Hi, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab...
I like Loach’s work, and I’m especially interested in this one after some of the things I’ve heard about it since Cannes. Cillian Murphy’s at the top of his game right now, and this is potent subject matter. How potent? Well, why don’t we ask someone who actually lives in the area this film is about?
Heya AICN and readers,
The Wind that Shakes the Barley has opened in Irish cinemas, and I thought you might like the opinion of someone close to the subject matter. The film was made in my home county of Cork and deals with a very sensitive matter for Irish people - that of English oppression and the agonising road to Irish independence. On the other hand, its the Palm dOr winner, so its significance also extends to cinema lovers the world over.
So two questions need to be asked of it. Firstly, how does it fare when faced with its most natural critic, an Irish person? And secondly, is it a commendable winner of Cannes, and thus worth seeing by anyone without a vested interest in it?
The movie is set in 1920 Ireland, during which the violent struggle for Irish independence was at its peak. Republicans were becoming increasingly militant in their quest for freedom from British rule - spurred on by the wanton savagery of British-hired mercenaries, known as the Black and Tans. Basically, the Black and Tans would roam Ireland at will, and enforce their own law through horrific acts of violence. It was their job to quell Republican uprising and hunt down troublemakers. Their brutality is something British historians like to skirt over, but it left an indelible mark on the Irish consciousness.
In the midst of this setting, we are introduced to Damien (Cillian Murphy), who plans on leaving his troubled country for London, but is persuaded to stay after yet another of his friends is brutally murdered by the Black and Tans.
I dont want to get wrapped up in simply recounting the story - people can check out other reviews for more plot and setting details - so Ill jump straight to my strongest impressions of the experience.
Some aspects of this movie are brilliantly executed, but for every good thing Ken Loach does, he seems to mess up another. For example, the script and portrayal of Irish people in general is top notch, perhaps the best weve ever seen on the big screen. Its refreshing to hear genuine Cork accents throughout the movie - coming from the lips of real Cork actors, most of them untried - and not the godawful, top-o-tha-marning crap we usually see from international depictions of Ireland. The movie uses local stand-ins for many minor parts and this works brilliantly; they rarely sound stilted or forced and add a real sense of reality to proceedings. Theyve also been allowed (perhaps even encouraged) to fumble lines and mess up the odd delivery, but this only ever works well and makes you feel as though these are real people you are watching, thus theres an immediate sense of connection with them. This, I think, will apply to anyone who watches the movie, and not just Irish people. International audiences might find the odd bit of phrasing strange, but if you cant figure out what shut your hole means, then well dont watch Deadwood, thats for sure.
The depiction of the Irish countryside and lifestyle is also spot on. The town and cottage scenes arent hugely detailed, but they serve their purpose perfectly, while the clothing, etc, couldnt have been better. I went to the film with my parents, and both said that they found this aspect very moving it gets a big thumbs up on those aesthetic levels. In short, it does a great job of depicting Ireland and Irish people of the time. Anyone interested in period-piece voyeurism will enjoy that side of the movie.
BUT the film fucks up big time on its most crucial dramatic aspect. While its depiction of Irish people is highly competent, its portrayal of the British is, frankly, laughable. The Black and Tans did terrible, terrible things to many Irish people, and were undoubtedly brutal and unforgivably violent. However, if we are to believe this movie, they were all - bar one, lone dissenter - cartoonishly aggressive, malfunctioning robots of some kind, programmed to act like stereotypical arrogant Brits who can only speak through screams or malevolent whispers. Dramatically speaking, to get the audience emotionally involved with Damien, his reasons for becoming a violent man and the Irish people of this era, the Black and Tans needed to be done just right. They needed to be uncompromisingly vicious, yes, but they also needed to be real. And to make them real, they needed to be human. Unfortunately, aside from one poor attempt at showing a Black and Tan officer under pressure, they are instead consigned to the realm of pantomime. Because of this, even a scene that should be the most hard-hitting - showing a cottage being burned and the female love interest being half-scalped - falls flat.
In fact, this is indicative of the films biggest problem overall, both for Irish and international audiences - its pacing and identity. Some elements of the film have a nigh documentary feel, a tangible sense of realism and truth. Even the presence of a star in Cillian Murphy does nothing to detract from this. Other elements, however, such as the overly-theatrical Black and Tans and two dodgy death scenes, are just poorly-executed dramatic conflicts.
Essentially, the characters within the film are brilliantly consistent to the era and our history, but not really consistent to themselves. Damien and his brother, Teddy, spend the first three-quarters of the movie fighting alongside one another through thick and thin. Teddy is effectively the diehard leader of their pocket of resistance. Then, near the movies end, they find themselves on opposite sides, after Teddy accepts a British truce - one that even involves an oath of allegiance to the hated British monarchy. Historically speaking, some Republicans actually did this, but within the context of the film it just doesnt work.
As a result, by the time the tragic final scene plays out - where one brother holds the life of the other in his hands - I was genuinely confused as to how to interpret this film. Yes, it is has a lot going for it in terms of dialogue, genuine acting and a truthful (if politically biased) representation of a critical period in Irish history. It also gives a plausible insight into why ordinary men might get involved in acts of violence for their countrys freedom. On the other hand, Damiens love interest and his various personal conflicts are thinly spread and unnecessary, and theres a generic feeling to moments that are supposed to be dramatic cornerstones. They certainly dont intrude on the enjoyment of the film, but they do detract from the overall experience. In short, we could have had a brilliant period piece done in a low-key, subtle and thus far more effective manner - instead, the bogeymen of dodgy drama get in the way, if only slightly.
As an Irishman, I am proud of this movie. I am proud of the actors involved, and Im happy with the representation it gives of our past. Most especially, Im proud to be reminded of the real people behind this story - those who suffered to make our country independent.
But, due to this films uneven dramatic nature, Im not sure it does a good job of explaining why I should be proud. For that reason, international audiences - without prior emotional attachment to the themes - might interpret this as just another war movie when really, it should speak for so much more.
Yours,
Nanor Lavos
Well-argued, my friend, and thanks for taking the time.
"Moriarty" out.
