Films on the British Empire

[Pogue]

Has anyone got any films about the British Empire, like a drama type film, not a documentary, preferably from a anti-Empire point of view or at least well balanced (although imo balance would mean being anti-empire but u know what i mean)

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

In Ghandi you get to see him being hit with sticks which is quite satisfying. Also theres a whole bunch of US films about the yanky revolution such as the patriot.

Also the wind that shakes the barley.

[Pogue]

Ghandi film. That was good I liked that.

The Patriot is crap.

Wind That Shakes The Barley is mint though.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

http://www.fotos.org/galeria/data/576/Movie-Poster-Braveheart.jpg

[Pogue]

wallace was a rapist

[ComradeOm]

Zulu! I'm also partial to 55 Days at Peking or The Man Who Would Be King... Western imperialism in glorious technicolour

This site (http://www.britishempire.co.uk/media/silverscreen.htm) may, or may not, be of interest. If nothing else it provides a decent list

[x359594]

There are precious few anti-imperialist fiction films from the major film industries. Gillo Pontecorvo's Queimada (aka Burn!) (1969) is an exception and a great movie. If possible try to see the long version (about 130 minutes.)

I'm guessing that the film industries of the former colonies probably have made several anti-imperialist productions, but I'm not familiar enough with the Indian film industry or the Chinese film industry beyond the movies they export to the West.

[manic expression]

Lawrence of Arabia, Gallipoli, Earth (on the partition of India/Pakistan)

[x359594]

Zulu! I'm also partial to 55 Days at Peking or The Man Who Would Be King... Western imperialism in glorious technicolour...

Those are all good films that expose the pretensions of imperialism even if only unintentionally. They can be read as ambiguous about imperialism, much like the way Edward Said reads Kipling's Kim in his Culture and Imperialism.

[Invader Zim]

Wind That Shakes The Barley is mint though.

By 'mint', I hope you mean 'tedious drivel'.

[Coinneach]

wallace was a rapist

heresy! :ohmy:

*rabble rabble rabble*

[Jimmie Higgins]

By 'mint', I hope you mean 'tedious drivel'. By "tedious drivel" I hope you mean the best political movie (non documentary) of the decade:) . That was a great film - it's a shame it didn't get a bigger showing in the US though because it is hard not to see the parallels to modern military occupations based on searching homes of the occupied for "terrorists".

I can't really think of any anti-imperialist films about the British Empire... "Gallipoli" really the British military look bad because they used the Austrailains and Candians as fodder - but it's a world war movie, not really about the empire exactly.

"Battle of Algiers" is a great movie about empire and occupation - except it's the French not the British. You can imagine the occupiers with bowler hats and chimney-brooms instead of thin mustaches, cigarettes and baguettes if you want to pretend it was the British:laugh:.

[Pogue]

By "tedious drivel" I hope you mean the best political movie (non documentary) of the decade. That was a great film - it's a shame it didn't get a bigger showing in the US though because it is hard not to see the parallels to modern military occupations based on searching homes of the occupied for "terrorists".

I can't really think of any anti-imperialist films about the British Empire... "Gallipoli" really the British military look bad because they used the Austrailains and Candians as fodder - but it's a world war movie, not really about the empire exactly.

"Battle of Algiers" is a great movie about empire and occupation - except it's the French not the British. You can imagine the occupiers with bowler hats and chimney-brooms instead of thin mustaches, cigarettes and baguettes if you want to pretend it was the British:laugh:.

Bowler hats and chimney brooms? It'd be top hats, sandwhiches and cups of tea :lol:

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Carry on up the Khber

[Angry Young Man]

By "tedious drivel" I hope you mean the best political movie (non documentary) of the decade:) . That was a great film - it's a shame it didn't get a bigger showing in the US though because it is hard not to see the parallels to modern military occupations based on searching homes of the occupied for "terrorists".

