The Wind that Shakes the Barley (2006) User Reviews

Not only a gripping war movie, but a useful history lesson too

[frankde-jong · 7/10 · 19 November 2021]

"The wind that shakes the Barley" is a film about the Irish war of independence, that was fought from 1919 - 1922.

This war resulted in the Free State Ireland, which had some independence from the United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland. In 1937 the Free State Ireland became the Irish Republic, which was wholly independent from the United Kingdom.

Films about Ireland are mostly about the tensions between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland during "The troubles" (1966 - 1998). "The wind that shakes the Barley" puts this troubles in a historical perspective.

The film consists of two parts. Part 1 is about violence on the side of the English occupier, part 2 is about Irish disunity.

The English violence in the movie did cause some discomfort at the time of release. We are accustomed to warcrimes perpetrated by Germans, but the English? It should however not be forgotten that the English used World War One veterans in the Irish war of independence. Particulalrly the "Black and tans" were notorious.

When we think of Irish disunity we think of the religious divide between Catholics and Protestants. In this film the central division is that between the Irish who are willing to accept the Free State (at least for the time being) and the ones who want total independence right now.

Another division which is somewhat overshadowed in the film, is that between Irish nationalists and the Irish socialists. I found this a little strange, because after all we are talking about a Loach movie. In some scenes though, this division did come to the surface. I am specifically talking about the scene in which a loan shark is convicted by an Irish "peoples court". This loan shark however also happens to finance weapons for the IRA. The question arises what the ultimate goal of the independece war really is? Is it only to change the accents of the powerful and the colour of the flag, or is it something more?

Sad tale

[shelliob · 8/10 · 19 June 2006]

An exciting piece of Ken Loach drama based on events that sparked the Irish war of independence. Despite being labelled 'anti-British' by critics born 60 years after these events took place, the incidents depicted in this film have in fact all been documented by the British government and are a matter of historical fact. Events such as the treatment of the local population at the brutal hands of the infamous convict drafted Black and tans force have all been recorded assiduously by both sides in the conflict. And the civil war that followed a decision to allow the mostly protestant north to be a part of the new British welfare state. A clash of ideals, deftly handled by Loach, it's a real pity that so many will have their minds made up before they've even seen the film.

Some comments on technicalities

[donalflynn2002 · 8/10 · 18 September 2006]

My family came from Clonakilty and were directly involved in the events portrayed. The film struck an authentic note in portraying the young men and their fight. Of course the British forces were shown as monsters in the film as part of the mode of telling the tale, but growing up listening to the stories of the fighters, tales of atrocities did not feature.

The technical detail in the film was accurate and quite excellent and for that reason it may be of interest to point out three anomalies.

First: the men sung the present Irish National Anthem when they were held in the barracks and they sung it using Irish (Gaelic) words. In fact, the popular republican song which became the National Anthem was called The Soldiers' Song and the words were (of course)in English. They went:

Soldiers are we, Whose lives are pledged to Ireland, Some have come, From a land beyond the waves, Sworn to be free, Once more our ancient sire land, Etc

The Gaelic words were not written until ten or fifteen years later and were then promoted by Government as part of the fiction of Ireland being Gaelic speaking. When I was in school in the 1940's we learned the original English version and although nowadays the schools teach the Gaelic words, very few people retain them.

Second: after the men came in from the ambush they were fed at the farmhouse, eating from round bowls. I never saw such a dish in use in Ireland until people started going to Spain on their holidays in the 1960's. We used flat plated or flat-bottomed soup plates.

Third: When asked when he was leaving for England, the young doctor said "at the weekend". He would have said "on Saturday" or "on Sunday". The word "weekend" meaning a segment of time only arrived when the weekend became a defined segment of time. When small farmers worked a seven day week, they had no "weekends" and did not have a word for them in everyday usage.

My word for this film is 'evocative'and it with this sense that it should be watched.

One of Loach's best

[zogz54 · 9/10 · 8 June 2006]

The remarkably low rating that this film has so far received (4.1 as of Thursday 8th of June) is indicative of its ability to raise the hackles of people who haven't even seen it. How can it be otherwise when the film has not yet been released? 135 people have voted; have all of these 135 people actually watched the film? Of course not. They're just voting on the basis of their perceptions or assumptions concerning its political agenda. IMDb voters are not alone in this; already Simon Heffer in The Daily Telegraph, Dominic Lawson in The Independent, Ruth Dudley-Edwards in The Daily Mail and Michael Gove in The Times are attacking a film they haven't seen (by their own admission). These attacks are the predictable reaction of empire apologists unable to abide the depiction of the dark and brutal underside of that imperial machine, or the suggestion that anyone on the receiving end of that brutality might be justified in rebelling against it. The title of Dudley-Edward's lazy hack-job says it all, really: 'Why does Ken Loach loathe his country?' Loach is a traitor, and must be punished, the rotter.

