[ManthaStoirmeil]

An analytic review of the recent Irish film depicting the uprising of 1919 to 1921, before the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921, and the civil war that resulted.

"The Wind That Shakes The Barley"

SPOILER WARNING. This film opened in the UK in June 2006. It opened March 16, 2007 in limited play in the US, and is now playing to wider audiences across the country. There are many reviews and much commentary on the film now available. I'm not revealing the outcome, but I am going to talk about the film in some detail. Stop here if you don't want to read this before seeing it.

I saw this film on March 16th, opening day in New York. It was my good fortune to have as my guest a friend who is a retired journalist, a generation older than myself and British. The film had gotten a raking over by certain elements of the British press when it opened in the UK for its supposed political leanings, skewed representation of the British military, and undeserved sympathies regarding the origins of the IRA, and I was keen to hear his take on it.

To begin with, Ken Loach's film, set between 1920 and 1922, is decidedly political, but it deals with the big issues of the day in intimate terms, and the drama remains focused on what the uprising does to a small town and its friends and families. There is no lack of political discussion, in the forum of the town meeting or the local court -- or even the chit-chat of a bunch of lads after a game of hockey -- but I doubt you will see such scenes as stop-action polemic that gets in the way of the story. By the time these scenes arrive, the relentless action has been brutally direct from five minutes into the film, and the town hall debates are a welcome breather and, for American audiences, a history primer as well. Loach has also let some hesitant or stumbling line deliveries stand, and the effect is of common men and women groping their way through difficult and uncharted territory toward the inevitable.

Central to the drama are two brothers who begin as partners in revolution and end disastrously on different sides of the conflict.. At no point do you lose the sense of them as brothers, or of the story as a personal tragedy; but at the same time they are representative of the almost mythic larger issues in play in any such uprising that devolves to civil war. The older brother, Teddy, is a man of action and a pragmatist for whom ends justify means, and who will seize his opportunities where he finds them. The younger Damien is an intellectual who initially wants no part of the fight: a medical student and natural conciliator, he is drawn in by an incident of brutality that literally prevents him from getting on the train to London to continue his studies.

Here Loach is exploring something deeper and more individually human than political rhetoric. The movement needs its warriors, but it also needs its conciliators and healers. Damien first becomes a soldier, then a field leader of his "flying column" of guerillas, and soon after brings summary justice on a young informer he has known since childhood. Something is broken in Damien in this act, and the final outcome is as inevitable from this point as in any of the classic Greek tragedies. A healer has been transformed into a killer of one of his own, over and above being a soldier with a clear enemy to fight. Not having Teddy's pragmatic flexibility, Damien is pulled under, together with all his subsequent choices, to the loss of his whole community.

The stark, unadorned dramatic line reminiscent of Greek tragedy in this film is calculated, and in this respect "The Wind That Shakes The Barley" is also more personal than political in its essence. The historical action takes place over a year and a half, from early 1920 to summer of 1921, when the British declared the truce that led to the Anglo-Irish Treaty in December of that year. But there is little in the external filming outside the characters, for example in changes of season, that shows any passing of time. One scene closely follows another through a rising arc of three acts that could be three days, and that most centrally concerns the brothers, particularly Damien -- and then falls off sharply in the final catastrophe.

The film demands much of the viewer. By no means does this say you should avoid it; but it can't be taken in passively, particularly by an American audience. Even on the visual level, you have to come forward and work to meet this beautiful and melancholy cinematic experience. Loach has used natural lighting, it would seem almost exclusively even in the dark interiors, and the entire palette is a brooding green, umber and storm grey. The costuming reflects these colors, in a way reminiscent of an observation made in Marcel Ophuls' great Vietnam documentary "The Memory of Justice." An officer being interviewed observed that when he saw the Vietnamese interacting with their environment, literally melting in and out of sight as if they were made of the same elements, he knew they could never beat them. Again, the dialogue in "The Wind That Shakes The Barley" is rapid and natural, in a variety of Irish and British inflections unfamiliar to the American ear, and little is said that is not important to grasp. Above all, the sequencing of the scenes is relentless in its tension and suspense, and the content at times purely harrowing.

And what about the original question? Is this film skewed in excessive sympathy for the Irish, and does it draw a near-Nazi caricature of the Black and Tan irregulars who supported the Royal Irish Constabulary during the uprising of 1919 to 1921, as the British tabloid reviews shrilly claimed? After leaving the theater, subdued and feeling a bit shaken, my friend and I discussed this over drinks and found we were in essential agreement. First of all, the Irish are portrayed in highly complex human terms, but this is not the same as "humane". Their guerilla war tactics are as ruthless as those of the British; even in respect of their dealings with their traitors, the obvious emotional force of executing one's own is dwarfed by the cold resolution to carry it out regardless.

By way of historical context, my friend pointed out -- and Loach also observes, though it is subtle and easy to miss -- the fact that these 3000 or so British irregulars had come through the Great War and its horrors and returned home to a depressed economy that had little work for them, and so they accepted the extremely dangerous assignment of policing Ireland for decent pay but little or no security or backup. In one scene, an officer interrogating Damien is unnerved by the young man's bold defiance and lapses into an attack of what we now recognize as post-traumatic stress, or the "shell shock" of the Great War. These factors do not excuse their brutal behaviour, which was, by contemporary accounts, fully as random, sadistic and terrorizing as the film depicts. Nor do they excuse the fact that the British were in Ireland illegally and the Irish were within their rights to attempt to expel them. But they go some way in explaining the savagery of the persecution, and the fury of the Irish response, that are uncompromisingly portrayed in this film, and to this we both agreed.

Performances, especially Cillian Murphy in the role of Damien and Liam Cunningham in the role of his friend Dan, are outstanding. Cinematography is stunning; they have made the land itself, and the sky, speak to the bleakness of this story. "The Wind That Shakes The Barley" is a demanding experience, but worth every moment of your attention.

[awelgraven]

Thanks for the review. I heard about this film when it was at the Cannes Film Festival, where I think it won the Palm D'or or whatever it's called. I'm waiting for it to come out on DVD, because I live in small Minnesota town that never gets any good movies in it's theater.

Very well written by the way.

[Deadman]

First things first
"or even the chit-chat of a bunch of lads after a game of hockey"
hockey? good god thats hurling! The greatest sport ever played. hockey indeed.

"the fact that these 3000 or so British irregulars had come through the Great War and its horrors and returned home to a depressed economy that had little work for them, and so they accepted the extremely dangerous assignment of policing Ireland for decent pay but little or no security or backup"

the black and tans were mostly not involved in the great war, they were prisonersc who were given the option of jail or being sent to Ireland when The great war started due to lack of army personnel in the British army. Only ranking officers and up within the black and tans would have been actual british army servicemen.

Good review other than these few points.

Oh also just a liitle aside, Loach is British, not Irish, just found that interesting myself.

[Perscription]

[quote=Deadman;84831]
the black and tans were mostly not involved in the great war, they were prisonersc who were given the option of jail or being sent to Ireland when The great war started due to lack of army personnel in the British army. Only ranking officers and up within the black and tans would have been actual british army servicemen.
QUOTE]

i dont think this is true actually. As far as im aware they were drafted after the war. Never heard anything about them being cons. where'd you get that from?