Film
What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases
Bookmark this page
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
-
- Noel O'Brien said...
-
Ireland ; - Administered as part of the U.K.
Commercially ; - A colony . Posted on Jun 22 2006 12:25 - Report as inappropriate
-
- B P said...
-
you people don't seem to understand that the British didn't come to Ireland in 1921. They came and stayed for 800 years.
This film only concentrates on three years. Posted on Jun 20 2006 11:48 - Report as inappropriate
-
- James Bourke said...
- Thank God for directors like Ken Loach. As a true Englishman, he is not afraid to stand up for the truth, and richly deserves his award. I am eagerly looking forward to seeing this long overdue film. Posted on Jun 19 2006 15:46
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Mick (Birmingham) said...
-
I see the IRA vs. RIC conflict from a different point of view as a retired policeman. I had an Great-Grand Uncle in the RIC. (1890-1913) Also a great Uncle who joined the Civic Guard in 1923 (Garda Siochana) having been an `Irish Volunteer`
The RIC have been `written out of history` because of the `Black and Tans`. An Irishman who became a policeman for the pension and the increase in status from being a farmer. It was an alternative to emigration or becoming a member of the Clergy.
History now tells us the old IRA knew that to beat the British, they had to defeat the Royal Irish Constabulary (not the British Army) as they were a well organised
police force and knew everything and everyone (quoted by Professor W. J. Lowe in his studies)
The RIC `rank and file` were doing a job to the best of their ability. They remained in Ireland. Married eventually and had kids. They tried to put their money back into the Irish economy.
I am proud of my Irish ancestors who were policemen. Posted on Jun 16 2006 17:00 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Declan O'Conner (registered user) said...
-
I am yet to see the film.
Facism is the suppression of freedom.
If you look at the history of Ireland, you'll find that it is the British who have acted dishonourably erasing a flourishing Irish culture and impoverishing it's inhabitants causing among other things mass migration. Had the British not behaved in this way, the Irish probably would'nt have revolted. The British made a severe strategic error. They seem to realise this now in Northern Ireland by engaging in a peace process. The Irish are in general very tolerant of other cultures, including Presbyterianism. The peculiarly Protestant culture of fear,( especially rampant in America) is the greatest challenge in maintaining peace in the North.
re:
We need films that will improve relations, not ones that destroy them.
Who is we?
What gives you the right to say what others need? Posted on Jun 16 2006 04:03 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Irish Humanist (registered user) said...
-
Loach supports the fascist tendency in Irish politics. He ignores the clear democratic mandate that the 1922 Treaty had and backs the ruthless fascists who murdered fellow Irishmen in order to have their 32-county state instead.
The Protestants of the North voted solidly against independence in 1918 and they voted for the British link in every election afterwards. Only a fascist would think that they should be murdered into submission. But that is what Loach's stupid film is actually saying.
The South of Ireland today is a prosperous, cultured country. The North is recovering well after the trauma of 30 years of sectarian violence. Neither part of this island will benefit from stirring up the old antagonisms of 80 years ago. We need films that will improve relations, not ones that destroy them. Posted on Jun 15 2006 13:37 - Report as inappropriate
-
- kel said...
- FACT. the brits hate the truth always have and they certainly dont like it in the form of a movie. hidden agenda was labelled " CONTROVERSIAL" because the brits didnt want other nations to know they were involved in collusion with loyalist murder gangs but mr loach was proved very right a few years ago after the stevens enquiry. Posted on Jun 09 2006 19:10
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Matt - CROATIA said...
-
I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THE FILM . I HAVE RECENTLY READ ''TRINITY - BY LEON URIS '' AND I HAVE GREAT SIMPATHY FOR EIRE, IRISH PEOPLE AND THEY NOBLE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM THAT CONTINUES FOR AGES .
BUR IN THE SAME TIME I DON'T HATE ENGLISH IN ENGLAND, BUT I SHURE HATE COLONIALISM !
IRELAND BELONGS TO IRISH...SUCH AS ENGLAND BELONG TO ENGLISH...AND THAT 'S IT ! Posted on Jun 07 2006 04:35 - Report as inappropriate
-
- John said...
-
‘merely accepting the division between the Catholic South and the Protestant North’
These were divisions the British created Greg. They foisted them upon the country for their imperialist ends: divide and conquer. They practiced the same system the world over.
There was and is no compete division of the country into a Protestant north and catholic south, if there were there would not have been the troubles of the past 30 years. The IRA of this period came 90% from Belfast/Derry etc.
