Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

Updates:

Cannes diary part three: 'The Wind that Shakes the Barley' review

Related films

Related people

Cannes diary part three: 'The Wind that Shakes the Barley' review

Dave Calhoun takes a look at the latest controversial effort from Ken Loach.

May 19 2006

Ken Loach returned to the Croisette last night with 'The Wind that Shakes the Barley', a provocative drama set in Ireland's County Cork between 1920 and 1922; that dangerous period that saw the signing of the Anglo-Irish treaty in December 1921 and the outbreak of civil war soon afterwards. It was a civil war that pitched brother against brother, as Irish popular history still very much remembers, and it's this powerful dynamic that Loach adopts as the fulcrum of his film.

For Loach, it marks a return to territory last seen in his Spanish Civil War film 'Land and Freedom'. Like that earlier work, 'The Wind that Shakes the Barley' proves to be a moving and intelligent historical play that explores divisions on the left on an intimate level and succeeds in presenting the prevalent ideas of the time without ever losing sight of the personal stories that Loach and his regular screenwriter Paul Laverty have decided to explore.

Loach presents two brothers, Damien (Cillian Murphy) and Teddy (Padraic Delaney), who together join a 'flying column' of armed guerilla republicans after witnessing the murder of a relative. A strict approach to casting and location pays off; almost all the cast are from Cork and the entire film was shot there, much of it outdoors and within its rugged rural landscape. There's a pleasing camaraderie and sense of purpose among the cast that make up the 'flying column' and lead actors Murphy, Delaney and Liam Cunningham as a Dublin train driver turned revolutionary all put in good turns amid this ensemble. Loach is quite adept at marrying his more experienced actors such as Murphy and Cunningham with a number of less experienced, local hands. The sense of purpose and cohesion of this grouping drives much of the film as they wage an armed campaign against the British.

Anyone expecting the British to come off lightly would be naive; the quite fair prognosis of Loach and Laverty is that the violence of British troops in Ireland helped to stoke the passions and the mission of those who fought this vicious guerilla campaign against the British government. As such, we see British troops behaving atrociously towards those they suspect of sedition. Are his British characters caricatures? I'd say not; Loach has decided to tell a republican story and the contact between these revolutionary republicans and the British would inevitably have been fraught and violent. It's a republican tale, in terms of the film's perspective, and we see the British through the eyes of Damien, Teddy and their comrades: as vicious occupiers.

Most tricky for Loach is presenting the complex arguments within the republican movement that followed the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty and led to the political split that very soon saw the outbreak of war. He succeeds, and masters some compelling group scenes of debate and argument that never feel awkward or staged. It's refreshing to see Loach move away from the Scottish stories he's been telling (with much success) in his last few films. I wouldn't be surprised if the film picks up prizes come the end of the festival, most likely for Murphy as best actor or even Laverty as best screenwriter.

To read Dave Calhoun's 'Wind that Shakes the Barley' set visit, click here.

User comments on this story

Eileen Debenham said...

I am looking forward to seeing the film and comparing how much my West Cork born father told me aboutt hat period matches or differs from the tale portrayed on screen. Posted on Jun 02 2006 15:59

Report as inappropriate
Mike Byrne said...

Based on the most convincing histories I have read, the British presence in Northern Ireland after WWI did not have much to do with the wishes of the loyalist minority. They stayed because Ireland was strategically located. The overriding consideration was military strategy. After WWII, the British outpost in Northern Ireland was considered even more strategically significant. According to Tim Pat Coogan, DeValera conferred with the American ambassador soon after the war ended. Dev apparently assumed it would be a good time to bring up the subject of reunification. According to Coogan, The U.S ambassador pointed out that The U.S had already fought two wars in Europe using England as a crucial stepping stone to the continent. Unfortunately, Irealnd was in between The U.S. and that stepping stone. He went on to advise De
Valera that there was going to be a long period of confrontation between the west and the Soviet Union so the British presence in Ulster was still a strategic necessity. Note that after the cold war ended, things started opening up. Posted on Jun 02 2006 03:13

Report as inappropriate
Irish Humanist said...

