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

Jackie laughlin · 16-08-2006 12:38am #1

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 · 18-08-2006 7:47pm

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 · 18-08-2006 8:33pm

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 · 18-08-2006 10:26pm

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 · 20-08-2006 1:53pm

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 · 20-08-2006 3:28pm

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

Jackie laughlin · 21-08-2006 2:02am

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 · 21-08-2006 2:04am

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

Chinafoot · 21-08-2006 2:08am

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 · 21-08-2006 2:14am

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 · 21-08-2006 12:22pm

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 · 21-08-2006 5:59pm

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 · 21-08-2006 6:18pm

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 · 22-08-2006 2:13am

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 · 22-08-2006 12:22pm

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 · 22-08-2006 12:57pm

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 · 22-08-2006 1:36pm

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 · 22-08-2006 3:11pm

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 · 22-08-2006 3:20pm

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 · 22-08-2006 4:45pm

what monosharp said

boneless · 22-08-2006 10:12pm

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 · 23-08-2006 12:40am

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 · 23-08-2006 11:40am

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 · 28-08-2006 1:31pm

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 · 24-09-2006 2:32pm

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 · 26-09-2006 9:09pm

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 · 29-09-2006 12:56pm

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 · 29-09-2006 8:08pm

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 · 30-09-2006 12:36am

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 · 19-11-2006 1:51am

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 · 20-11-2006 2:33am

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 Wind That Shakes the Barley": Is accuracy important

Comments