‘To hell with democracy’
What about the democracy of the whole country as voted for in 1918? This is the very reason the B&Ts were introduced: to terrorise the people into submission and to accept the treaty, which the cowed pop did.
Loach is not ‘advocating’ violence, you seem to be adopting the tactics of the revisionists greg. He is advocating a retelling of history which is unencumbered by the bastardisation of history introduced by the revisionists. Posted on Jun 06 2006 15:05 - Report as inappropriate
-
- John said...
-
‘The North has voted over and over again to stay with Britain.’
This is an artificial majority created by British imperialism for the purpose of denying Irish freedom IH. You could make a minority into a ‘majority’ anywhere by such tactics. The real majority voted for independence from the UK in 1918.
The majority voted for the GFI which includes all Ireland bodies and a renunciation of their imperialist 1920 act by the British. The imperialists have always been the fascists IH, that is the reality. Posted on Jun 06 2006 15:05 - Report as inappropriate
-
- John said...
-
‘what happened BEFORE the Tans arrived’
was centuries of British domination and exploitation of their smaller neighbour. In 1918 the British vetoed Irish freedom, as voted for by the majority, by force of arms.
The RIC were not just ‘policemen’ they were a heavily armed force designed and used to suppress Irish freedom and to maintain British imperialist interests. In many engagements they were better armed than the IRA units were. Posted on Jun 06 2006 15:04 - Report as inappropriate
-
- mike Byrne said...
- Of course the Unionists wanted to remain under British control, but that is not why the British presence in Northern Ireland was a sure thing for so long. After the cold war ended, the British government started changing the status quo- nudging the Unionists toward power sharing and consulting openly with Eire about the affairs of Ulster. Say what you like, the Unionists are a minority in Ireland. The only reason they have been wagging the dog for so long is British military power . I wonder, what you might say in the not too distant future if the non-Unionist population in Ulster becomes a majority and votes for reunification with the Irish Republic? That would be a real test of some people's commitment to what they have called democracy. Posted on Jun 05 2006 16:56
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Les Reid (registered user) said...
-
Maurice, you should read the history of what happened BEFORE the Tans arrived. As John Doe has pointed out above, the Tans were sent to Ireland because the RIC constables (Irishmen) were being slaughtered by the IRA. This was Michael Collins plan to create anarchy and their method was to murder RIC policemen. The Tans were ruthless and savage, yes, but they were responding to a ruthless and savage campaign of cold-blooded murder.
Loach omits the context and presents the Tans as thugs on a mindless rampage. Now that's what I call propaganda! Posted on Jun 05 2006 05:45 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Irish Humanist (registered user) said...
-
Mike Byrne does not want to hear that the Protestants of the North voted to stay in the UK. So he grabs for the "superior" explanation that Britain wanted to keep the North for military reasons. What crap. The North has voted over and over again to stay with Britain. The majority of the people of Ireland accepted that in 1922. The majority endorsed it again in 1998 in the Good Friday Agreement.
Why not respect the democratic wishes of the people? The problem in Ireland has been a fascist tendency to impose reunification by the use of IRA death squads, instead of allowing gradual, peaceful, democratic reconciliation. Sadly, Loach's film is playing to the fascist tendency. Posted on Jun 05 2006 05:39 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Maurice (London) said...
- I agree with Raymond, The response this film has received from the British press is not only bias but ignorant of the truth. Accusing Loach of making a film about Irish Republicanism and implying that the British force never put a foot out of line, were in fact the film depicts the sere brutality of the black an tans. If this film had not been made how are the British people of today to understand why a bitterness still exists today with the black an tans still a living memory for some in Ireland, if they had never been informed of such goings on. Posted on Jun 04 2006 06:59
- Report as inappropriate
Most popular on this site
Features
To the letter
Forty years later, Costa-Gavras's Z still brims with fury.
Mind over matter
David Cronenberg reflects on a most bizarre body: his own corpus of work.
Fool's gold
Can an Oscar win lead to a cursed career? Here are five stories of postaward professional meltdowns.
We are the championed
Terrorists and teens abound in this year's "Film Comment Selects."
A history of violence
Matteo Garrone's kaleidoscopic Gomorrah wallops you with Italy's crime crisis.
True romantic
James Gray exchanges urban amorality for amour in Two Lovers.
Playing in the dark
MoMA salutes pianist Stuart Oderman's 50 years as the one-man sound of silents.
Junk bonds
Cast and crew recall the making of the classic NYC drug drama The Panic in Needle Park.
What do you think?
Post your comment now