PDA

View Full Version : The Wind That Shakes The Barley



Pages : [1] 2

lopez
31/05/2006, 1:20 PM
Ken Loach's film about the War of Independence won the Cannes Palm d'or on Sunday. Already it's been attracting excellent reviews in the British press. The Scum's asked: 'Is this the most pro-IRA film ever?' while well known Orange Order groupie, Ruth Traitor Edwards, wonders why Ken Loach 'loaths his country so much?', a question I must add I'd like to ask Orange Ruth if I ever get the opportunity.

Dassa
31/05/2006, 1:50 PM
Been pretty heavily criticised not for its political content but for just being quite a poor film especially in USA.

as_i_say
31/05/2006, 2:10 PM
what does the loath ones country comment mean in respect of the film- which presumably nobody here has seen?

WeAreRovers
31/05/2006, 2:41 PM
a question I must add I'd like to ask Orange Ruth if I ever get the opportunity.

Nice one. Dudley-Edwards is the very epitome of self-loathing.

KOH

lopez
31/05/2006, 2:53 PM
Apparently, again quoting from The Scum, it's pedestrian and historically inaccurate. Not like Hollywood to use 'artistic licence' in biopics or historical films. :rolleyes: Anyway, the burning of houses, killing of innocent civilians and general sadistic behaviour of the Black and Tans and the Auxiliaries is hardly 'historically inaccurate.'

Loach has made some excellent films in the past, my favourite being 'Land and Freedom', despite being a basic rip-off of Orwell's Homage To Catalonia: Lad joins the Marxist POUM, lad gets injured firing a dodgy rifle, lad eventually returns to find the POUM run (or should that be ruined) by Uncle Joe's agents. Orange Ruth made the observation that this film was as much an attack on Stalin as it was on fascism without letting us know if this was a compliment or a criticism of Loach.

If he's made a pile of cr*p this time, fair enough. It sounds to me though, as with Michael Collins, that any film that doesn't demonise the war of independence is little more than a rattling can for the provos to the usual suspects. Anyway I was going to watch the film regardless as my wife's step dad worked on it (He also worked on 'A Song For a Raggy Boy' which if you remember wasn't too complementary about Industrial schools or the RC church). The fact that it's managed to p*ss off so much of the British right and their lackeys in the 26C makes it a 'must see' for me.:D

what does the loath ones country comment mean in respect of the film- which presumably nobody here has seen?Orange Ruth's argument in yesterday's Daily Moan was that Loach making a film that doesn't portray the British Empire in the glorious light that it truly deserves suggests he 'loaths his country.'

Block G Raptor
31/05/2006, 3:10 PM
From What ive Heard about it it parrallels britains occupation of Iraq and shows the devaluation of the lives off the occupied peoples in the eyes of the occupation forces

Strabane_Harp
31/05/2006, 3:35 PM
Been pretty heavily criticised not for its political content but for just being quite a poor film especially in USA.



Dunno wat reviews youve been readin, but its been gettin excellent ones everywhere but the british tabloids

Mad Moose
31/05/2006, 3:50 PM
From What ive Heard about it it parrallels britains occupation of Iraq and shows the devaluation of the lives off the occupied peoples in the eyes of the occupation forces

Heard the same as the basis for its release at this time. And that very much parallels.

B

Dassa
31/05/2006, 4:16 PM
Dunno wat reviews youve been readin, but its been gettin excellent ones everywhere but the british tabloids

Read in either Sun or Mirror that some Americans at Cannes had stated that the film was poor. Not good enough for award.

tetsujin1979
31/05/2006, 4:22 PM
Read in either Sun or Mirror that some Americans at Cannes had stated that the film was poor. Not good enough for award.
It got a unanimous decision from the jury, were there any Americans on it?

Dassa
31/05/2006, 4:25 PM
i dont think they were judges, just whatever the paper said Ill look see if I can find it.

cheifo
31/05/2006, 5:11 PM
Did Ken Loach make secret and lies? Good film.The wind that shakes the barley apparantly also shows the horror of the civil war so RDE"s criticism seems inaccurate.Calling her a traitor is something she would wallow in-a letter to the Sindo pointing out how obsurd her hypocrisy is would be good.