It's a pity that this political controversy seems poised to overwhelm discussion of the film, because it's an extremely able piece of cinema and deserves to be seen as such. Barry Ackroyd's cinematography is superb, ably capturing the beauty of the Irish countryside without indulging in it. We are rooted in a locale without being lavished with pretty pictures. The acting is also excellent. The charismatic Cillian Murphy carries the movie, but the support from Liam Cunningham, Orla Fitzgerald, Aidan O'Hare and Padraic Delaney is also commendable.

But it's the collaboration between Loach and his scriptwriter Paul Laverty that makes the film something like a masterpiece. The grim progress from the murder of an Irish youth to the growth of an armed I.R.A. campaign, with its attendant violence (shown in stark and horrifying detail) is expertly managed; the only let-up comes not far from the end, after the signing of the 1921 peace treaty. Loach tries to show the brief jubilation and relief that ensues, but in terms of momentum almost drops the ball. The pace is re-established in time for the inexorable tragic denouement, and the film's final emotional impact is considerable. The load is occasionally lightened by the odd touch of Loach's characteristic wry comedy, such as the belligerence of the opening hurling game, the teenage message-boy who loses his message, the melodramatic pianist accompanying the newsreel announcing the momentous news of the creation of the Free State.

One of the most disturbing scenes occurs when a group of I.R.A. men return from a successful battle and discover a farmhouse being attacked and destroyed by a group of British soldiers. The rebels, who have no ammunition left, are forced to look on, concealed in the bushes; they watch powerless as the farmhouse's inhabitants are abused. We watch along with the characters, just as helpless as they are. Why do we watch? Do we want to intervene, to play the hero and save the day? Do we perhaps enjoy it? The trouble with many so-called anti-war films, as Loach has said, is that they outwardly condemn the violence while at the same time encouraging (intentionally or not) a vicarious pleasure in the thrill of it all. We want to take part, we imagine how we would behave in such circumstances (of course, we usually imagine ourselves behaving with impeccable bravery and surviving to fight another day). This scene, rather than placing us in the thick of the action, forces us to occupy the position of impotent bystander. Perhaps this is what being a film-goer is all about: powerless voyeurism. As we watch the country tear itself apart in civil war, manipulated by a devious and callous colonial master, this point becomes all the more pertinent. A quietly devastating film.

Great film

[briandelaney · 10/10 · 24 June 2006]

This is a truly great film and well deserving of the Palm D'Or.

It has been said that it is pro IRA or IRA propaganda. I disagree. In fact I think the reverse is the case. It shows up both the brutality of war and the even greater brutality of civil war that sets nation against nation and brother against brother. The film provides an understanding of how Ireland became independent in 1920-1921. It is well documented (e.g. visit the BBC or CAIN websites) that the Black and Tans were a brutal and oppressive irregular force sent to put down the rebellion. The IRA reacted with similar brutality. The film records both with equally graphic scenes. But that is only the first half of the film. The second half deals with the civil war. That's even more tragic and brutal.

Who was on the right side or the wrong side? The film presents the arguments but I really don't think the film takes sides. More of the anti British and anti treaty argument is advanced. But this is understandable because it is historically accurate that West Cost was ferociously anti British and mainly anti treaty. That's why Michael Collins was destined to die there. And it is more important to understand why people/nations go to war or civil war rather than why they don't.

Understanding the reasons does not mean support for war. The film highlights the futility and awfulness of war. Misery destruction and death. Is there such a thing as a just war (apart from 2nd World war)? Aside from the historical debate, the story, filming and acting is magnificent. Much better than the Green Berets on the just war by USA in Vietnam! Blackhawk Down brilliantly covered Somalia from the external US perspective. This film brilliantly covers the 1920/21 wars from the Irish perspective. We need all perspectives.

Well worth seeing with an open mind. Then read the history if you want.