By "best political movie (non documentary) of the decade", I hope you mean educational and informative but unbelievably fucking boring and formulaic like every Loach film after Kes, and that Ken Loach has been so far superseded in social realism by new blood Shane Meadows in just two films.

Anyway, documentaries came about in the 30s and, though they had a left-wing centre of gravity, they were pretty much focused around the British working class.

I heard about a museum exhibit by the PCF called 'The Truth about the Colonies' in response to an exhibit celebrating the French empire.

Nonetheless, you will get more understanding about imperialism by reading about it, as there is no shortage of sources in that medium. Documentaries really should be more for keeping abreast of the current.

[Soldier of life]

The Wind That Shakes the Barley is an absolutely fantastic film. Very well made for the budget, fantastic content and all round the best republican film around. It exposes the bare faced oppression that the Irish had to suffer under the British imperialist machine.

The best aspect of the film is the fact it is from a socialist perspective, there is a strong leftist tinge to it. The fact that the socialists stayed true to the cause and it was the traditionals who were somewhat reactionary that ultimately conciliated and compromised with imperialism and capitalism. A really great achievement from Loach, considering the leftist aspect is always overlooked in Irish films about independence.

I couldn't care less if you found it boring 'Invader Zim', you probably would have enjoyed a bit more 'civilising' of the native Irish by the Brits in the film no doubt.

[PRC-UTE]

The Wind That Shakes the Barley is an absolutely fantastic film. Very well made for the budget, fantastic content and all round the best republican film around. It exposes the bare faced oppression that the Irish had to suffer under the British imperialist machine.

The best aspect of the film is the fact it is from a socialist perspective, there is a strong leftist tinge to it. The fact that the socialists stayed true to the cause and it was the traditionals who were somewhat reactionary that ultimately conciliated and compromised with imperialism and capitalism. A really great achievement from Loach, considering the leftist aspect is always overlooked in Irish films about independence.

I couldn't care less if you found it boring 'Invader Zim', you probably would have enjoyed a bit more 'civilising' of the native Irish by the Brits in the film no doubt.

oh how booooring. how dare Loach portray the struggles of ordinary workers and peasants against oppression :ohmy:

[Invader Zim]

oh how booooring. how dare Loach portray the struggles of ordinary workers and peasants against oppression :ohmy:

Ah, a typical strawman from our resident nationalist. But please, allow me to correct you the theme itself wasn't what was tedious, rather my problem was the way in which it was done. The perfunctory character construction, the cliched love interest, the horrendous dialogue and the nauseating sentimentality.

The problem with it is that with the subject matter it could have been a good film, and given some of Loach's previous work had great potential, but upon viewing it was nothing short of disappointing. That said, I only paid a few quid for it from a bargin bin. So, it could have been worse.



I couldn't care less if you found it boring 'Invader Zim', you probably would have enjoyed a bit more 'civilising' of the native Irish by the Brits in the film no doubt.

It's amusing to observe how people get themselves so worked up over a criticism of a piece of 'art', be it cinema, music, literature or whatever, that they resort to all manner of accusations. Though I confess that this is the first time I have been accused of sadistic voyerism. You liked it, I didn't, get over it and yourself.

[PRC-UTE]

Ah, a typical strawman from our resident nationalist. But please, allow me to correct you the theme itself wasn't what was tedious, rather my problem was the way in which it was done. The perfunctory character construction, the cliched love interest, the horrendous dialogue and the nauseating sentimentality.

The problem with it is that with the subject matter it could have been a good film, and given some of Loach's previous work had great potential, but upon viewing it was nothing short of disappointing. That said, I only paid a few quid for it from a bargin bin. So, it could have been worse.

It's amusing to observe how people get themselves so worked up over a criticism of a piece of 'art', be it cinema, music, literature or whatever, that they resort to all manner of accusations. Though I confess that this is the first time I have been accused of sadistic voyerism. You liked it, I didn't, get over it and yourself.