Strabane_Harp
31/05/2006, 6:58 PM
Samuel L Jackson was a judge

i wouldnt be surprised at some americans feeling uncomfortable watching it, might remind them of Iraq and how they are the new british empire, as if the world wanted another

Hither green
01/06/2006, 10:20 AM
Dunno wat reviews youve been readin, but its been gettin excellent ones everywhere but the british tabloids

In fairness I've read/seen a few iffy reviews too. The Beeb's review was mixed, as were a couple of reviews I saw on tv. They didn't say it wasn't a good film, just that there were better films, more worthy of the award.

Still looking forward to it though. Can't work out why it's not being released until end of the month, as it's finished and not an American film.

Jerry The Saint
01/06/2006, 11:01 AM
Cannes likes to make itself look edgy and the juries tend to go for films with political and/or "controversial" messages like Elephant or, most obviously, Fahrenheit 9/11.

In that way, it's surprising that this was Loach's first win. He was certainly overdue which may well have had a big impact on the decision.

Here's the jury in full

Kar Wai Wong (Hong Kong) (president); Monica Bellucci (Italy); Helena Bonham Carter (UK); Lucrecia Martel (Argentina); Ziyi Zhang (China); Samuel L. Jackson (USA); Patrice Leconte (France); Tim Roth (UK); Elia Suleiman (Palestinia);

dancinpants
01/06/2006, 4:19 PM
From bbc.co.uk


British director Ken Loach's The Wind That Shakes The Barley has won the Palme d'Or - the top prize at the Cannes film festival.
The film, about Ireland's struggle for independence, beat 19 others to the prestigious prize.

Hong Kong director Wong Kar Wai, who led the jury, said his panel had looked for films which reflected "compassion, hope, bonding and solidarity".

Other jurors included actors Tim Roth, Samuel L Jackson and Monica Belluci.

Wong said the jury's decision had been a unanimous one.

British actress Helena Bonham Carter, who was also on the jury, said Loach's film "hit us all profoundly".

"It was one of five films about war and it was a fantastic education about the Irish problem," she added.

"There was a tremendous humanity. I can't explain our mass reaction but we were all profoundly moved."

'Wonderful festival'

Loach, 69, has said the film, which describes the early days of the IRA in the 1920s from an Irish perspective, is also a critique of the US-led invasion of Iraq.

"Maybe if we tell the truth about the past, maybe we tell the truth about the present," he said as he accepted the award.

"Our film is a little, a very little step in the British confronting their imperialist history," he said.

28 Days Later star Cillian Murphy leads the cast, which also includes Padraic Delaney, Liam Cunningham and Orla Fitzgerald.

Loach has been nominated for the Palme d'Or on seven previous occasions, but this is the first time he has won the main prize. He won the jury prize in 1990 for Hidden Agenda, about a British army shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland. His is the first UK film to win the Palme d'Or since Mike Leigh's Secrets and Lies in 1996...

Aberdonian Stu
02/06/2006, 11:28 AM
Secrets and Lies was directed by Mike Leigh, not Loach.

Loach's past work includes Ae Fond Kiss, Sweet Sixteen, Bread and Roses and Land and Freedom.

Check out his IMDB profile (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0516360/)

lopez
04/06/2006, 4:30 PM
One question I was thinking of asking was what the 'Irish' equivalents of these rags wrote about the film. The answer came in today's SIndo which said that the Oirish Scum gave the Cannes win a favourable double page spread with a headline that the film gave its rivals a good 'tanning' (geddit?). However the Sunday Blueshirt, while quoting the Mail correspondent who asked why Loach 'loathed' Britain, it neglected to name the journalist's name(it did name the Scum reporter, Neil McAdam). Hopefully that was a mistake and nothing to do with the fact that Ruth just happens to be a regular contributor of vitriol in the Blueshirt to all things mildly nationalistic.

geysir
04/06/2006, 6:16 PM
Been pretty heavily criticised not for its political content but for just being quite a poor film especially in USA.
explained as

Read in either Sun or Mirror that some Americans at Cannes had stated that the film was poor. Not good enough for award.

That's a rather thin base from which to describe it as " pretty heavily criticised".

I have heard nothing but good reviews from film critics both American and British who have seen the film. Even a grudgingly good one from the Telegraph critic at Cannes.
Film critics usually don't like the medium of a film used for broadcasting a political debate or message. As in the argument about collectives in "Land and Freedom" or the speech offering insight into British intelligence in "Hidden Agenda". The others who are uncomfortable about the political overtones usually will focus on "well it condones the use of violence" or "it's not historically accurate".
I heard Loach in an Rte interview say that he would not have known what side to take in the Civil War as both sides had valid arguments. He put the responsibility of the war on the terms of the treaty, not near enough for one extreme and just about enough for the other. I'm looking forward to seeing it.

