Irish filum wins Palme DOr

#2
Having listened to an interview with the director on the radio this morning I am still puzzled as to how he can draw comparisons between Ireland in the 1920s and Iraq today. Although given his track record of using his films to make political statements and the nature of those statements. why am I surprised?
 
#3
"This is a grand honour. Our film is a little step in the British confronting their imperialist history. Maybe if we tell the truth about the past we can tell the truth about the present."
God help Loach if he believes his piece of agit-prop is going to help the British confront their "imperialist history". From what I have heard of this film, and from what various reviewers have said, it seems that - as usual - Loach has come down on the side of those he perceives as being left-wing revolutionaries, which is hardly a term that is applicable to the IRA of the 1920s. While consistent, Loach displays an almost childishly naive attitude to the politics he centres his films around, portraying his inevitably left-wing characters as saintly, and their inevitably right-wing enemies as murderous fascists – Land and Freedom and Carla’s Song being obvious examples. Since English and then British involvement in Ireland predates the British Empire by several centuries, it is incorrect and confusing to claim that this film can in any way constitute "a little step in the British confronting their imperialist history." The well-sounding yet vacuous "Maybe if we tell the truth about the past we can tell the truth about the present." doubtless goes down well with the right-on luvvies at Cannes, whose knowledge of Irish history one could write on the back of a postage stamp, but it is meaningless either in terms of Irish history - where what he has produced will only serve to further confuse the issue - or the present international situation.
 
#4
gallowglass said:
"This is a grand honour. Our film is a little step in the British confronting their imperialist history. Maybe if we tell the truth about the past we can tell the truth about the present."
God help Loach if he believes his piece of agit-prop is going to help the British confront their "imperialist history". From what I have heard of this film, and from what various reviewers have said, it seems that - as usual - Loach has come down on the side of those he perceives as being left-wing revolutionaries, which is hardly a term that is applicable to the IRA of the 1920s. While consistent, Loach displays an almost childishly naive attitude to the politics he centres his films around, portraying his inevitably left-wing characters as saintly, and their inevitably right-wing enemies as murderous fascists – Land and Freedom and Carla’s Song being obvious examples. Since English and then British involvement in Ireland predates the British Empire by several centuries, it is incorrect and confusing to claim that this film can in any way constitute "a little step in the British confronting their imperialist history." The well-sounding yet vacuous "Maybe if we tell the truth about the past we can tell the truth about the present." doubtless goes down well with the right-on luvvies at Cannes, whose knowledge of Irish history one could write on the back of a postage stamp, but it is meaningless either in terms of Irish history - where what he has produced will only serve to further confuse the issue - or the present international situation.
Dear Gallowglass,

It stands to reason that Loach is going to praise his own filum and voice his own expectations. I've also read a few reviews and opinions on the filum. But that's all they were for me - reviews and opinions.
Only when I get the chance to see the filum will I really be able to say anything about it. It could very well be that my original statement "definitely a filum worth seeing" has to be supplemented by "if only to not make such a bollix of it".
The fact that I haven't yet had a chance to watch the filum myself is the main reason why I refrained from any further comments about it in my original post.

So have you had a chance to see it?

MsG
 
#5
Loach was previously a law student at Oxford.

He must be used to telling lies by now.
 
#6
Bugsy7 said:
It stands to reason that Loach is going to praise his own filum and voice his own expectations. I've also read a few reviews and opinions on the filum. But that's all they were for me - reviews and opinions.
Only when I get the chance to see the filum will I really be able to say anything about it. It could very well be that my original statement "definitely a filum worth seeing" has to be supplemented by "if only to not make such a bollix of it".
The fact that I haven't yet had a chance to watch the filum myself is the main reason why I refrained from any further comments about it in my original post.

So have you had a chance to see it?