In other words...

maybe they can get Neil Ferguson to write the next film adaptation of the Tan War?

The charaters and all that wasn't the point of course, it was a left republican polemic regarding the limits of bourgeois nationalism in actually completing the national liberation struggle.

and I disagree about the dialogue, the fact that it didn't sound like a typical hollywood film was what made it better.

[Invader Zim]

In other words...

If you think that what I said above can be paraphrased into the following:

"maybe they can get Neil Ferguson to write the next film adaptation of the Tan War?"

Then you obviously have trouble reading. I will repeat myself, hopefuly on a second reading you will finally grasp what has been said:

"the theme itself wasn't what was tedious, rather my problem was the way in which it was done. [...] with the subject matter it could have been a good film"

Quite how you extrapolate from that, that my problem with the film was that it wasn't an apologism for the British Empire is a tricky question, especially as I told you exactly what my problem was:

"The perfunctory character construction, the cliched love interest, the horrendous dialogue and the nauseating sentimentality."


The charaters and all that wasn't the point of course

On the contrary, "the characters and all that" were precisely the point. Did you even watch the film? The film primarily is about the relationship between Cillian Murphy's character, his brother and his girlfriend and how that is shaped and altered by the situation in which he finds himself. And it is on this crucual point, upon which the plot necessarily progressed, that I found most unbearable. And I don't know why you claim that it is removed from Hollywood, it sounded and progressed exactly like a Hollywood film. Indeed at points I could have sworn that Loach was plaigarising Mel Gibson's films, at least in terms of character development, which incidentally were also tedious drivel.

Hell the Shark from Jaws: the Revenge had a more developed character than nearly every single characters in The Wind that Shakes the Barley. Indeed, despite being a shark and therefore incapable of sentient mallice, the shark was more believably mallicious than all the Black and Tans. As for the entirely two-dimensional romantic and righteous warriors of the IRA portrayed in the film, they had even less depth. As for the class message we are told existed in the film, neither of the two main characters were working class, the lead is a doctor who begins the film about to embark to a hospital in London and the other (spoiler warning) rejects socialism and shoots his brother at the end. And this part of the film, which one would have thought should have been key to the plot is skipped over in about 15 minutes. It is as if Loach and Laverty ran out of steam and just hurried through the end just to get it over with. And the working class characters barely get a look in, save for the aforementioned perfunctory and two-dimenstional contributions.

[Dr Mindbender]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnvjoHdOtLE

[PRC-UTE]

"the theme itself wasn't what was tedious, rather my problem was the way in which it was done. [...] with the subject matter it could have been a good film"

"The perfunctory character construction, the cliched love interest, the horrendous dialogue and the nauseating sentimentality."



On the contrary, "the characters and all that" were precisely the point. Did you even watch the film? The film primarily is about the relationship between Cillian Murphy's character, his brother and his girlfriend and how that is shaped and altered by the situation in which he finds himself. And it is on this crucual point, upon which the plot necessarily progressed, that I found most unbearable. And I don't know why you claim that it is removed from Hollywood, it sounded and progressed exactly like a Hollywood film. Indeed at points I could have sworn that Loach was plaigarising Mel Gibson's films, at least in terms of character development, which incidentally were also tedious drivel.

Hell the Shark from Jaws: the Revenge had a more developed character than nearly every single characters in The Wind that Shakes the Barley. Indeed, despite being a shark and therefore incapable of sentient mallice, the shark was more believably mallicious than all the Black and Tans. As for the entirely two-dimensional romantic and righteous warriors of the IRA portrayed in the film, they had even less depth. As for the class message we are told existed in the film, neither of the two main characters were working class, the lead is a doctor who begins the film about to embark to a hospital in London and the other (spoiler warning) rejects socialism and shoots his brother at the end. And this part of the film, which one would have thought should have been key to the plot is skipped over in about 15 minutes. It is as if Loach and Laverty ran out of steam and just hurried through the end just to get it over with. And the working class characters barely get a look in, save for the aforementioned perfunctory and two-dimenstional contributions.