Five big issues arising from the movie

[BlogBat · 7 October 2006]

I am an Australian of Northern English background, no sectarian affiliations and just back from a glorious holiday in Ireland. I saw the movie last night and would like to raise 5 big issues.

i) As a movie it is first rate; brilliantly written, directed and acted.

ii) I appear to be one of few non-Irish people who has read up enough on the history who know it is historically accurate. In 1919-20 the British government repression in Ireland was a dead-set disgrace.

iii) Irish people seem to miss that the same people who were exploiting them in Ireland were also exploiting working people in England and Scotland. My great grandparents in England were not persecuting the Irish, they were too busy being worked to death for the same lousy pay as the Irish were getting.

iv) To English people the events in Ireland in 1920 pale into insignificance compared to (say) the Spanish Armada in 1588. As it said in the movie. to English people Ireland was a 'priest ridden backwater'

v) Ireland is now clearly a prosperous liberal democracy with a seat at the table of the 'rich man's club'. It is good to see the Irish getting on with driving BMWs rather than warring incessantly.

Incidentally, I survived two IRA bomb blasts in London. Gerry Adams never did explain why he tried to kill me. I'm darned if I can understand it either.

Not a masterpiece

[efp-3 · 6/10 · 12 October 2006]

I was really looking forward to watching this movie, which I did quietly at home on my own on a big screen. And I have to say I am disappointed. I cannot call myself a real movie-goer but I have studied Irish history and have taught it at University level here in France, so my recriminations will focus on this aspect of the movie.

It is true that the photography is superb, and that the actors are excellent, but I don't think this is enough to turn a movie into a masterpiece. My main criticism would be about the unbelievable simplicity of the confrontation: to put it in a few words, how come all British characters in the movie are cruel roaring idiots and all Irish characters able arguers ? Surely Mister Loach history cannot be that simple. I would also say that the movie itself is rather slow-paced (which is not always negative) and some scenes are so obviously didactic that it sounds like once more K. Loach is trying to teach someone a lesson. The starving child scene is a very good example. On the positive side, as mentioned, I will retain the excellent acting by most, if not all the actors, and the superb scenery that are used and not abused. One question now: I thought men and women could not sit together at mass at the time, especially 80+ years ago, am I wrong ?

Sad film of the 1920s Irish fight for independence; riveting

[inkblot11 · 9/10 · 22 July 2023]

In 1920s Ireland, many citizens have had their fill of British rule. In truth, the English soldiers who occupy the land are bullies and worse. This tale focuses on two brothers. One, Teddy, is a member of the IRA and dedicated to acts of violence to drive the Brits out. The other, Damian - Cillian Murphy- is a doctor about to depart for London to work in a renowned hospital. However, things change. Damian witnesses the Brit soldiers killing a 17 year old boy for only giving his name in Irish, when asked for identification. Suddenly, Damian realizes he is more useful at home, joining his brother. There are many struggles ahead; arrests, betrayal, violence, savagery. For every step forward in sabotaging the British rule, there is a loss of comrades for a step back. There may even be a development which makes Teddy and Damian enemies. Will Ireland be free ? This film is sadder than sad but a fine retelling of what and why the Irish wanted Independence after 400 plus years. In truth, the British surely come off as despicable bullies, no question. Also, of course, some of the IRAs actions are awful as well but understandable. Murphy is excellent as the pacifist turned Freedom fighter while the rest of the cast, the sets, the script and the direction are terrific. No, it's not an easy watch, being violent at many points. But, anyone watching will learn a history lesson that everyone should know.

Ken Loach, anglophobe

[frankiehudson · 6/10 · 30 January 2007]

We all know that Ken Loach is left wing but this film is a bit over the top.

I normally admire Loach'es work - one of my favourite films is his Truffaut homage, Kes - yet Wind that Shakes the Barley is just a bit too anti-British. Okay, the Black and Tans must have been horrific, but what about the Republicans? It's just that we only see one side of the story in this film, just totally biased.

Black and Tans are shown pillaging the villages around Cork, wanton destruction and the like. It is just too one-sided, like a Tom and Jerry cartoon.

Otherwise, the filming is fantastic, full of lush, green countryside, just like in Devon. The acting is superb, too.

Worth watching, but not as good as Neil Jordan's Michael Collins. Too rural by half (not even any action in Cork city).

