I think maybe you're looking at this thru the prism of a modern perspective. Whereas when it all happened 100 years ago, things were very different in so many ways.
Soldiers were cannon fodder. Conquered countries were to be brutalized and emasculated. Aristocrats ruled the roost, commoners were sub-human worker bees. And so on--very different to today's mores.
the English are portrayed as unthinking, unfeeling, sadistic caricatures of soldiers
In the above context, there's a good chance that's what they were. Many had probably been dehumanized by the horror of the very recent WW1, the rest just earning the king's shilling in a colony with an alien culture which they would likely have viewed as even more sub-human. Similar to the way peoples of North America, India and Africa were/had been treated.
the IRA are portrayed as noble freedom fighters who are both measured and humane
I don't think it portrayed the IRA as an organized force, it seemed to me much more an account of how you can only push a people so far before they'll say 'enough is enough' and fight back. Such combatants are less likely to be 'unfeeling, sadistic' etc than their dehumanized opponents. In the latter part of the film, the organized Irish forces were indeed shown as more brutal during the civil war.
there were plenty of decent English soldiers involved in the Troubles
Very true. I encountered quite a few during the Northern Ireland troubles in the 90s, and they were all a credit to the English, gentlemen to the last. Which was my earlier point, making comparisons between recent times and 100 years ago is largely a waste of time--ie recent behavior doesn't presume similar behavior 100 years ago.
they took a few liberties with history
Yes, I was surprised they didn't do a better job of placing the time of the film in its historical context. There would have been two especially important events to note.
First, Britain's greatest crime against Ireland by far was the Great Famine 70 years prior, with the government's various responses best characterized as incompetent, lacking and unconcerned. For example, Trevelyan [who was in charge of the relief effort] thought ""the judgment of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson".
I probably don't need to tell you how that affected feeling towards the English for many generations afterwards--most people in the film's time would have heard first-hand accounts from parents and grandparents. The population drop from 8 million in 1840 to less than half that at the film's time is a chilling statistic of devastation on a major scale.
Second, the English strategic error in executing the leaders of the small doomed 1916 rebellion "The Easter Rising". This caused widespread revulsion among the population and abroad, and convinced many previously ambivalent people that a peaceful route was a waste of time.
Had these 'living memory' events been properly referenced, I think film viewers would have had a much clearer understanding of why the depicted English brutality was understood by the Irish to be one more continuation of centuries-long subjugation and abuse.
Then again, it's only a film, not a documentary, so I suppose it's unfair to criticize the lack of meaningful context. That's already well documented by historians, and available to anyone who wishes to explore the issues further.
Things are so different today, of course. The Irish now hate the English only one day a year, the day of the rugby international :) There is now I think great friendship and mutual respect between the two populations, perhaps best symbolized by the Queen's impressive 2011 state visit.
reply
share