MsG
Howdo Bugsy7,

Please do not think that I was challenging your assertion that The Wind that Shakes the Barley is worth seeing - I for one intend to do so. No, I have not seen it - that shower in Cannes failed yet again to forward my access-all-areas pass :x - but I based my comments on those clips of the film I have seen, and the numerous reviews that have been in print and television on the film; additionally, I would have to suspect the political inclinations of the Cannes jury, in light of their decision to award the Palme D'Or to Fahrenheit 9/11. I am familiar with Loach's previous films, and unless he has experienced a complete political about-face, this film will be in the same vein. I do, however, expect his film to be well made, as - if nothing else - Loach is a fine film maker, and I therefore find it annoying that he sees it so necessary to lay on the left-wing stuff so heavily, and in such an unbalanced manner.
 
#8
I saw a clip on RTE - the uniforms seemed wrong - the Black & tans had a mix of police and army kit - hence the name. It looks as if Loach has dressed them up deliberately to look like British Army. I wonder if he manages to tell the audience that they were not serving soldiers?
 
#9
TheSpecialOne said:
I saw a clip on RTE - the uniforms seemed wrong - the Black & tans had a mix of police and army kit - hence the name. It looks as if Loach has dressed them up deliberately to look like British Army. I wonder if he manages to tell the audience that they were not serving soldiers?
Glad to see that someone else spotted this, though at least the 'Black & Tans' in Loach's film don't look like those in the film Michael Collins - they would have been more suited to a Western, possibly The Wild Bunch. Apparently, Loach makes the concession towards the Tans that they were 'victims' of the economic and class barriers of post-1918 Britain - yaaaaaawwwwwwwwnnnnnnn..... It also appears that Loach implies that there is a seamless chronological and political transition between the IRA of the 1920s, and their later derivatives. That is incorrect, and also dangerous, as it is just the sort of justification and legitimacy that the present crop of IRAs desire.

Whilst the Tans - and to a lesser extent the Auxies - were a shower, I very much doubt if Loach has made any meaningful attempt to show outrages perpetrated by the IRA - such as the murder of unarmed RIC men, judges, veterans of the Great War; the pogrom against Protestants in certain areas of the country; the burning and looting of the Big Houses; the destruction of much of Ireland's historical records at the Four Courts, and the killing of their own people....hardly, as those sort of uncomfortable historical truths have a habit of going down like a lead balloon with the well-got, radical chic types who like to flirt (at a safe distance from the killings of course) with 'revolutionaries'. Such people are insulated from the consequences of their views.
 
#10
Bugsy, have you seen it? (Do the Brits bayonette many babies?)
I haven't and won't, having had the awful misfortune of being oppressed and depressed by one of his previous efforts. I agree that he has the eye of a fine director, but sadly the heart of a man twisted by hatred. Rather like you, in fact.
 
#11
It always dismays me when the British are portrayed as opressive, murderous tyrants and films about Rome always tend to hark back to some mythical age of civilisation, when in fact they made us look like saints!

(Sorry, random thought)
 
#12
You mean, the brits aren't dastardly baby bayoneters?

I joined the wrong damm army! Cant trust a word these bloody recuiting officers say.

They promise you good pay, convivial NCO's and plenty baby bayoneting, and whatcha get? Underpaid, screaming NCO's and no fecking babies!
 
#13
Whiskybreath said:
Bugsy, have you seen it? (Do the Brits bayonette many babies?)
I haven't and won't, having had the awful misfortune of being oppressed and depressed by one of his previous efforts. I agree that he has the eye of a fine director, but sadly the heart of a man twisted by hatred. Rather like you, in fact.
If you'd cared to read my last post, Whiskybreath, you'd know that I haven't seen it yet. That's why I said I'd reserve judgement on it until I have. But I am looking forward to it:D :D :D

I'd also disagree with your assessment of Ken Loach as a man twisted by hatred. I perceive a passionate and compassionate man, but hatred?