see this surprises me to hear you say this Prof Zim, because the characters and plot are taken from real life. Anyone having read Guerrilla Days in Ireland or Ernie O'Malley's biographies would recognise this instantly. The character is a doctor as he can observe what's happening among the poor and change as a result- but I guess that change in his consciousness to you is less human than a shark? :confused:

The film necessarily ends where it does because the IRA in Munster were defeated. With a larger budget the Irish Army's seaborne invasione of the south could have been shown to convey the strength of the republicans there on land, but anyway. The film was making a point that republicans had a brief window of time to take up a class analysis and develop that into a programme, but were crushed before this took off. In real life communists were influencing the leadership of the (anti-treaty) IRA at the time.

I actually agree it could have done without the love story, but to whine about it that much is a bit silly.




Quite how you extrapolate from that, that my problem with the film was that it wasn't an apologism for the British Empire is a tricky question, especially as I told you exactly what my problem was:

I know your wiles and your ways. You're transparent.

[Invader Zim]

see this surprises me to hear you say this Prof Zim, because the characters and plot are taken from real life.

How do you suppose that debunks any of my criticisms of the film which are centred around how the film constructs the characters? The inspiration for the material doesn't factor into it. Do at least try to keep up.


but I guess that change in his consciousness to you is less human than a shark?

His conversion, and the manner of its manifestation was a cliched and banal plot devise; a scene which we have seen in dozens of films before. As such the scene, which doubtless was meant to be highly emotive lost pretty much all of its power.



The film necessarily ends where it does because the IRA in Munster were defeated.

No shit Sherlock. My problem with the ending isn't one of chronology. My problem is the way in which it is skipped over in a very short amount of time. Perhaps Loach and Laverty should have reduced the amount of tedious shouting in the script and actually added some meaningful dialogue to flesh out the final stages of the film.



I actually agree it could have done without the love story, but to whine about it that much is a bit silly.

What the whole four words?

"the cliched love interest"


I know your wiles and your ways. You're transparent.

Then clearly what you know of me, if transcribed, wouldn't fill a postick note. The fact is my problem with this film has nothing to do with its politics, as a fan of film I can enjoy a film regardless of the politics as long as it tells an interesting story and/or is entertaining. My problem is that I found the film didn't fulfil these basic requirements. I suppose some of that may have come down to my expectations before watching it, but I note my objections aren't unique.

[kalu]

Lagaan, lol. Probably the best Bollywood movie, too. You might also want to check out The Legend of Bhagat Singh. Bhagat Singh, for those who don't know, was probably big as, if not bigger than Gandhi. Then again, he's not paraded around in Western "diversity day" classes because he bascially picked up a gun and fought like hell. He was also interested in anarchism and communism.

Michael Collins was okay, but Julia Roberts trying to put on an Irish accent... :X

[Dimentio]

There was a film which had the title "Feathers feathers something" (I cannot remember) which was about the British war in Sudan during the late 1800's.

[x359594]

There was a film which had the title "Feathers feathers something" (I cannot remember) which was about the British war in Sudan during the late 1800's.

The title is The Four Feathers. There are five versions (two silents from 1921 and 1928): The Four Feathers (1939), Storm Over the Nile (1955), a TV version from the 1970s and a 2002 version directed by Shekhar Kapur. Kapur's version wasn't any less jingoistic than the previous versions.

[Dimentio]

The title is The Four Feathers. There are five versions (two silents from 1921 and 1928): The Four Feathers (1939), Storm Over the Nile (1955), a TV version from the 1970s and a 2002 version directed by Shekhar Kapur. Kapur's version wasn't any less jingoistic than the previous versions.

I saw parts of it, and I actually thought it was quite beautiful and showed the pointlessness of the ideals of the empire, though I guess one has to reflect to see them.