What was so terrible about the Treaty of 1921? Yes, it partitioned Ireland, but that was merely accepting the division between the Catholic South and the Protestant North. The Northern Protestants feared that Home Rule would be Rome Rule (as indeed it was) and voted to stay British. The clear majority of the whole population of Ireland voted in favour of the Treaty. But Loach still insists that the Die-Hards who fought on were right. To hell with democracy, in other words. "We know better and we can murder our way to victory" - the usual fascist anthem.
Loach enjoys being anti-establishment, but he seems indifferent to the potential violence that his posturing could provoke. Does he really want the Real IRA to carry on bombing and murdering "to finish the job", as they claim?
I have admired many of Loach's films, but this piece of biased, irresponsible propaganda makes me think that he must have an arrogant streak too, to advocate the violent path to Irish unity when we are trying to find a workable, peaceful accommodation between the two sides in the North. Posted on Jun 01 2006 23:08

Report as inappropriate
greg said...

I would dispute any description of Loach as "impartial". His view is very much anti-establishment - especially the British establishment and he does tend to show the vicious sectarianism oof irish Republicanism with the soft focus favoured by the lefty literary set. That said, it cannot be disputed that there was murderous thuggery on the british side in the 20s troubles - it just seems that Loach dwells on this to the exclusoin of the truth........ Posted on Jun 01 2006 15:03

Report as inappropriate
John said...

Well JD I have no wish to refight the WoI. Breen was a hero of that conflict and I believe he acted from the very best of motives. The ‘luckless policemen’ as you call them were armed by the London gov to oppress their own people and they died defending British colonialism, which today would be seen as a defence of exploitation and enslavement: not a very worthy cause.
No doubt they may have been nice individuals etc, many of the millions on either side in WWI were also nice but they killed and died nevertheless; such are the misfortunes of war/violence and human behaviour patterns (or whatever you’re having yourself).
Dan must have been in good form when he said ‘the RIC were as good Irishmen as any’, I also know he said that he had killed many of the enemy, the only pity is that it could not have been more. Old codgers say reflective kinds of things like that… Posted on Jun 01 2006 10:35

Report as inappropriate
John Doe said...

Well John I am glad you quoted “My fight for Irish freedom” by Dan Breen because you will know that Dan Breen started the war of independence by shooting two policemen escorting cartload of gelignite to a quarry. You'll also know that Dan Breen was not acting under orders from anyone and states in his book that he and a few friends decided that they would have to start killing somebody because after the disruption of the Great War the normal political process was beginning to re-establish itself.
As to the Solohedbeg ambush you will also know that the only two people not aware of what was going to happen were the luckless policeman but in his book Breen speaks of nothing but how he and his brave comrades wondered if the RIC would throw bombs at them - a skill they had recently been learning. Of course the RIC would have been unlikely to throw bombs in the presence of a cartload of gelignite even if they had them. If you take that trouble to look at the Garda website you'll see that they virtually say both policemen were shot dead on the spot while they still had their rifles on their shoulders.
The coroner (probably a British pawn) described the tragedy as one of the saddest cases that could happen in Tipperary or any part of Ireland for many years. He knew the deceased Constable's well and one had been in Tipperary for 30 years and are more quiet and inoffensive man he had never met while the other constable, was also a decent quiet man it was sad to see both men shot down while doing a public duty and not doing anything that would injure any one.
You probably do not known that 60 years later when he was facing the prospect of his own mortality Dan Breen is reported to have said the RIC were as good Irishmen as any and should not have been killed.
Better late than never. Posted on May 31 2006 22:09

Report as inappropriate
John said...

John Doe said...
‘“Police casualties in Ireland” as the most relevant book on the subject.’
You’re entitled to your opinion. My own preference would be ‘My Fight for Irish Freedom’, On another man’s wounds’ or ‘Guerrilla Days in Ireland’.
The Garda are enforcing the will of the people, the RIC were opposing same. They were the pawns of foreign gov.
‘they staged a battle between the RIC and IRA ensuring that nobody got hurt on either side’.
Sounds like a good idea, I think all wars should be fought like that. Posted on May 31 2006 20:57

Report as inappropriate
John said...

‘quite a good letter in the paper today about how the IRA supported the Nazis during WWII’
Hell-o. What has that got to do with the ‘Wind that shakes…’ or the 1920s. A bit out of period there JMB. Posted on May 31 2006 20:55

Report as inappropriate
John said...

John
‘John Doe said...
You English numbskulls should read “Police Casualties in Ireland 1919-1922” by Richard Abbot and see what the “Freedom fighters” really did.’
The ‘police’ were an armed force employed by the British to oppress their own people. This was classic imperialism. You should read Jerimiah Mees book on the RIC. Posted on May 31 2006 20:31

Report as inappropriate
Ron Deen said...

