How realistic is The Wind That Shakes the Barley?

brummytom

PK2008 wrote: »

My great uncle was in the South Dublin Brigade (actually from Wicklow but for some reason alot of Wicklow guys were put in the South Dublin Brigade)

How strange, same here... my great uncle (from the Dublin mountains) was in the South Dublin Brigade

Anyway the stories that came down through my family were that the Tans were atrocious but by the time Independance was coming it was all about sectarianism, on both sides.

Yeah I've heard a lot of horrible stories - my granny and her family grew up in Cork in the 1920s, and it was a horrible, horrible time.

The film is a good depiction of events that happened but to explain Irish history and give all sides a fair say in 2 hours is impossible.

To be fair, I think it's phenomenal just how well it does explain it, and try to give both sides in such a short time.

One nitpicking thing though; I'm sure I've read the vast majority of Tans were actually Scottish, but all of those speaking in the film are English (all Londoners, I think)

PK2008

brummytom wrote: »

How strange, same here... my great uncle (from the Dublin mountains) was in the South Dublin Brigade

Hey, maybe they knew each other? I think it was one of the bigger brigades though.


Maybe they're one of these lads here: http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=18492

I was told there was a book written about it which had my great uncles picture in it (he wasnt famous or anything- he just happened to have his pic taken when he was in the IRA), but my family never really spoke about it, especially becaus eof what was happening in the North, they only ever said that the PIRA were nothing like the old IRA and were nothing but a disgrace.

Dave!

Dunno, but it's a pretty good film IMO !

My favourite line (at 6.00m):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wztAxwUjYjk

"It's not too late Damien"
"For me or for you?"

brummytom

PK2008 wrote: »

Hey, maybe they knew each other? I think it was one of the bigger brigades though.


Maybe they're one of these lads here: http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=18492

He's been dead a good few years now, so I wouldn't have any idea what he looked like (he's not talked about too much, to be honest).. but who knows, maybe they did :eek:

I was told there was a book written about it which had my great uncles picture in it (he wasnt famous or anything- he just happened to have his pic taken when he was in the IRA), but my family never really spoke about it, especially becaus eof what was happening in the North, they only ever said that the PIRA were nothing like the old IRA and were nothing but a disgrace.

Yeah it was the same here - he was in the old IRA but I think he left in the late 40s/50s.

I tried to google him just, but I don't even know what name he'd be under! He's sometimes called Patrick, Pat, Paddy, Padraig, Patsy.. and knowing my family, probably another completely different name :pac:

Gingy

Have to say that I really like this film, but it encounters the same rubbish that is associated with anything to do with Irish history. I remember seeing it in the cinema and there were radio people outside interviewing people about the mis-representation of the British and how the Irish were romanticised. The Irish were hardly angels, but were provoked into action by his majesties troops. These days, you're easily branded as a RA-head if you dare say a bad word about Britain, but as I said I think Ken Laoch and Paul Laverty made a top quality film here, that is quite accurate on the actual events.

Sisko

Gingy wrote: »

These days, you're easily branded as a RA-head if you dare say a bad word about Britain, but as I said I think Ken Laoch and Paul Laverty made a top quality film here, that is quite accurate on the actual events.

Indeed, mention anything about how you know... its wrong to steal other peoples countries or its good that we managed to finally get most of it back after so long and all of a sudden your called anti british and so forth.



People want to dissociate themselves so much from the scangers in Celtic tops that write IRA on walls that they'll almost go as far as acting like it was a good thing that the british empire raped this country for so many years.

They associate being sympathetic about what happened to this country and its people in history to being sympathetic to the modern IRA and the **** that goes on in the North.

So people will scowl at anyone discussing Irish history with a rolley eyes 'oh your one of those 700 years people'.

Orizio

BTW, if Ken Loach has decided to depict the Irish in a overly romanticized manner, and then do the opposite with the British soldiers, then that is his prerogative as director. One can validly criticize this as inaccurate or cheap or manipulative, but you can't dismiss the entire film on this sole point (as many have done).

Very simply, although one may disagree with Loach's political views or the 'point' of the film, this is just one point to take into account, along with the writing, the acting, the direction, the editing, the setting etc (all of which are very good imo).

The Aussie

brummytom wrote: »

(the depiction of the Black and Tans is, by all accounts, unfortunately very accurate).