Historically accurate Visually stunning

[caidyc · 10/10 · 17 June 2006]

I saw this film at a private screening and found it difficult yet beautiful to watch. I have a personal history with the subject matter as I come from a family from both sides of the political divide in Ireland. A stigma that exists to this day but is reflected so profoundly with this film. Ken Loach's direction is crisp and perfect. The performances are, each and every one, incredibly believable and achingly visceral in the depiction of the conflicts of civil war. Cillian Murphy is wonderful and quite possibly the best Irish actor ever. Pádraic Delaney as his brother and enemy takes the role and makes it one of the best male performances I've seen. It is rare when a film allows you to understand both sides of a violent divide so clearly. The Wind that Shakes the Barley does this with blinding perfection. This film is a template for what film makers can achieve with a small budget, dedicated performers and a timeless topic.

Some who find this so provocative need to look further into their own loyalties to determine why the truth bothers them so much. Those who feel this to be Republican propaganda, ( and for you Americans I mean Irish Republican ), need, seriously, to investigate their own history. It doesn't surprise me that so many British people know nothing of their countries colonizing tactics in Ireland and elsewhere in the world. Six counties of Ireland still remain under British control. The sacrifices made 80 years ago still resonate today but the Republic of Ireland is now the third richest country in Europe. The question still debated is Was it Worth it? The question we ask is how's Scotland and Wales doing?

Good movie or history lesson ?

[peterj1414 · 6/10 · 26 March 2007]

As a movie I have spent far worse two hours, I kind of guessed the political slant it would take, being familiar with Ken Loach. Where as the British are portrayed as a cross between Gengis Kahn, Atiila The Hun and the Vikings, the Irish republicans are of course all reasonable and honourable men forced into a situation.

Its a bit ironic I watched this on the day Mr Paisley and Mr Adams have come to some 'arrangement'. The politics of Northern Ireland changed in no small way due to events in the US in 2001. It could no longer be acceptable for anyone in the US to fund a terrorist organisation.

Today it can be viewed as a reasonable is somewhat one sided version of Irish history. Had this been made pre 2001, the it would have been a dangerous piece of film making. I could just imagine the misguided Americans with their romantic view of Ireland being sucked in. Fortunately the politics of today has changed that, hopefully for good.

Was it worth it?

[wdonovan-3 · 10/10 · 20 July 2006]

"The Wind that Shakes the Barley" is a fantastic film, and extremely apt given the current socio-economic climate in Ireland. We seem to be losing part of our heritage everyday, once again slave to foreign influences (both sides of the water) and willing to lose sight of our past to embrace the future. I left the cinema in Navan, Co Meath, wondering to myself "are we really as free as we think we are?". We have the highest debt ratio per capita of any country in the EU, a cost of living that is spiraling ridiculously out of control and criminals that make the Manson family look like the Partridge family. So what did we fight for in the rising of 1916, the War of Independence and the Civil War? To be more like the British? The day of real patriotism is gone, it has been replaced by cash hungry capitalists willing to sell out in the name of progress. Back to the film! This was probably the first "war film" that I have seen that did not over step the mark in terms of taking sides. It was extremely objective and a credit to Ken Loach for the accuracy of his research and the depiction of the times. I would liken it, in some ways, to Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" as it was really devoid of any sustained periods of levity and stayed constantly true to its theme, unconcerned by commercial considerations. A masterpiece of film making and a credit to the superb cast, particularly Murphy and Cunningham. Film of the Decade so far

Beautifully made

[Spaceygirl · 7/10 · 9 July 2007]

A lovely albeit tragic story told in the best possible way, "The Wind that shakes the Barley" is a an excellent historical film. Cillian Murphy excels in his portrayal as a man caught up in events well beyond his control. As anyone with a love of Irish music knows, the title "The Wind that shakes the Barley" is a song about a rebel who sacrifices his love for his cause, and that's exactly what Damian (Cillian Murphy) does. At the outset,he's apathetic to the cause wanting more to go to Medical School than to get involved in fighting that he sees as pointless. As events unfold he becomes more involved and indeed, becomes one of the ringleaders and is ultimately doomed by his unstinting support and involvement. Cillian Murphy is one of those actors you can't help but watch, bringing an intensity to the role. The supporting cast matches him admirably and the story pulls you in. The British are unsympathetically shown, which is a pity, seeing as most of the soldiers sent to Ireland were merely boys and were only there to follow orders. Many of them fell in love with Ireland and the Irish and more than one baby were born of British soldiers during the occupation.

The truth hurts

[andyhunt100 · 5/10 · 19 June 2006]

Saw it at private screening too.