CollegeTillIDie
05/06/2006, 7:48 AM
Aberdonian Stu

You forgot his classic movie "Kes"

Aberdonian Stu
05/06/2006, 1:53 PM
No I didn't. It's a turd.

cheifo
07/06/2006, 6:27 PM
if this film is being shown in only a minority of Uk cinema then its ludicrous because its made with their lottery money.

WeAreRovers
07/06/2006, 7:13 PM
Great piece in yesterday's Guardian by George Monbiot in which he rubbishes the film's critics - none of whom had even bothered to watch it, letting their blinkered prejudices do the work instead.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1791176,00.html

KOH

cheifo
28/06/2006, 9:46 PM
Saw this today.Good if not brillant but def worth seeing.

paul_oshea
29/06/2006, 10:21 AM
saw it last night, my two housemates are actually in it. the guy who played finbar and another lesser part played by another lad.

Quality, very powerful and hard-hitting. tough to watch at times. What i really found very good about this movie, was the script, when you thought one character was coming out with a very strong/profound point, he would be outdone by a better point by the next character. i think this was best summed up when the donovan brothers were in jail and on different sides and cillian murphy ( younger o'donovan ) says:
"and let me tell you something, I killed cian (? ) reilly"

for those who havent seen it, that line will make sense when you do ;)

Macy
29/06/2006, 11:03 AM
If that's a spoiler, you're a knob who should be banned.

If it's not, then ignore me.

paul_oshea
29/06/2006, 11:39 AM
no its not, not at all.

and i notice the second line in your post isnt half as strong as your first i.e. "..ignore me, cos im a little **** stirrer" that may balance out the two ;) :roll:

and dont worry i always ignore you ;)

cheifo
29/06/2006, 1:17 PM
Tough Scene invovling young O reilly.Cillian Murphy was excellant but I had just seen Breakfast On Pluto the night before and had to adapt mentally:eek:

$Leon$
30/06/2006, 10:16 PM
Thought the film was very powerful and definitely stirred up emotions. The openin scene is very powerful and sets the scene well. Great performances from Cillian Murphy. Liam Cunningham,yer one that plays sinead and the fella who plays cillian's brother.
I have never actually been in a cinema and heard so many people laugh at such as serious film. People weren't laughing at the story but rather at some of the terrible performances of some of the supporting cast. The scene that really sums it up is the "i'm goin to sleep in the chicken coup scene". I understand the characters logic and reasoning put the acting was terrible.
A few times during the film I thought some of the extras were going to wave to the camera as they ran by.
The dublin character in the film reminded me alot of Gareth Keenan from the office especially towards the end of the film.

paul_oshea
03/07/2006, 10:29 AM
"i'm goin to sleep in the chicken coup scene".

she isnt an actress. thats probably why you spotted that. hwoever i actually thought she was quite good.

Beavis
03/07/2006, 11:02 AM
"i'm goin to sleep in the chicken coup scene"
It was gas, she had the biggest country oul wan head on her. The definition of an old country biddy.:D
I thought it was good, well acted and real but maybe the story was a little thin and it progresses quite slowly.4 stars seems to be the general newspaper verdict and I'd go along with that.

Jerry The Saint
03/07/2006, 11:12 AM
she isnt an actress. thats probably why you spotted that. hwoever i actually thought she was quite good.

Loach does a lot of that, going for a more "naturalistic" approach I suppose. I usually find it more distracting than anything else.

Dodge
03/07/2006, 12:02 PM
if this film is being shown in only a minority of Uk cinema then its ludicrous because its made with their lottery money.
A lot of lottery funded films don't even get to a cinema, so that won't be an issue

Eoingull
04/07/2006, 12:13 AM
I thought there was great emotion in the "chicken coop" scene. I'd imagine most people with a rural background would know of such folk who aren't the most emotionally articulate...hence I thought it was well acted. Viewers were probably laughing at this scene as it made them feel uncomfortable.

adamcarr
04/07/2006, 1:11 AM
Tough Scene invovling young O reilly.Cillian Murphy was excellant but I had just seen Breakfast On Pluto the night before and had to adapt mentally:eek:

Im good buddies with the lad who played Chris O'Reilly, he got 10 grand and was only in it for about 25 minutes!