Dont know about the movie as ive never seen it, not sure if i want to either.
But is it true that the Black and tans were basically soldiers that were damaged from the effects from serving on the Somme and the like, i think the term for WW1 was "Shell Shocked" and they did not want to release these damaged goods back onto the street of the Uk.
Disclaimer: I did hear this in a pub so took it with the appropriate dose of salt.

Elenxor

My Grandad uses to shout up the stairs some mornings..."Rise and shine you ruddy 'Sin Finers' in a fake cockney accent..I know for a fact he never travelled outside his own little parish in Nth Cork.
I wish I knew where he heard it. It's too late to ask now.

Sisko

The Aussie wrote: »

Dont know about the movie as ive never seen it, not sure if i want to either.
But is it true that the Black and tans were basically soldiers that were damaged from the effects from serving on the Somme and the like, i think the term for WW1 was "Shell Shocked" and they did not want to release these damaged goods back onto the street of the Uk.
Disclaimer: I did hear this in a pub so took it with the appropriate dose of salt.

Not every single 1 of them was under shell shock but yeah, & btw you really should watch it.

The Aussie

yeh i should, but i have to wait for it to come on tv, has it even been on tv yet???

Kotek Besar

The Aussie wrote: »

yeh i should, but i have to wait for it to come on tv, has it even been on tv yet???

It was on last night on TV3 at 9pm. Not sure if it's available on their catch-up service.

Kotek Besar

Orizio wrote: »

BTW, if Ken Loach has decided to depict the Irish in a overly romanticized manner, and then do the opposite with the British soldiers, then that is his prerogative as director.

That's fine. What concerns me is that the film is shown to third years students in history classes in Irish schools.

I personally find this disturbing, considering it has fictional characters, a fictional plot (albeit based on a real situation). It is hardly well-balanced, unbiased and entirely factual material and, for that reason, I am astonished that it can be shown in Irish schools as part of a history lesson.

Dublin_Gunner

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

And here come the 700 YEARSSSS brigade.

^^Complete fail.

Its probably sort of accurate, but dramatised for the big screen.

Makes me want to shoot people each time I've seen it though, so it should probably be banned or something.

Gingy

Kotek Besar wrote: »

That's fine. What concerns me is that the film is shown to third years students in history classes in Irish schools.

I personally find this disturbing, considering it has fictional characters, a fictional plot (albeit based on a real situation). It is hardly well-balanced, unbiased and entirely factual material and, for that reason, I am astonished that it can be shown in Irish schools as part of a history lesson.

This is the anti-Irish historical sentiment that annoys me. This film would give secondary school pupils (over the age of 15) a decent background into the cultural context of the time, without making them want to go out and kill English people. On that logic, should all historical films be banned from schools, because they are not 100% historically accurate?

Kotek Besar

Gingy wrote: »

This is the anti-Irish historical sentiment that annoys me.

It's not an anti-Irish sentiment at all. Just pro-truth.

Gingy wrote: »

This film would give secondary school pupils (over the age of 15) a decent background into the cultural context of the time, without making them want to go out and kill English people. On that logic, should all historical films be banned from schools, because they are not 100% historically accurate?

Yes. If it's not accurate, it shouldn't be taught.

Jako8

"We'll sleep in the chicken coop!"

The loved that line when I saw it a while back. The way the old lady says it is hilarious.

gbee

Watched some of it last night and remembered why I did not like it in the first place.

It's really amateurish, sorry to say and there is a jumble of stories mixed in there. The main ambush scene was the Kilmichael Ambush but Tom Barry's accountof it is very different.

Gingy

Kotek Besar wrote: »

It's not an anti-Irish sentiment at all. Just pro-truth. Yes. If it's not accurate, it shouldn't be taught.

No one is passing this off as a true account, but as I have already said, it would give students a decent context to the events in a more interactive and interesting way than reading about them in a book.

Kotek Besar

Gingy wrote: »

No one is passing this off as a true account, but as I have already said, it would give students a decent context to the events in a more interactive and interesting way than reading about them in a book.

Interactive and interesting as it may be, I still feel that if it is unbalanced in its bias, it should not be part of the classroom.

Orizio

Kotek Besar wrote: »

That's fine. What concerns me is that the film is shown to third years students in history classes in Irish schools.