Editorial from a Cork newspaper sums it up well:

This wind shakes more than barley

In Ireland we are in rare position internationally when it comes to our media. Most of what we read, listen to and watch is usually interpreted in two perspectives, through our own media and through that of our near neighbours across the Irish Sea. There are other instances of large and small neighbours with a common language (Germany and Austria; USA and Canada; Australia and New Zealand), but nowhere is the penetration of the larger nation's media into the neighbouring market as pronounced as it is in Ireland. Viewership of UK TV stations and readership of UK owned newspapers in Ireland is at a level that makes them as significant to our view of the world as our own media. This breeds a familiarity with our neighbours that can make us Irish assume the British know as much about us as we do about them. Nothing could be further from the truth however as has been graphically illustrated by the reception given in Britain to Ken Loach's Palme d'or winning movie The Wind that Shakes the Barley. There is no question that this film makes the British forces look bad, but of course the reality as all Irish people know is that they were. In the UK normally reasonable and intelligent reviewers and commentators cannot cope with this depiction of occupying British forces as violent repressors of a largely defenceless native population. It has been described as unbalanced and portraying the valiant British soldiers in an unfair and unflattering light. The truth is that the vast majority of British citizens couldn't tell you where Galway is and why should they? They're ignorance of their own colonial past so close to home and denial of it shouldn't surprise us; it is not something to be proud of. This is not to attack Britain, but to remind Irish readers of UK newspapers and viewers of UK television that Britain is indeed a foreign country. They view the world through an entirely different perspective than us, and in truth our views are inconsequential to them. That's why Loach's film, which tells essential truths, will not get a general release in the UK. Despite the fact that Anglo-Irish relations are probably better now than they have ever been the truth about Britain's history in Ireland is something that they just aren't ready for, and probably never will be.

See the film or watch the DVD - do not miss this unique opportunity.

[danielmcfadden · 10/10 · 13 July 2006]

An admirer of Ken Loach's unique style of film making, I say this is the best I've seen. His direction and techniques are now so finely tuned they sit almost subliminally behind a brutal but superlative story set in 1920s Ireland. I say 'almost' because I came out knowing I've never seen a film like this ever before, thanks to Loach.

Approach it as if you are about to watch a play. Listen intently to the dialogue complete with Cork accents depicting beautiful people forced into situations where they cross lines they cannot return over. Share in their juxtaposition of feelings of remorse with acts of war/self-preservation. In the horror of it all you might wish to be able to suspend disbelief in the fictional sense, but that'll be replaced with the overwhelming sense of truth and a not-so-long-ago reality. The individuals could be you or I at anytime and we take solace in the fact that perhaps we are among the lucky ones to have escaped this. Make space then to contemplate if, as a nation, we still effect this turmoil on others today. Remain with the story though. You feel as if you are there, smelling the turf in the air, privileged to be on the doorstep of the thatched residence that witnessed so many tragedies.

The character portrayals are mesmerising as Loach maximises body language; hesitancy, fear, stuttering and small moments of humour in his realistic approach. You already know each character before s/he speaks. But when they do speak, you are in the room with them agreeing or disagreeing - ready to pitch in if the moment were to present itself. As each personal struggle is revealed you again feel fortunate to have witnessed it. Simultaneously you feel relieved to be able to pull out and watch from a distance when more horror action scenes unfold.

This is true drama seeking no false gratification akin to other current films. Unstinting in its portrayal of the Brutish (not a spelling mistake) it is nevertheless universally significant and local at the same time. The photography is exquisite capturing timeless Ireland. The sound plays the noises of the times so well the viewers could imagine the scenes with their eyes closed.

As a Scot I am dismayed at the general poor response/reviews of the British press and I'm reminded that the British psyche has to learn to come to terms with its recent past. I wish that today we could transcend that and promote this film to ordinary people as an important film to see at some point in their lives. In future, any young adult asking me about the 'Irish problem' - I'll simply lend them my own personal DVD of this film and say "watch this!" It'll make it all the more easier for all of us to see the past and to avoid repeating it.

Must See!

