Oracle Online

The film tells the tale of a motley group of Irish Rebels in 1920, and follows these young men as they try to drive the British away in a quest for Irish independence. Most war films would spend the next half-hour letting us inside these men, trying to find their quirks so that later, when they start dying off, we can connect with their plights and deaths, thus creating some sort of empathy. However, Wind simply runs straight into the conflict, shooting up everyone in sight, and therefore later, when the characters, including the primary rebel Damien (Cillian Murphy) start to question their roles in the Irish Conflict, the audience feels nothing.

Emotional resonance is just part of the problem with this film. The film centers around the conflicts over Ireland’s independence, and of course some back story into this conflict is necessary, and yet, the film goes from informative to civics lesson rather quickly. There is a nearly ten minute scene where the players, just given a watered-down independence, debate the merits of independence. I sat there, feeling as if I’d been channel-surfing and stumbled across Irish C-SPAN. I’m not necessarily opposed to using a film as a platform for social change, but there’s “issue film” and there’s “cinematic book report,” and Wind that Shakes the Barley crosses the line.

Finally, and possibly most severely, the film’s biases seem to overwhelm even viewers that could stomach the history and the emotionless characters: the lines between heroes and villains. Though the movie is told from the Irish point-of-view, it still shouldn’t portray the British as cartoonish bad guys. The British soldiers are all one-dimensional and completely evil-not once is there a portrait of a British soldier who empathizes with the Irish plight, or who is debating what course of action to take during this conflict (this is in contrast to the bevy of Irishmen who take up every stance imaginable throughout the movie).

If The Wind that Shakes the Barley had wanted a good example of how to do history well, they should have looked no further than Warren Beatty’s 1980s masterwork Reds. The film tells the tale of Jack Reed (Beatty), a man from about the same era as The Wind that Shakes the Barley, but instead of Irish and British conflicts, this film chronicles one man’s crusade against World War I, and eventually, his quest for a strong Communist Party in America. The movie features a cast of all-stars, including Diane Keaton, Jack Nicholson, and Maureen Steenburgen, in an Oscar-winning role. The movie tells good history, and even has mock interviews with friends of Jack Reed and the film’s other characters.

However, the movie tells a story and has characters one can identify withčthere is no doubt that the audience will feel with Reed’s plight, as he realizes his adoration for lover Keaton, or his impossible dream of Communism in America. The movie doesn’t weigh one way or the other about whether Communism is in fact a benefit or hindrance, thus keeping the focus instead on the characters, the stories. The audience walks away a highly informed group of individuals, but more importantly, they are highly entertained.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the case with The Wind that Shakes the Barley. It may have been given one of film’s highest honors, but it is the audience who will go home empty-handed.