And what makes you say that I'm the same? Of course, you're entitled to your own opinion, but I beg to differ. I doubt very much if you'll be able to dig up much evidence of me being "twisted by hatred". I know I don't like Ahern, Phoney Tony, Bush the Bewildered, Moggie Dodger and all the rest of the crooks, and I've never made any bones about that. Does make me twisted in your eyes? Oh well.

MsG
 
#14
Vegetius said:
It will no doubt be dastardly Brits bayonetting cute babies.

Think I'll give it a miss.
Of course, that would be a lazy visual cliche - I think Loach is above that sort of nonsense, given that his films often portray aspects of humanity on both sides. Ok, there's a political message, but they're not quite as polemical as some would have you believe. I recommend you put your prejudices to one side and watch it, if only to check out the 'enemy' and get a bit of balance back.
 
#15
Funny its always about attacking the British Army as evil occupiers.
When most of the soldiers and all of the police were born Irish just
like native troops from every other country in the empire. But then
what do I know I'm just from the silent majority.
 
#16
frenchperson said:
Vegetius said:
It will no doubt be dastardly Brits bayonetting cute babies.

Think I'll give it a miss.
Of course, that would be a lazy visual cliche - I think Loach is above that sort of nonsense, given that his films often portray aspects of humanity on both sides. Ok, there's a political message, but they're not quite as polemical as some would have you believe. I recommend you put your prejudices to one side and watch it, if only to check out the 'enemy' and get a bit of balance back.
And I recommend you stop being so judgemental yourself. I personally count no Irishman or woman an "enemy" and have no real argument with non-violent Irish nationalists or republicans. In fact, I really rather like the place.

I base my view on nothing more than the dreary shite that Loach has previously directed.
 
#17
Just saw another clip about the film on RTE news - this time concentrating on the Kerry people who stood in as extras.

The sad thing is that a lot of young Irish poeple are going to see this film as historically accurate (just like U571, Pearl Harbour & Braveheart). I suspect there will be a bit of unnessessary Brit bashing because of this.......
 
#19
the were a amazing fighting force im irish and i think loach is trying to get rich of our as well as englands historys i would love some black & tans to come forward im time and kill him sorry but i wish they did

PS i know ive got a picture of michael collins as my avatar but he is a irish hero even if he did form the prick association known as the IRA
 
#20
Ummm check your history:

IRA was a collective term belatedly applied to the remnants of the Irish Volunteers (Originally a home rule movement and closely associated with that nice chap with the daft ideas about dual monarchies) the Irish Citizens army (Trade Union types-- despite what those lovely chaps putting up posters of Bobby Sands next to James Connolly would tell you) and the various other bits and pieces all connected together by the IRB.

That IRA ceased to exist with the formation of the National Army in 1921 as did any possible connection to Gen. Collins.

Simultaneously there was a new IRA formed by the Anti-Treatyites who decided on reflection to do away with this pesky democracy thing since no one would vote for them (revisionism having not yet been invented)
They were then crushed in the space of a year by the National Army (Itself guilty of a few "Hagueable" activities in the process.)

This Anty Treaty IRA then by and large became Fianna Fail, the party of Hyperbole and religiosity (their current religion being the worship of Mammon).

Not to be discouraged by the defection of their own leadership the remainders of the IRA continued various loony and nasty activities then trying to hook up with the Nazis.

DeValera looked after his own hide in this case by interning the lot of them for the duration of the second world war and arresting the various comically bumbling German agents who came to work with them.

Then they became socialists again (well arguably Nazis are socialists) and started proving it by knocking over post offices and sabotaging public works.

Then after some rioting in the 1960s they split from that boring old game, and the Provisional IRA were formed to provide the popular services of terror and trauma for another 40 years and counting.

Long story short, Collins can be blamed for any organisation styling itself the IRA to the same extent as I can be blamed for forming the RAF.

On the other hand, if the BA aren't bayonetting babies and gouging puppies eyes out anymore I see no point whatsoever in joining.
 

Similar threads

Top