[kirst_dramaqueen · 10/10 · 23 July 2006]

OK so there's movies that you cry at...Bambi's mum dying, step mom, titanic etc but there is never going to be another movie that hits home like this. I cried so many times because it was so real. It is based on fact and contrary to the critics I don't believe there is any over exaggeration of the conditions and abuse that went on during this time. Not one member of the cast doesn't put everything into this piece and I have never seen such outstanding performances and truthful acting. Most blockbuster movies have actors trying to look pretty and interested...trying...but this has actors portraying people the way they were not the way that looks best! It is fantastic!!! It is also very educational but those looking for your traditional blockbuster movies turn away, this is for drama lovers, history lovers and those with a passion for true art!

Ken Loach Just Isn't Very Good

[YohjiArmstrong · 29 April 2011]

THE WIND THAT SHAKES THE BARELY is about two brothers who fight the British in the Irish War of Independence and then each other over the Anglo-Irish Treaty.

The interesting thing about Ken Loach's career is that he just isn't a very good film-maker (as this film proves). His success lies in holding the 'correct' views of the Left-wing arts establishment and expressing those views on screen. It comes as no surprise therefore that this film is wholly one-sided, to the point of becoming propaganda.

So, unsurprisingly, the Brits are all thugs whose only ability to interact with the Irish is to shoot them, beat them, torture them or shout and swear at them. Loach has been accused of Anglophobia and sadly this seems accurate. All the Brits, and Anglo-Irish, have English accents and are brutal oppressors or exploiters. Whilst the only British character to be portrayed in a sympathetic light is Scots-Irish (and a traitor). None of the British have any depth to their character; they are mere cardboard cut-outs whose actions exist entirely to justify those of the plucky Irish rebels.

The Irish meanwhile are lovable types with charming cottages and folk music. It is only when the Treaty is signed that any degree of complexity is shown as the brother's Flying Column splits in opposition to or in support of it. Loach's only sign of dissent with the heroic, romantic tradition of Irish historiography about the wars is to suggest that they were not nationalist but social (the main character is a Marxist).

A quick note must be made of the dreadful audio in this film. The Irish characters all mutter whilst the British all shout. Combined with poor audio quality this makes many conversations extremely difficult to hear. The acting is quite clearly a mixture of professional and amateur but is effective enough, with the exception of those actors portraying the Brits, who constantly over-act. In fairness to them, I imagine this is what Ken Loach wanted of them. The camera-work is competent but Loach clearly finds it difficult to deal with more than a handful of people of screen. His larger scenes are often confused or poor. He also suffers from the repetitious nature of the screenplay which forces him to repeat very similar scenes.

This is precisely the sort of one-sided war film that would be shouted down in the Left-wing press if the heroes were Brits or Yanks. The nearest comparison are the jingoistic and simplistic war films that John Wayne starred in during the 1950's- only they were better made.

Good film, bad politics

[peoniblaur · 7/10 · 14 August 2006]

It's a good film in the Left-wing realist tradition with a nod to Costa-Gavras (and even Brecht). The politics are simplistic, didactic republican socialist. (Someone should explain to Mr. Loach that socialism is the opposite of capitalism--it works in theory but not in practice.) The film should beef up Sinn Fein's vote in the next Irish election, which is about the worst thing that can be said about it. I don't think any Irish director would have made such a black-and-white film: it takes an outsider to have such a stereotyped vision.

As far as I recall you never saw any sky--the camera was always pointing at the ground. Given the director's politics, I doubt if this was an attempt to show how inward-looking and insular Irish republican politics actually are. One can concede that the explicit Fianna Failism of the film counteracts the tendentious Fine Gaelism of Neal Jordan's *Michael Collins.* But whatever ideals Fianna Fail once had have largely disappeared with power and establishment--which will no doubt also be the case with Sinn Fein, if it ever displaces them as the dominant nationalist party. The truest line in the film is probably the one where the British landlord describes Ireland as a priest-ridden backwater, which indeed it was to remain for many years.

I'm no friend of British imperialism (my grandfather fought against them in Dublin in 1916) but I can see how the Brits might have been a bit peeved at a perceived stab in the back, and them stuck in the mud in Flanders fighting for the freedom of small nations, or something like that.

Also the leading actor doesn't have an Irish facial expression and consequently doesn't look Irish. The accents are very good, although maybe a few sub-titles might have been in order.

Good film, bad politics.

A wonderful film

[shayflanagan · 10/10 · 14 July 2006]

An excellent film that outlines that tragic period of Irish history. Anyone wanting to understand the modern day troubles in Ireland MUST see this film to get a better understanding of things. I Thoroughly enjoyed this film and there was hardly a dry eye in the house by the end. It shows how easily communities, indeed families, were torn apart by divisions over the best way forward to achieve Irish freedom and how desperate people were. This is a film that should have been made years ago and should be viewed with an open mind by those who are not from a nationalist background. These events did occur and the time for denial is now % !

