

That's fine. What concerns me is that the film is shown to third years students in history classes in Irish schools.

I personally find this disturbing, considering it has fictional characters, a fictional plot (albeit based on a real situation). It is hardly well-balanced, unbiased and entirely factual material and, for that reason, I am astonished that it can be shown in Irish schools as part of a history lesson.

Completely depends on how its taught. With respect, you seem to have a rather basic, if not idealized concept of history - firstly, it's impossible to create something completely 'accurate' due to people's subjectivity (a point that hardly needs to be made), so any historic or political film will suffer from the accusation of bias or prejudice. With this in mind, the accusation of it not being accurate isn't enough to stop it's showing in secondary schools, as its the inaccuracies that make it a particular useful historical document.

In reality, the inaccuracies, the bias, the prejudices within the film and from Loach are all important historical documents to be analyzed in the same way as objective events or facts. A good teacher will understand this, and push the direction of post-film discussion towards every facet of the film, including the bias contained within, understanding their historical worth.

geeky · 05-04-2010 03:20PM

Kotek Besar wrote: »

I personally find this disturbing, considering it has fictional characters, a fictional plot (albeit based on a real situation). It is hardly well-balanced, unbiased and entirely factual material and, for that reason, I am astonished that it can be shown in Irish schools as part of a history lesson.

Just my tuppence-worth on this as a history grad who specialised in 20th Century Ireland.*

Even though it's a fictional story, The Wind That Shakes The Barley is as good as any film based on the War of Independence and the Civil War for showing to second-level students - certainly in terms of giving an impression of what went on. Yes, it emphasizes the brutality of the black-and-tans/auxileries, though there's ample evidence that atrocities took place - hardly unexpected given the fact that these were WWI vets unleashed on a civilian population. But it also goes into the grassroots-level compromises that revolutionary leaders often made to succeed very effectively.

The 'brother against brother' storyline of the civil war is a stretch, but far less so than the Civil War storyline in Michael Collins. At least the civil war division in The Wind that Shakes the Barley focuses on the issues that actually divided politicians and ordinary people at the time of the treaty.

Of course, if a teacher is showing this, they should be emphasizing that stuff like this went on during the period, not that this actually happened. Personally, I think Loach's film is a really useful educational tool.

*declaration of interest: I'm a socialist (like Loach) and not a nationalist.

sock puppet · 05-04-2010 03:22PM

Kotek Besar wrote: »

That's fine. What concerns me is that the film is shown to third years students in history classes in Irish schools.

I personally find this disturbing, considering it has fictional characters, a fictional plot (albeit based on a real situation). It is hardly well-balanced, unbiased and entirely factual material and, for that reason, I am astonished that it can be shown in Irish schools as part of a history lesson.

We watched Gladiator and A Knight's Tale in our JC history class. Teacher's usually just show the students films they think they'll enjoy. It's only ever done if the class is ahead in the course. Beats revision imo.

seanybiker · 05-04-2010 03:25PM

Never watched it, mainly because I couldnt be arsed. This pulling off the nails part sounds cool so I may download it to see that part.

Kotek Besar · 05-04-2010 03:32PM

Orizio & geeky,

Thank you.

Orizio wrote: »

In reality, the inaccuracies, the bias, the prejudices within the film and from Loach are all important historical documents to be analyzed in the same way as objective events or facts. A good teacher will understand this, and push the direction of post-film discussion towards every facet of the film, including the bias contained within, understanding their historical worth.

geeky wrote: »

Of course, if a teacher is showing this, they should be emphasizing that stuff like this went on during the period, not that this actually happened. Personally, I think Loach's film is a really useful educational tool.

I tend to agree with you, perhaps I was hasty in saying, "if it is unbalanced in its bias, it should not be part of the classroom". If the teacher has enough about them to explain to the students what you have both explained, and in the same way, there may be some benefit in using the film as an educational tool.

However, there is then a reliance on the "cop-on" of the teacher - how is that regulated? Perhaps that's another issue entirely.

brummytom · 05-04-2010 03:37PM

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.

That's true, to some extent. They did reference this in the film actually. At one point a Tan says to Damien something like "these men were at the Somme, they saw their friends die". It's not trying to defend their actions, but give us some kind of glimpse into their mindset

geeky · 05-04-2010 03:49PM

Kotek Besar wrote: »

I tend to agree with you, perhaps I was hasty in saying, "if it is unbalanced in its bias, it should not be part of the classroom". If the teacher has enough about them to explain to the students what you have both explained, and in the same way, there may be some benefit in using the film as an educational tool.

However, there is then a reliance on the "cop-on" of the teacher - how is that regulated? Perhaps that's another issue entirely.

You're right - its usefulness entirely depends on a teacher who's actually trying to use it as a tool rather than thinking 'ah sure, I'll stick this on for a quiet life'. I may be biased because I had a very good history teacher in secondary school, but I'd like to think that anyone who did a degree involving history would have the sense to talk about Loach's film as a secondary document with all the complexities that entails. Guess it boils down to that classic equation: good teachers = good education; rubbish teachers = rubbish education.

gbee · 05-04-2010 03:50PM

brummytom wrote: »

That's true, to some extent.

The Tans were largely unemployed ex trench warfare vets. Largely undisciplined and supposedly aligned with the RIC but acted independently with impunity.