I thought the movie was decent but way too bias, some of the acting was attrocious aswell though!

paul_oshea
04/07/2006, 11:01 AM
who aren't the most emotionally articulate...hence I thought it was well acted.

nail on head, this is exactly what i thought, because the woman was just matter of fact abotu the whole thing, like a good aul stern and stubborn irish woman.

how did he get that much, he was barely in the flim!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the lads i know didnt get a great deal more than that!!LOL, to think that he wasnt even an actor as well!!!

Risteard
04/07/2006, 12:44 PM
Not that the funny scenes were the most memorable but i thought the moneylenders trial was very funny.

$Leon$
05/07/2006, 8:43 PM
I'd imagine most people with a rural background would know of such folk who aren't the most emotionally articulate...hence I thought it was well acted. Viewers were probably laughing at this scene as it made them feel uncomfortable.

Firstly I don't think you need to be from a rural background to regognise "folk who aren't the most emotionally articulate" as you put it. Take a trip into Dublin or any city centre any day of the week and you'll find these people. Every village may have an idoit but urban areas have just as many or possibly even more per capita. The difference is everyone knows everyone in rural areas where people in towns and citys may not even knows their neighbours.
I do understand the type of "never say die" emotion that Loach was trying to portray here but I just found the scene commical. The woman didn't wanted to be driven out of her home by $cumbags in uniforms, I understand that but i do think a more accomplished actress could have played the scene alot better.
As for the actor playing Joe O'Reilly getting €10,000 for his part I find this difficult to believe. If my memory serves me correctly he appeared in 3 scenes. One with the squad, second with the General and landlord and third where he gets shot. I'd guess between 1 and 2 weeks work in total?? At that sort of money we should all do a bit of acting on the side.

paul_oshea
06/07/2006, 10:15 AM
As for the actor playing Joe O'Reilly getting €10,000 for his part I find this difficult to believe.

No, Leon its true, the boys at home confirmed it for me, when acting in a loach film, nearly everyone is there for about the same lenght of time, as there is no real lead part as such and no one knows until the film is created just how many scenes everyone is in. on about 2,000 a week for 5 - 6 weeks. its standard payment.

ken foree
06/07/2006, 1:57 PM
irish reviewer on aintitcoolnews liked the film and lauded the director's hiring of cork non-actors for the minor roles but had a huge problem with what he called the 2 dimensional portrayal of the black and tans. BAD GUYS with no depth, too over the top and caricaturish.

Gather round
06/07/2006, 7:13 PM
I thought it was a decent film.

The Tans and Auxis probably deserve the slightly caricatured treatment. Historically, they're generally acknowledged to have been unnecessarily brutal. Brit critics who haven't even seen it should quit whining.

Thing is, almost every point of view and relationship came across a bit superficially. The film was broad and shallow, trying to fit in two detailed stories because each needed the other to fully explain it.

I liked the comic linking scenes as the new regime tried to establish itself.

The old lady (Sinead's granny) may not be a prof actor but she, and the others deserve their €10,000. Terror can often be banal and their slightly hamming it may have showed that better than blowing the entire budget on Meryl Streep or whoever.

7/10

dahamsta
09/07/2006, 11:09 PM
Just out of it, thought it was very good. The dodgy dialogue got annoying after a while, but I wouldn't be inclined to put a lot of blame on the actors shoulders for that. Much of it probably was bad acting - the scene at the end was a dead giveaway, Delaney hadn't a clue what he was doing with the bike - and you're bound to get that with a low-budget film, but I'd bet Loach told them to drive on for an air of authenticity.

Real people don't plough through speeches from start to finish like they do in the movies, without hesitating or stuttering or losing their train of thought; particularly not the regular folk being portrayed in this film. But whether it was style-driven or budget-driven, I hope other directors will take note. The picture-perfect and word-perfect claptrap that's thrown at us in a huge majority of the flicks coming from hollywood is just plain annoying.