A first class film.

Charts the story of British Black and Tan occupation and the chaos that follows.

[joegallaher99 · 7/10 · 30 July 2006]

A mainstream cinema film on the Irish conflict has been a rarity up until now and with good reason. I can't help but feel that this film, had it been released ten or even five years ago, would have either compounded people's anger or been used for political capital. Now, with the troubles dwindling to an end, with the IRA more or less finished and with the issue well out of the general news, the coast was more or less clear to release a film about Ireland in the early twenties. That said, the fact that only thirty cinemas wished to show it in the UK due to its political content, conveys the fact that many still perceive the situation as tentative. This is the wrong stance to take in my opinion. Films such as these show that the Brits and the Irish consider these days to be history and that they are not afraid to talk about what went on. Being overly sensitive as to what people might feel hampers a long and complicated recovery process.

The film opens with a display of the brutal Black and Tan occupation. Even if you're a die hard nationalistic Brit, you can't help but feel for the Irish men and women and what they went through. A game of Gaelic football is regarded as a public meeting and therefore expressly prohibited by the Black and Tans. When one takes place they therefore respond by getting some of the players against a wall and ordering them to strip. When one 17 year-old refuses, he is bayoneted in a chicken coop. It is this disregard for human life that gets one to naturally side with the Irish during this part of the film and it led to a few English men and women next to me in the cinema joining in during the several Irish folk song interludes.

The film is not entirely sympathetic with the Irish however. A British soldier, played by the same guy as the monk in the third series of the Peep Show, says to an Irish prisoner that he was only sent by his government and then proceeds to describe the pain of the First World War in a fit of anger. It was refreshing to see that the script writers realised that not everything was black and white back then, or I suppose you could say, black and tan.

The film also displays a fascinating perspective on Winston Churchill. The man who we admire as our ultimate war hero, and the man whom we voted our greatest Briton, was in fact behind the sending in of the Black and Tans, in my opinion, one of our nation's darkest hours.

The Irish put up a very hard fought resistance to the Black and Tans and eventually force them out. The civil strife that follows however is frighteningly vivid. The changing of attitudes is depicted very well and movingly by brothers Teddy (Padraic Delaney) and Damien (Cillian Murphy). Both these actors put in excellent performances.

Overall, it is a very good film. A must see for anyone interested in the period or in the conflict in general, but one should perhaps be warned that the violence can at times be intense. My father's father was a young boy in Ireland when the Black and Tans came in and for my father, the film sometimes got a bit too much.

Go and see this film

[danmorris100 · 10/10 · 15 June 2006]

Another powerful movie from Ken Loach and a well deserved winner of the Palm D'or at Cannes. Some magical performances not only from the stars, but from the whole cast. I would urge you to find this film and go and see it. You will be educated, moved and it will leave you wanting to understand more.

From the start you feel as if you are in the 1920's and this feeling stays with you throughout. Obviously with a lower budget than most of the summers blockbusters, the film still manages to contain amazing action sequences and just has a wonderful atmosphere throughout.

Truly fantastic!

A film, not a history

[Philby-3 · 7/10 · 1 October 2006]

"Ireland is the old sow that eats her farrow" wrote James Joyce. Well, a lot of us Irish piglets have managed to escape the maternal jaws and prosper abroad. A film like this, on the Irish war of independence (1919-21) and the even bloodier civil war which followed it (1922-23), is thus both remote and yet oddly personal. Ken Loach's take on these battles, forgotten in Britain but well remembered in Ireland, is not even-handed, but he is a movie maker, and a very good one, not an historian.

The central character played convincingly by Cillian Murphy is Damien, rather improbably a medical graduate from a village near Cork, who is about to go off to work in a leading London Hospital. He is persuaded to stay and joint the local IRA column commanded by his brother Teddy after witnessing a couple of petty atrocities committed by the British forces, the Black and Tans. The IRA steal weapons from Army depots, ambush British columns, shoot informers, and bring down on the general population reprisals which have a ferocity which far outweighs the IRA's mayhem. The population, having had enough, vote in favour of a peace treaty, which excludes Northern Ireland from the new Irish State, but the hard men of the IRA, some of them socialists as well as Nationalists, go on fighting, this time against some of their own former comrades, in Daniel's case against his own brother.

