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.
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.