The Wind That Shakes the Barley
Last year I went on an Irish kick, absorbing some drama, literature and film from that island. In particular, I revisited a film called Michael Collins, which dealt with Irish history following the Easter rebellion of 1916 through the independence movement and civil war of the early twenties. It was right about then that the new Ken Loach film, The Wind That Shakes the Barley, was in film festivals and in April it had a brief period of release in New York City, but didn't get out to the suburbs. Now it's on DVD and I caught it last night.This film tells much the same story as Michael Collins, only from a different point of view. While the earlier film dealt with the leaders of the resistance, Barley is the story of those on the ground, common men and women who have had enough of being brutalized by the British. In particular, they are aghast at the thuggish tactics of the "black and tans," British soldiers who terrorize the countryside, assaulting and murdering the citizens and burning their homes. A young doctor, played by Cillian Murphy, is about to head to London to teach at a hospital, but he finally has enough, and joins up with his brother and a ragtag group of resistance fighters.
A lot of drama has been mined out of this period, including the plays of Sean O'Casey and many other films. Much like the American Civil War, this period of Irish history is especially heartbreaking, because it turned brother against brother, friend against friend. When a young farmhand is forced by the British into giving up the name and location of the leader of the resistance, the group makes the difficult choice of executing him for treason. Murphy, a man who has studied to heal people, finds himself in the role of executioner, and hopes that the end result is worth it. When the Irish parliament ratifies a treaty with the British that requires the Irish to still swear allegiance to the British, the group flies even further asunder. Murphy maintains that that is not what he was fighting for, while his brother thinks that the treaty is necessary to prevent more bloodshed. This disagreement leads to tragedy.
This is the first Ken Loach film I've seen. I know that he is well regarded among cineastes for his looks at the lower and middle classes, and the highly improvisational nature of his films. This film is tightly plotted, but still is quite effective at capturing the moods and attitudes of what it's like to be oppressed by another country for 700 years and finally having enough. At times the political arguing is a bit dry, though probably necessary, even though it's a bit of a history lesson. This film, coupled with Michael Collins, would give a person about everything they need to know about this sorrowful time.
Glad you finally got to see it and that you dug it. One of the best films I saw last year.
ReplyDeleteI think its "dryness", as you call it, is what makes the film as wrenching as it is. That cold, objective, unflinching camera just sitting still during the killings has a much greater impact on the viewer than the dozens of men shot in the typical 'run and gun'-style action films of today.
But I disagree with you that the film "coupled with Michael Collins, would give a person about everything they need to know about this sorrowful time." Knowing a few Irishmen none of them found Jordan's film a nearly accurate enough depiction or assessment of the events that transpired. And how much is "enough" knowledge about the conflict? The conflict is far too infected and has gone on for far too long for just any two films to make sense of it.
What I meant by dryness was that we get several conversations about why the treaty is a bad or good idea. At some points I felt like I was watching a city council meeting. The best was just when Murphy tells his brother that he's wrapped himself in the fucking Union Jack, the butcher's apron. That said it well enough. As for Michael Collins, I'm not an Irishman and know just enough about the topic to be dangerous, so I'll take your word for it that that film had inaccuracies. What I meant to say is that we see the subject from two different views--the leadership and the proletariat. Of course, I don't think there's a movie that expresses the British point of view.
ReplyDeleteWow, if we ever got to see the British side. As likely as seeing a comedy about Auschwitz from the guards' point of view (okay, maybe that's a bit extreme, but likelihood is about the same).
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm just taking the Irish guy's word for it. But you can check out the Wikipedia site for it for more info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Collins_%28film%29
Their main criticism was in the depiction of several characters, their deaths, the historical timeline being off, and how it didn't take into account many of the things that had come before, things that were far more important than, say, Julia Roberts' character. To be honest, I don't remember most of what he said because Irish is fucking hard to understand, especially after a few beers.
And maybe you're right about the many political speeches in the film. But I thought most of them added to at least my understanding of the conflict's many sides.
Yeah, I hope you got the sarcasm in my line about "the British side." It would probably go over as well as a remake of Birth of a Nation.
ReplyDeleteYeah, but the mind just boggles at what it would look like. It's a cool thought.
ReplyDelete