I've been to Mick Collin's destroyed home in Clonakilty and know what the Brits did
there & elsewhere with the Tans !
Can someone please tell me how and when I could buy the film. Is it eleased in DVD yet. If not when ? Thanks. Posted on May 31 2006 19:37

Report as inappropriate
John Doe said...

Well John I will have a look it's Jeremiah Mees book because as a historian I don't take my opinions from one source. I simply cited “Police casualties in Ireland” as the most relevant book on the subject. It's important to resist oppression even when it means shooting the village policeman while he is getting in a bucket of coal for his fire.
As to the RIC being hired to oppress their own people. The present Irish police force the Garda Siochana enforces pretty much the same laws as the RIC from pretty much the same barracks so are they also oppressing their own people? You will be surprised to know that because you cannot set up a police force from scratch a percentage of the RIC was kept on in 1922 to train the Garda.
As to the RIC being armed, at that height of the war of independence four policemen were attacked on the way back to barracks having attended Mass. Over 20 IRA were involved but even at that time only one policeman had a pistol.
Read a book called "The Easter Lily" by an Irish army officer whose father was leader of the IRA in the War of Independence. He tells how his father was ordered to attack the local police barracks but had no wish to kill the sergeant was a personal friend nor either of the Constable's who were both courting local girls. Which is why they staged a battle between the RIC and IRA ensuring that nobody got hurt on either side. Some oppressors. Incidentally the same officer tells how when he was in the IRA in the 1930s he was an accessory to two political murders but as one was a government informer and the other was a fascist neither appear to have counted against him.
You might be interested to know that when one of the English counties set up its 500 strong police force in the 1840's a third of its men were Irish. I suppose they were getting their own back by oppressing the English. It is also probable that because the RIC was properly organised and trained from the beginning its Constable's were welcomed into British police forces. You're probably unaware that the that until about the 1960s some British police forces were less than 50 strong and as a consequence training standards were generally poor.
Good on you Mary Burke. Posted on May 31 2006 15:17

Report as inappropriate
mary burke said...

There seems to be something glamorous about protraying the Irish as victims of the cruel opressor, whether they live north or south of the border. It is Ken Loach' privilage as a film maker to take a selective approach to the events in West Cork about that time. No one has ever been in doubt that the Tans behaved badly ( they stole my great aunt's fur coat) but it is also true that many of the freedome fighters were not on the side of the angels either. Like all wars, evil happened. I'd like to see some of your commentators taking the opportunity to sing for a lasting peace. in the North as well as in West Cork. Posted on May 31 2006 15:12

Report as inappropriate
John said...

‘John Doe said...
You English numbskulls should read “Police Casualties in Ireland 1919-1922” by Richard Abbot and see what the “Freedom fighters” really did.’
The ‘police’ were an armed force employed by the British to oppress their own people. This was classic imperialism. You should read Jerimiah Mees book on the RIC. Posted on May 31 2006 07:26

Report as inappropriate
John Doe said...

Well Shay Courtney I have done a great deal of original research on the “Tan War” and concluded that most of the Irish writing about it fits Dr Gobbels maxim. “If a lie is big enough and you tell it often enough they will believe it”.
Pat Caughey - anonymity is common sense when discussing people who have the right to shoot any man or woman who opposes them – the any time any place anywhere principle. But I do understand that intellectual Englishmen have a fine record of supporting all those who kill people in worthy causes. By the way anyone as pompous as you has to be English - are you?
For the record the Tans had been in Dublin a week when the IRA captured 2 of them – put them against a wall and shot them. They responded by murdering two IRA men with bayonets a couple of hours later, then Collins replied by taking 10 Tans prisoner and hacking them to death a week later. You could say things went downhill from there.
One last thing – If you took the trouble to do any research you would see that after WW 1 with ¾ million dead in the war and its economy in ruins Britain was sick of Ireland and just wanted out.

Like an Irish state secret?
In 1966 the Irish Government commissioned an historian from the National University to interview the survivors of the 1916 rising. He concluded, “They fought for a people they did not know on behalf of a people who never existed” Released under the 30 year rule in 1996. Posted on May 30 2006 21:28

Report as inappropriate
shay courtney said...

John Doe, get a life.
Re Richard Abbot. He was a serving RUC Inspector who served during the period of collusion betwen the RUC & the Brit Securicrats who colluded in the murder of Irish people, just like the RIC that he wrote so selectivly about.
The tragedy is that it took Ken Loach , a solid British left-winger to direct a movie on the Tan War, wheres our so called "Irish Movie Industry", all on Pluto & sadyl lacking in "Commitments, I think. Posted on May 30 2006 20:08

Report as inappropriate