MovieChat Forums > The Wind That Shakes the Barley (2007) Discussion > What kind of a man kills his brother?

What kind of a man kills his brother?


What kind of a man puts country before family?

Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

reply

[deleted]

That Teddy was a piece of *beep*

Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

reply

[deleted]

.......................an Irishman



sorry i actually thought you were joking.

reply

[deleted]

Best advised that you delete this hateful post.

reply

He obviously put his country, or his particular belief for what was good for his country, over his brother.

It really isn't that hard to imagine.

It has happened all throughout history.

reply

To quote Shakespeares MacBeth

I am in blood,
Stepp'd in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er.


They had both stepped so far in blood it was as easy to continue rather than return, even if it meant the most unthinkable of horrors.


Awe Skinny you got blood all over my trousers! Jeez I'm real sorry sorry Frank

reply

I agree. If a British soldier was willing to go against his country to help a hand full of Irish strangers escape from that very same prison, why couldn't Teddy do the same for his own brother? They accused Damien of being a coward at the beginning of the film, but in the end the real coward was Teddy.

reply

I think Teddy was the bravest man in the film, he had the integrity and courage to answer the demands that his newborn nation placed on him and carried out his duty no matter the personal consequences. They were hard times and they needed hard men. Place yourself in his shoes, if your nation calls on you, do you answer or do you nit-pick. Damien was captured carrying arms against the lawful forces of the Irish free state and was automatically due for execution. Teddy knew this and Damien certainly knew the possible consequences of his actions.
"Someone shoulda told ya - never give an Irishman good cause for revenge,"

reply

I think the movie was about the complexities inherent in the struggle for independence. Teddy and Damien saw the same issue from different angles and acted accordingly. The horrible irony is that Teddy ended up as much as oppressor as the British they kicked out of the country. Damien's comment about how he couldn't feel anything after shooting Reilly for a traitor is another example of the dehumanizing effects of war.

And remember that Teddy tried to get Damien to escape and get out alive with Sinead. Damien refused because of what he did to Reilly. In a way, I think Damien was atoning for that action by choosing to be shot rather than escape.

The whole movie was about the horror of killing and revenge. In the end, the Free Staters didn't conduct themselves any better than the British soldiers.

reply

it's a stupid thing to say 'what kind of man kills his brother' unless you take into account what had happened. If the way of life that you are living under is not right and ur brother took the opposite side you would be left with no choice. obviously teddy didn't want to do it, he was caught in a horrible situation but both brothers would be going against all they believed in to back down. there were numerous instances of family, friends and neighbours who fought against each other during the irish civil war.

Y'know, kid... you got a helluva knack for killin' a conversation

reply

I think you need to understand that this scene was done for dramatic effect. A lot of the incidents depicted in this film seem to have been based on actual events, such as the Kilmichael ambush, which was carried out by Commander Tom Barry's 3rd West Cork Flying Column, and the scene with the execution of the English landowner and his employee, which in real life was a woman, Mrs. Lindsey, and her chauffer, who were executed by a flying column commanded by Frank Busteed, after Lindsey learned of plans of another ambush which she reported to authorities, resulting in the capture and execution of six of Busteed's men.
The real tradgedy of the struggle depicted, was that after fighting shoulder to shoulder to gain their independence, many Irish, even families, found themselves facing each other in a brutal civil war which saw many atrocities committed on both sides against former comrades.
Although there is no record of one brother presiding over the execution of another, I believe this scene was written with the intent to highlight this tradgedy.

reply

Yes, it certainly was symbolic of the entire struggle

reply

The Anglo-Irish Treaty only passed by 9 votes. It was really close. So even though it was ratified, I would hardly say that it represented a large majority of the populace. Therefore you can hardly blame a large part of the country for disagreeing with it and feeling they need to try and get it changed. If they felt they had no legal recourse, like if they felt something was faulty in the first negotiation, there is no reason for them to think anything would be done by just talking. I can understand why they went to war, and I don't look at one side as more "righteous" than the other, just because the treaty was passed.

To each their own...opinion

reply

It's horrible, but that's how it was: a civil war, countrymen fought against each other. I'm not Irish but we had one too in my country about 60 years ago (well, that's the most recent one, anyway) and I know many similar stories, some of them about members of my family. Father against son, brother against brother, brothers-in-law against each other...

reply

[deleted]

It was for dramatic effect to symbolise that brother was killing brother in a struggle which echoes to this day. In reality he would have been relieved of this responsibility. No one would be so callous as to expect him to order the execution of his own brother.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

reply

^^^ what he said.

I think it was for the symbolic value - the whole "brother against brother" idea. Doubt it really would have been done by Teddy per se. Though I think the film showed us one thing - those two brothers were extremely stubborn young men, hard-headed, and believed firmly and absolutely in following their beliefs. I wouldn't put it past Teddy's character then - or Damien's for that matter. Both of them could have chosen not to do what they did and refused - deciding to clash heads instead.

reply

Many supposedly did during the Irish Civil War (although I hear it was mostly close friends who fought shoulder to shoulder during the War of Independence and) even if it hurt them do so and probably haunted them for the rest of their lives. I can't imagine how it wouldn't.

I think that's what makes the film so tragic is, Damien in his letter tells Sinead to take care of Teddy as he's died a little inside and he still worries and loves his brother. But you can't blame Sinead either for her reaction to Teddy, and not wanting to see him ever again even if we saw Teddy tried everything he could not to do what he did and that he's a broken man himself from watching his own brother been shot. It's a terribly sad ending as Damien's death has lead to two people's lives been broken probably forever.

reply