Thanks to their stupidity they attacked Killbarry [North Cork City] on the night they should have been the decisive force in the last mass engagement in Kilmurry with Gen Tom Barry, who managed to escape as a result.

geeky · 05-04-2010 03:51PM

brummytom wrote: »

That's true, to some extent. They did reference this in the film actually. At one point a Tan says to Damien something like "these men were at the Somme, they saw their friends die". It's not trying to defend their actions, but give us some kind of glimpse into their mindset

Thanks for this - I was trying to recall the quote.

Loach could have done more establishing this, but hell, a filmmaker never has all the screen-time he wants to work with. And TWTSTB is a demanding film already without adding another 20 minutes and another new angle to the tale.

OutlawPete · 05-04-2010 04:07PM

What the Black and Tans did on Bloody Sunday was disgusting.

There were many stories of them executing people, but this time it was in a public place and so there was no denying this one.

Jordan's depiction I wouldn't say is 100% accurate but none the less it's the only dramatization of the event that I know of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOiQRkK1tyg

Dionysus · 05-04-2010 04:09PM

Orizio wrote: »

Completely depends on how its taught. With respect, you seem to have a rather basic, if not idealized concept of history - firstly, it's impossible to create something completely 'accurate' due to people's subjectivity (a point that hardly needs to be made), so any historic or political film will suffer from the accusation of bias or prejudice. With this in mind, the accusation of it not being accurate isn't enough to stop it's showing in secondary schools, as its the inaccuracies that make it a particular useful historical document.

In reality, the inaccuracies, the bias, the prejudices within the film and from Loach are all important historical documents to be analyzed in the same way as objective events or facts. A good teacher will understand this, and push the direction of post-film discussion towards every facet of the film, including the bias contained within, understanding their historical worth.

Spot the history teacher! Well said.

Stinicker · 05-04-2010 04:15PM

It is a perfect portrayal of how things were but actually things were far worse. The Black and Tans along with Cromwell were the worst thing to ever set foot in Ireland. The pity was the Civil War and that there was not Unity and invade the North and ethnically cleanse the Protestants there. The British were and still are the worst sort of b*stards you could come across :mad::mad:

People should remember after this film the North of Ireland is to this day still under British rule and until this ends we will never have achieved our freedom.

Crann na Beatha · 05-04-2010 04:20PM

This post has been deleted.

walrusgumble · 05-04-2010 05:46PM

sock puppet wrote: »

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.

really? many different people were involved in the period of 1916-1923. how sure are you - sean o'casey an example, where's your source?. Labour party and trade unions at least did not get in their way, nor did they denounce them unlike other offical irish institutes. what about the train companies, groceries etc that boycotted the british forces? Never mind the fact that the Trade Union movement of 1913 did more to raise the reasons why Irelan would be better off without Britain and be allowed to rule themselves, what were the big and small farmers doing when people were starving in the slums?

what was irish republicanism really. many would have frowned and humed at haw at the 1916 proclamation's socialist bits and connolly may not have had it easy if he was alive and running for the dail

K-9 · 05-04-2010 05:51PM

walrusgumble wrote: »

really? many different people were involved in the period of 1916-1923. how sure are you - sean o'casey an example, where's your source?. Labour party and trade unions at least did not get in their way, nor did they denounce them unlike other offical irish institutes. what about the train companies, groceries etc that boycotted the british forces? Never mind the fact that the Trade Union movement of 1913 did more to raise the reasons why Irelan would be better off without Britain and be allowed to rule themselves, what were the big and small farmers doing when people were starving in the slums?

IIRC correctly, the Labour Party may actually have abstained from one of the elections around then, may well have been the Treaty election.

TheZohanS · 05-04-2010 05:53PM

Stinicker wrote: »

It is a perfect portrayal of how things were but actually things were far worse. The Black and Tans along with Cromwell were the worst thing to ever set foot in Ireland. The pity was the Civil War and that there was not Unity and invade the North and ethnically cleanse the Protestants there. The British were and still are the worst sort of b*stards you could come across :mad::mad:

People should remember after this film the North of Ireland is to this day still under British rule and until this ends we will never have achieved our freedom.

Banned.

walrusgumble · 05-04-2010 05:55PM

gbee wrote: »

Watched some of it last night and remembered why I did not like it in the first place.

It's really amateurish, sorry to say and there is a jumble of stories mixed in there. The main ambush scene was the Kilmichael Ambush but Tom Barry's accountof it is very different.

in what way exactly? if loach put in the false surrender bit with the 3 deaths, which as ye know peter harte and media ryan have being fighting over, then there would be war with the british and revionists. what would it achieve. they could not film it in the actual area because, i think, the road was widened 20 years ago. o'suillvan chap wore a british uniform, but i think barry wore an irish uniform, also they left out the fella in the horse and cart. but still it got some stuff sorted.

K-9 · 05-04-2010 05:58PM

Sorry, it was 1918 and 1921 that Labour abstained.

PeterIanStaker · 05-04-2010 06:19PM

Its only a film. People get uppity because its Irish.

Agricola · 05-04-2010 06:22PM

Cant comment on the film cos im still LMFAO at Stinicker's post!

How realistic is The Wind That Shakes the Barley?

Comments