I personally find this disturbing, considering it has fictional characters, a fictional plot (albeit based on a real situation). It is hardly well-balanced, unbiased and entirely factual material and, for that reason, I am astonished that it can be shown in Irish schools as part of a history lesson.

Completely depends on how its taught. With respect, you seem to have a rather basic, if not idealized concept of history - firstly, it's impossible to create something completely 'accurate' due to people's subjectivity (a point that hardly needs to be made), so any historic or political film will suffer from the accusation of bias or prejudice. With this in mind, the accusation of it not being accurate isn't enough to stop it's showing in secondary schools, as its the inaccuracies that make it a particular useful historical document.

In reality, the inaccuracies, the bias, the prejudices within the film and from Loach are all important historical documents to be analyzed in the same way as objective events or facts. A good teacher will understand this, and push the direction of post-film discussion towards every facet of the film, including the bias contained within, understanding their historical worth.

geeky

Kotek Besar wrote: »

I personally find this disturbing, considering it has fictional characters, a fictional plot (albeit based on a real situation). It is hardly well-balanced, unbiased and entirely factual material and, for that reason, I am astonished that it can be shown in Irish schools as part of a history lesson.

Just my tuppence-worth on this as a history grad who specialised in 20th Century Ireland.*

Even though it's a fictional story, The Wind That Shakes The Barley is as good as any film based on the War of Independence and the Civil War for showing to second-level students - certainly in terms of giving an impression of what went on. Yes, it emphasizes the brutality of the black-and-tans/auxileries, though there's ample evidence that atrocities took place - hardly unexpected given the fact that these were WWI vets unleashed on a civilian population. But it also goes into the grassroots-level compromises that revolutionary leaders often made to succeed very effectively.

The 'brother against brother' storyline of the civil war is a stretch, but far less so than the Civil War storyline in Michael Collins. At least the civil war division in The Wind that Shakes the Barley focuses on the issues that actually divided politicians and ordinary people at the time of the treaty.

Of course, if a teacher is showing this, they should be emphasizing that stuff like this went on during the period, not that this actually happened. Personally, I think Loach's film is a really useful educational tool.

*declaration of interest: I'm a socialist (like Loach) and not a nationalist.

sock puppet

Kotek Besar wrote: »

That's fine. What concerns me is that the film is shown to third years students in history classes in Irish schools.

I personally find this disturbing, considering it has fictional characters, a fictional plot (albeit based on a real situation). It is hardly well-balanced, unbiased and entirely factual material and, for that reason, I am astonished that it can be shown in Irish schools as part of a history lesson.

We watched Gladiator and A Knight's Tale in our JC history class. Teacher's usually just show the students films they think they'll enjoy. It's only ever done if the class is ahead in the course. Beats revision imo.

seanybiker

Never watched it, mainly because I couldnt be arsed. This pulling off the nails part sounds cool so I may download it to see that part.

Kotek Besar

Orizio & geeky,

Thank you.

Orizio wrote: »

In reality, the inaccuracies, the bias, the prejudices within the film and from Loach are all important historical documents to be analyzed in the same way as objective events or facts. A good teacher will understand this, and push the direction of post-film discussion towards every facet of the film, including the bias contained within, understanding their historical worth.

geeky wrote: »

Of course, if a teacher is showing this, they should be emphasizing that stuff like this went on during the period, not that this actually happened. Personally, I think Loach's film is a really useful educational tool.

I tend to agree with you, perhaps I was hasty in saying, "if it is unbalanced in its bias, it should not be part of the classroom". If the teacher has enough about them to explain to the students what you have both explained, and in the same way, there may be some benefit in using the film as an educational tool.

However, there is then a reliance on the "cop-on" of the teacher - how is that regulated? Perhaps that's another issue entirely.

brummytom

The Aussie wrote: »

Dont know about the movie as ive never seen it, not sure if i want to either.
But is it true that the Black and tans were basically soldiers that were damaged from the effects from serving on the Somme and the like, i think the term for WW1 was "Shell Shocked" and they did not want to release these damaged goods back onto the street of the Uk.
Disclaimer: I did hear this in a pub so took it with the appropriate dose of salt.

