Great History Lesson... But Great 'Film'?

I agree. I just watched this and while it was a great history lesson, pretty to look at and had some good acting I felt a bit disconnected with the story. I'm glad I'm not the only one who was disappointed with the lack of character development.

I can see your romance point if you're from a more modern expressive society. But this took place in a very repressed and backward society completely dominated by the Catholic church, where a hint of sex was the ultimate sin--which by the way continued for many decades afterward. Having seen some of that in rural Ireland decades ago, I saw a significant realistic progression of the romance from the first scene where the couple met--muted but palpable.

I think there was also a huge progression in Damien's character development. A doctor sworn to 'do no harm' who does not believe in the republican cause is bit by bit transformed into ... what, a monster? Whatever, it sure is a long journey he traveled.

However, I think it's more the character of war's futility and human delusion and savagery which are the main focus here, and those are developed quite well imo.

"great history lesson"?
Hahah, oh lol, hahah he, sigh.

This movie is about as truly historical as the 'fact' that William Wallace didn't burn many women and children to death in Chillingham Abbey.





I choose to believe what my religion programs me to believe.

Shut up already. The film is moving, it's well-shot, and Loach can focus on both the big picture, the political stuff, and the more intimate stuff that's going on between the characters. He achieves complexity in his characters by showing how even ennemies can have affection for one another, and that beyond the political and social ideas that one fights for, there are human beings out there, who are sympathetic by nature. I don't see how he could've developed the characters better. He does it with subtelty and class. Just because a character doesn't have a huge dramatic turning-point monologue does not mean that he's under-developed. I think you're just oblivious to the language of cinema.

Later that day, after tea... I died, suddenly.

I know almost nothing about Irish history and this is why I decided to watch it. Though I don't know how accurate the film is in all of its representations, I felt that it tried to demonize the Englishmen and to glamorize or romanticize the Irishmen and things aren't that black and white.

However, I do agree that this isn't a great film, it's just an okay film as it's severely flawed. I honestly can't quite comprehend how it won the Palme d'Or. Were the other movies in competition that bad? In 2006 competition there were also movies from Almodóvar, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Nanni Moretti, Kaurismäki, Pedro Costa, Paolo Sorrentino, Richard Linklater, all of them capable directors.

-

-You won't forget me now?

-No. I've got nobody else to remember.

I'm willing to forgive historical films a lot. Simplified history, the "wrong" side shown as cartoon villains, overly dramatic behavior? OK, its a film, not a history lesson. But this film commits the unforgivable sin, its boring. If you like seeing endless shots of guys walking around Ireland with pistols/rifles or love political speeches about an almost 100 year old conflict - well, this is your movie.

Another annoying thing. People in this movie were constantly shouting at guys with guns pointed at them. Maybe that's an Irish thing. But you'd think that if someone had a gun pointed at you, ready to kill you, that'd tend to focus your attention on how not to get shot.

But not in this movie.

And another thing. The film seems to support the losing side of the Irish Civil war. Y'know the side that wanted to ignore the will of the people and keep on fighting and killing so they didn't have to celebrate the kings birthday or something. Evidently, the fact that Ireland couldn't declare *total* independence immediately but had to wait a couple years was like super important. I also loved the line about they had to keep fighting for the rights of the factory workers not be unemployed. Really? How many factories did Ireland have in 1922?