The Wind That Shakes the Barley

The review of Ken Loach's Parm d'Or winning film. Very very long ... and please excuse for awkward phrases and sentences!

In the site Open Democracy Stephen Howe critically reviews this film. According to Howe, the goodies and baddies in this film are illustrated with quite simple and visible signs - the baddies are always wearing uniforms and shouting. In the middle of the movie the good side splits into two and half the erstwhile heroes become villains. However, "don't worry" he writes, the cues and signs for identifying the baddies remains - they put uniforms on and start shouting. In addition, only the good side includes women. Pointing this out he states clearly that the film "is not, then, what you might call a complex, politically or morally nuanced film."

Howe's points mostly make sense to me. The basic line of this film, somewhat naively, praises the narrative of Irish nationalism - which established its position as the national history of the independent Ireland more so after 1949.
I can not say definitely that the Loach's way of illustrating the internal trouble between the pro-treaty and the anti-treaty side vividly shows, as some says, the tragedy the imperial powers left after its evacuation. The civil war in this film can be interpreted as stressing the justice of anti-treaty side - as Howe says, the sign of baddies in pro-treaty side is quite visible.

In addition, Howe points out that the film does not illustrate the violence the republican side committed - actually they, the republicans, sometimes do killings but "only with great reluctance and for very good reasons". However, Howe argued, in history they killed a number of alledged spies and informants - "Vagrants, homeless men, supposed sexual deviants, and (perhaps most disturbingly) local Protestants made up a very high proportion of the victims". In my opinion, it is doubtful that the killing of local Protestants are "most disturbing" among those victims - there should not be any kind of hierarchy between Protestants (who are probably meant to have been "ordinary civilians", and vagrants, homeless men, and sexual minorities with their positions as victims, Nevertheless, the Howe's point makes sense that this film hides every point uneasy for Irish republicanism.

Furthermore, the film is also surely problematic regarding the representation of women. The Loach's attitudes of depicting women looks as if he gives a right answer as to "gender issues." Seemingly he tries to show that he is aware of that women, as well as men, have fought for the freedom. However, in my opinion the women's position in this film is nothing but reflecting the romanticisation of women. He depicts women as always standing at the correct side, but the reality is not like that - simply, women can be the oppressive side as well as the oppressed side in terms of imperial violence.

Actually it is almost surprising that Loach "correctly" illustrates, but not with critical eyes, the typical women's role in the tradition of Irish republican struggle. The film has some scenes in which the heroine Senead - a woman fights shoulder to shoulder beside the protagonist Damien - helps the local republican groups by bringing guns they use for ambush. Because women are not generally considered as combatants, in the republican tradition women have been frequently given a role of transporting guns and ammunitions - they are easier to evade the check of police and Army. As far as I know, this strategy has been frequently used in the recent Troubles in Northern Ireland. Did Loach eagerly learn about those republican strategy reading books? Or, I don't know well but - is this strategy well-known in Britain?

However, considering many problematic points this is still a powerful movie. I do not know exactly why I feel it difficult to criticise this film as just a naive historical romanticism, but surely I feel so.

Well, I found in some Japanese blogs saying this film is extraordinary moving. They are saying so possibly not knowing well about British and Irish history, and most of the international audience, especially those in Asia would not know about the controversy over Irish historical myth.
I am accidentally a bit familiar with the historical complexity of Anglo-Irish relationship but it would be a quite unordinary for the audience from Japan.

And I do not think those voice highly appreciating this film are insignificant and making no sense. If one must know detailed historical backgrounds a film or novel is laid on before saying anything about the work, it means we can say nothing about most of the works we read and watch. Of course a period film is itself a practice of making collective memory, and by so doing a political act; therefore it has to be responsible for all of its praise for the cause of a particular socio-political group.
However, it is not everything - and this says, I suppose, something about Loach's Palme d'Or winning.

The power of this film is possibly in his realism of illustrating Army's violence towards local civilians. It is not only brutalising "British" as often said, but it surely says something more - the brutal practice by which the relationship between the ruling and the ruled is reconfirmed, and by which the political subjectivity of people is squashed. One of the clear examples of this is the first scene of the movie - the scene of a boy who is killed because he did not tell his name in English but in Irish, and because he protested against the strip search. It is a quite shocking scene, and it is shocking because it illustrates the brutality and oppressiveness of the state power in warfare which would never allow the smallest attitude of defiance, in a way that any other type of technique would succeed. This brutality is a form of violence which has been, and is, observed for a number of time in many places in the world.

This scene also shows the symbolical meaning "native names" have, which possibly reminds, to some of those living in Japanese society, of the movement of Korean Japanese. In addition, it shows how strip search is used for the re-establishment of the power and authority of state officers. The search for rebellious individuals and groups is aimed itself to be an act of humiliation. The violence of this kind is - I suppose - symbolically, but intimately connected with the system of "uniform". At this point, I sympathise with Loach's hatred of "uniform" - what is wrong with making "uniform" a symbol of violence?

Historians' disillusionment with this movie is far from unreasonable, and Ken Loach's historical romanticism should be surely criticized, but isn't it important to take a bit distance from the controversy over historical accuracy and the representation of "Irish" and "British"? In any way, Loach provides various points for discussion through this film. It probably makes a creative argument to think which point of this film gave it a Parme d'Or, without easily attributing it only to French anti-Britishism.