That's true, to some extent. They did reference this in the film actually. At one point a Tan says to Damien something like "these men were at the Somme, they saw their friends die". It's not trying to defend their actions, but give us some kind of glimpse into their mindset

geeky

Kotek Besar wrote: »

I tend to agree with you, perhaps I was hasty in saying, "if it is unbalanced in its bias, it should not be part of the classroom". If the teacher has enough about them to explain to the students what you have both explained, and in the same way, there may be some benefit in using the film as an educational tool.

However, there is then a reliance on the "cop-on" of the teacher - how is that regulated? Perhaps that's another issue entirely.

You're right - its usefulness entirely depends on a teacher who's actually trying to use it as a tool rather than thinking 'ah sure, I'll stick this on for a quiet life'. I may be biased because I had a very good history teacher in secondary school, but I'd like to think that anyone who did a degree involving history would have the sense to talk about Loach's film as a secondary document with all the complexities that entails. Guess it boils down to that classic equation: good teachers = good education; rubbish teachers = rubbish education.

gbee

brummytom wrote: »

That's true, to some extent.

The Tans were largely unemployed ex trench warfare vets. Largely undisciplined and supposedly aligned with the RIC but acted independently with impunity.

Thanks to their stupidity they attacked Killbarry [North Cork City] on the night they should have been the decisive force in the last mass engagement in Kilmurry with Gen Tom Barry, who managed to escape as a result.

geeky

brummytom wrote: »

That's true, to some extent. They did reference this in the film actually. At one point a Tan says to Damien something like "these men were at the Somme, they saw their friends die". It's not trying to defend their actions, but give us some kind of glimpse into their mindset

Thanks for this - I was trying to recall the quote.

Loach could have done more establishing this, but hell, a filmmaker never has all the screen-time he wants to work with. And TWTSTB is a demanding film already without adding another 20 minutes and another new angle to the tale.

OutlawPete

What the Black and Tans did on Bloody Sunday was disgusting.

There were many stories of them executing people, but this time it was in a public place and so there was no denying this one.

Jordan's depiction I wouldn't say is 100% accurate but none the less it's the only dramatization of the event that I know of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOiQRkK1tyg

Dionysus

Orizio wrote: »

Completely depends on how its taught. With respect, you seem to have a rather basic, if not idealized concept of history - firstly, it's impossible to create something completely 'accurate' due to people's subjectivity (a point that hardly needs to be made), so any historic or political film will suffer from the accusation of bias or prejudice. With this in mind, the accusation of it not being accurate isn't enough to stop it's showing in secondary schools, as its the inaccuracies that make it a particular useful historical document.

In reality, the inaccuracies, the bias, the prejudices within the film and from Loach are all important historical documents to be analyzed in the same way as objective events or facts. A good teacher will understand this, and push the direction of post-film discussion towards every facet of the film, including the bias contained within, understanding their historical worth.

Spot the history teacher! Well said.

Stinicker

It is a perfect portrayal of how things were but actually things were far worse. The Black and Tans along with Cromwell were the worst thing to ever set foot in Ireland. The pity was the Civil War and that there was not Unity and invade the North and ethnically cleanse the Protestants there. The British were and still are the worst sort of b*stards you could come across :mad::mad:

People should remember after this film the North of Ireland is to this day still under British rule and until this ends we will never have achieved our freedom.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

walrusgumble

sock puppet wrote: »

As far as I'm aware the civil war was fought over the failure to achieve a republic. The whole capitalists/socialists thing seems like a load of crap. The Labour Party were hardly committed republicans.

really? many different people were involved in the period of 1916-1923. how sure are you - sean o'casey an example, where's your source?. Labour party and trade unions at least did not get in their way, nor did they denounce them unlike other offical irish institutes. what about the train companies, groceries etc that boycotted the british forces? Never mind the fact that the Trade Union movement of 1913 did more to raise the reasons why Irelan would be better off without Britain and be allowed to rule themselves, what were the big and small farmers doing when people were starving in the slums?

what was irish republicanism really. many would have frowned and humed at haw at the 1916 proclamation's socialist bits and connolly may not have had it easy if he was alive and running for the dail

K-9

walrusgumble wrote: »

really? many different people were involved in the period of 1916-1923. how sure are you - sean o'casey an example, where's your source?. Labour party and trade unions at least did not get in their way, nor did they denounce them unlike other offical irish institutes. what about the train companies, groceries etc that boycotted the british forces? Never mind the fact that the Trade Union movement of 1913 did more to raise the reasons why Irelan would be better off without Britain and be allowed to rule themselves, what were the big and small farmers doing when people were starving in the slums?