BTW, in my opinion the ould biddy came across more authentic than many other characters in the film. I wouldn't be surprised if those that were laughing had never met a Cork woman over 40 in their lives! If they do, they'd be wise to keep their mouths shut if they don't want the head eaten off them! :D

What made me laugh was hearing someone shout "there he is now la". The very idea of hearing someone say "la" in a mainstream film is just the berries like. ;)

adam

BohsPartisan
11/07/2006, 11:07 AM
Thought it was excellent. Very similar to Land and Freedom though. Overplayed the Socialist involvement in the Anti-Treaty side I felt, though there was some (I'm a socialist myself before anyone says anything).

sligobhoy67
11/07/2006, 7:13 PM
I thought there was great emotion in the "chicken coop" scene. I'd imagine most people with a rural background would know of such folk who aren't the most emotionally articulate...hence I thought it was well acted. Viewers were probably laughing at this scene as it made them feel uncomfortable.
I agree 100% - reminded me of my grandmother - I laugh also but only as a "fair play to her, shes not going to be driven out be anyone" sort of way


Just out of it, thought it was very good. The dodgy dialogue got annoying after a while, but I wouldn't be inclined to put a lot of blame on the actors shoulders for that. Much of it probably was bad acting - the scene at the end was a dead giveaway, Delaney hadn't a clue what he was doing with the bike - and you're bound to get that with a low-budget film, but I'd bet Loach told them to drive on for an air of authenticity.

Real people don't plough through speeches from start to finish like they do in the movies, without hesitating or stuttering or losing their train of thought; particularly not the regular folk being portrayed in this film. But whether it was style-driven or budget-driven, I hope other directors will take note. The picture-perfect and word-perfect claptrap that's thrown at us in a huge majority of the flicks coming from hollywood is just plain annoying.

BTW, in my opinion the ould biddy came across more authentic than many other characters in the film. I wouldn't be surprised if those that were laughing had never met a Cork woman over 40 in their lives! If they do, they'd be wise to keep their mouths shut if they don't want the head eaten off them! :D

What made me laugh was hearing someone shout "there he is now la". The very idea of hearing someone say "la" in a mainstream film is just the berries like. ;)

adam
Agree 100% - I reckon that they let them plough on.

The only thing I didnt like about the film was that he probably tried to fit too much into one film and therefore it came across as staged and that much of the issues were covered for covering thems sake.

The scene in the room where they were discussing the treaty was so staged and ever view on the treaty was covered in one room in the space of about three minutes.

Some very powerful scenes but there was too much material covered imo


Thought it was excellent. Very similar to Land and Freedom though. Overplayed the Socialist involvement in the Anti-Treaty side I felt, though there was some (I'm a socialist myself before anyone says anything).
Yeah, socialist factor was hammed up quite a bit but then again thats Loach, the guy wakes up to a glass of freshly squeezed commie juice every morning.

P.S. someone said Kes was a crap film - jesus - the young fella had a Kestrel - what more do you want!?!

Dodge
11/07/2006, 7:32 PM
P.S. someone said Kes was a crap film - jesus - the young fella had a Kestrel - what more do you want!?!
The football scene to be better

dahamsta
11/07/2006, 11:04 PM
he probably tried to fit too much into one filmIt was a half-hour too long, the standard 90mins would have been just right. King Kong was guilty of the same type of overreaching.

adam

BohsPartisan
12/07/2006, 8:32 AM
Yeah Kes was great too.
A film about The Limerick Soviet would be great. Its a little known event in Irish history and a story worth telling.

http://www.limericksoviet.com

I'm not saying the Socialist element was "Hammed" up, there were Socialists in the republican movement back then, very influenced by connolly etc. I suppose he only focussed on two of these but seeing as they were main charachters it overplayed their influence. The leadership of the anti-treaty side in reality was very far from being socialist.

dahamsta
12/07/2006, 10:20 AM
I don't want to download a load of .doc's on spec, any chance of a summary of this Limerick Soviet thing?

adam

joeSoap
12/07/2006, 10:36 AM
The Limerick Soviet happened in 1919, and was better known in local terms as the Limerick General Strike. It was a part of Irish history that was very important yet forgotten by many including the education system.

It was the first time, and possibly the only time, that organised Labour challenged Sinn Féin and the IRA for leadership of the increasingly powerful movement for Irish independence from Britain. It identified that Independence would not just be a political thing, but that it would also have huge effects on the social aspect of life as well.

Theres a book called Forgotten Revolution by a chap called Cahill that explains it in far greater detail. Its a good read.

dahamsta
12/07/2006, 11:26 AM
Thanks joeSoap.