Ken Loach tells his story simply and vividly, with not a surplus scene, though he allows some of his characters lengthy and didactic speeches. He goes for authenticity in the lighting, which means greens and browns dominate almost every scene. (We could have done with some sub-titles – the soft Cork accents are difficult even for another Irishman to hear.) His characters, though, tend to be types rather than people, Damien the idealist, Teddy the pragmatist – they are not rounded out characters but vehicles for the argument. What Loach does get across (though I am not sure he intended to) is the inevitability of the tragedy of the civil war.

The pro-treaty party won the civil war, but nearly a century later the dispute remains alive. Ironically, the South is now ridiculously prosperous while the North still languishes economically. Ironically also, parts of the anti-treaty party (Fianna Fail) under Eamon de Valera survived to become a dominant force in Southern Irish politics. Loach's account of the 1920-22 period is both a clear statement of the issues and an evocation of how it must have felt to have been involved. We Piglets can feel what our grandparents must have felt when the IRA and the Black and Tans came by.

An Englishman's view

[royd-7 · 8/10 · 27 August 2006]

For the past thirty years I have had a love affair with Ireland and over this time it has never failed to surprise, delight and humble me. This last weekend, much to my surprise, a small town cinema in deepest Hampshire, chose to screen 'The Wind that Shakes the Barley'. I am not sure of its motives for doing so but it brought to this small Saturday evening English audience a stark reminder about the brutality of its colonial past and its recent mistreatment of one of its nearest neighbours. For me the beauty of this film is in its honest portrayal of the momentous events that took place as seen through the eyes of a small Irish community. What is not lost is the knowledge that these same actions, tensions and emotions are taking place in every other community throughout Ireland at this time and it is this common purpose that in the end provides the momentum that forces change. The film does not shy away from the level of brutality that is required to force this change through. For me the uncompromising use of dialect reinforces the small community aspect and constantly acts as a reminder to us English that the Irish were, and still are, culturally different from us and are proud of it. So, if you want to see for yourself then look up your local sleepy cinema and you may be as surprised as I was.

For me the film had an added dimension in that the same catalogue of events are still being played out on the world stage today wherever you have dominance by a colonial power over its neighbour. The same resistance builds against suppression and the common purpose creates the conditions for change. Once the realisation is understood that change is achievable the common purpose takes second place to the aspirations of various factions and the momentum falters while it turns in on itself and the bitter struggle for dominance is played out. This struggle may end in civil war, partition or both. Meanwhile, the colonial power endeavours to try to influence the outcome. Such are the dynamics of the human condition.

Shaken but not entirely stirred.

[s_jackson-1 · 7/10 · 30 March 2008]

All in all, I thought this was quite good but NOT the best I've seen from Loach. Somehow I felt it a bit insubstantial in terms of plot and hard to really feel for the characters.

What I really appreciated was the historical context Loach provided about a time most of us in Britain know little about. (Why isn't the winding down of the British Empire part of the school syllabus? Least, it wasn't when I did history.) This included the treatment of not just anti-British feeling, but how and why the Irish became divided among themselves, thus giving rise to the continued fight of the IRA, with all its repercussions on the rest of the 20th century, and still today.

Of course, the Brits in this are portrayed as wholly Bad Guys, which is used to make a point. I think, though, that's what I missed - a more nuanced treatment of the people involved. Ultimately, in fact, I felt this detracted from really feeling for the relationships of Sinead (Orla Fitzgerald) and Damien (Cillien Murphy), and of Teddy (Padraic Delaney) with Damien, both of which are pivotal to the closing stages.

Confusing and repetitive with poor characterisation - full of stereotypes

[rpw57 · 3/10 · 12 January 2007]

I went to see the film on the basis of the awards that it had won, and curious to learn more about this phase of Irish history. The cinematography was excellent. The background music was good. Otherwise, this was a very poor film: basically an exploitation movie harping on stereotypes. Endless repetitive scenes of violence. I couldn't follow the story except in the broadest outline, so I left the cinema knowing no more than when I went in. The characters were cardboard cutout stereotypes of romantic revolutionaries and their long-suffering womenfolk. The Brits were caricatured as the worst stereotype of the Black 'n Tans. While I am believe some of the Brits were ghastly, I cannot believe they all uniformly were so. In summary, I neither learned anything much about the real personalities involved nor the history. Very disappointing.