IIRC correctly, the Labour Party may actually have abstained from one of the elections around then, may well have been the Treaty election.

TheZohanS

Stinicker wrote: »

It is a perfect portrayal of how things were but actually things were far worse. The Black and Tans along with Cromwell were the worst thing to ever set foot in Ireland. The pity was the Civil War and that there was not Unity and invade the North and ethnically cleanse the Protestants there. The British were and still are the worst sort of b*stards you could come across :mad::mad:

People should remember after this film the North of Ireland is to this day still under British rule and until this ends we will never have achieved our freedom.

Banned.

walrusgumble

gbee wrote: »

Watched some of it last night and remembered why I did not like it in the first place.

It's really amateurish, sorry to say and there is a jumble of stories mixed in there. The main ambush scene was the Kilmichael Ambush but Tom Barry's accountof it is very different.

in what way exactly? if loach put in the false surrender bit with the 3 deaths, which as ye know peter harte and media ryan have being fighting over, then there would be war with the british and revionists. what would it achieve. they could not film it in the actual area because, i think, the road was widened 20 years ago. o'suillvan chap wore a british uniform, but i think barry wore an irish uniform, also they left out the fella in the horse and cart. but still it got some stuff sorted.

K-9

Sorry, it was 1918 and 1921 that Labour abstained.

PeterIanStaker

Its only a film. People get uppity because its Irish.

Agricola

Cant comment on the film cos im still LMFAO at Stinicker's post!

The Aussie

Agricola wrote: »

Cant comment on the film cos im still LMFAO at Stinicker's post!

yeh it was comedy gold alright, The Zohan is having a busy shift tonight, must be a full moon

conor.hogan.2

for a film - and not a book etc

quite accurate.

K-9

Agricola wrote: »

Cant comment on the film cos im still LMFAO at Stinicker's post!

Unfortunately, while hilarious, people actually believe this stuff.

I found the film incredibly sad and confirmation that Irish history and Republicanism in particular just repeats the same mistakes it always makes, as shown by Stinicker's post.

The gun isn't the answer anymore, you'd think we'd have copped that over the last 40 years, with new generations.

goose2005

OutlawPete wrote: »

Jordan's depiction I wouldn't say is 100% accurate

It's scarcely 1% accurate. If the Tans had rode into Croke Park on tigers and shot laserbeams from their eyes it wouldn't be much less accurate.

OutlawPete

goose2005 wrote: »

It's scarcely 1% accurate.

I was referring specifically to the depictions of Bloody Sunday.

The shot two of the players, one of them died and they indiscriminately opened fire on the crowd killing another 12 and injuring well over another sixty.

They even shot the man whispering an act of contrition into the dying players ear.

The scene I posted was far from just 1% accurate.

geeky

goose2005 wrote: »

It's scarcely 1% accurate. If the Tans had rode into Croke Park on tigers and shot laserbeams from their eyes it wouldn't be much less accurate.

:eek:
That would RULE.

*goes off to write a new script*

Amhran Nua

bonerm wrote: »

More realistic that Michael Collins (1995) anyway.

You'd enjoy the better (definitive in my opinion) version from 1991, The Treaty, with Brendan Gleeson as Collins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDQ6qR9Ow7E

Glenster

Confab wrote: »

What about Cromwell's lot?

Actually Cromwell is very misrepresented in Irish history, but let's not ruin a good UK-bashing thread with facts!

facepalm


opinionfail

Paparazzo

goose2005 wrote: »

It's scarcely 1% accurate. If the Tans had rode into Croke Park on tigers and shot laserbeams from their eyes it wouldn't be much less accurate.

I know a historian in the army who was involved in the film, he specifically asked for his name to be removed from the credits of that film because it was so inaccurate

aDeener

K-9 wrote: »

Unfortunately, while hilarious, people actually believe this stuff.

I found the film incredibly sad and confirmation that Irish history and Republicanism in particular just repeats the same mistakes it always makes, as shown by Stinicker's post.

The gun isn't the answer anymore, you'd think we'd have copped that over the last 40 years, with new generations.

whilst the ethnically cleansing part of his post was truly awful, i cant see much of a problem with the rest of what he said. im giving him the benefit of the doubt with the british are awful line which got him banned, assuming he meant the british army.