Land and Freedom

[Wells]

Has anyone seen the great film by Ken Loach Land and Freedom. Its a stunning portrayal of a young communist from the Uk that goes to fight for the Republics cause in the Spanish civil war. Ian Hart is in the star role and the screenplay is by Jim Allen. Its a truely stirring film.

http://www.wsws.org/arts/1998/aug1998/land-96.shtml

[LoneRed]

It is, I just watched it recently and it made me wish I was back in those days fighting for the POUM, I didnt have subtitles on mine, but it is still understandable, definitely recommended.

[D_Bokk]

Just got done watching as well, in school of all places. It's nice to have a communist european history teacher...

Great movie by the way.

[bolshevik butcher]

It's a fantastic film. I found it very moving and ultimatley very sad. Deffinatley worth watching, and also historically accurate.

[Cult of Reason]

That film and Homage to Catalonia caused this to happen to me:

Vaguely Socialist/Technocratic -----> Trotskyist (cause he was not Stalin)/Technocratic -----> Anarchist/Technocratic/Anarchist Technocratic

Brilliant film.

[Cassius Clay is back]

Have not seen the film, I do however remember what a British Communist who was over there fighting at the time thought of it.

Simply the actual historical accuracy of it was a load of rubbish (as with most films) and did not reflect what actually happened.

[Wells]

Originally posted by Cassius Clay is [email protected] 21 2006, 02:25 PM
Have not seen the film, I do however remember what a British Communist who was over there fighting at the time thought of it.

Simply the actual historical accuracy of it was a load of rubbish (as with most films) and did not reflect what actually happened.
I wonder if you could give us more deatails of how the film was unaccurate?

[Cassius Clay is back]

Well I could not since as I said I have not seen the film. However here is part of a article which you can get in full over at Marxist-Leninist translations.

It's written by a International volunteer.

''To return to Ken Loach's film, it is clear from all I have said that by far the most important front at the time the events in his film supposedly take place was the Madrid front. Why did he not make a film about that? Why did he not portray the exceptional heroism of the people of Madrid as German shells fell all around them? That would have been a film worth making.

Instead he went to a remote village in Aragon, miles away from the decisive front. The events in that part of Spain revolved round Barcelona. In Barcelona, at the time that the fascist generals rose against the republic, the people stormed the barracks and took over the city. Having thus secured their position, they should then have gone out from Barcelona to give support to those fighting the advancing Franco troops. But this they did not do because of the anarchistic and POUM leadership. They did not fight at all. Loach decided to make his film at what was, in effect, a dormant front. During the events which occurred in Barcelona and which were depicted in the film, Franco was marching North to try to take Madrid, and the Nazis were preparing World War II. They were bombing Guernica so that they could assess the effect of mass bombing on a civilian population. You would never have known that from seeing this film.

Yet it is important to see the events depicted in the film within that context. In Barcelona, while the grim struggle was going on elsewhere, they had decided to stop fighting and to initiate collectivisation. They did not want to organise a disciplined army. They did not understand the need for one. Frankly, the scene where the arguments are taking place about collectivisation is quite pathetic when you remember the fate of the collectivised peasants of the South of Spain who had been wiped out by Franco in the early days of his advance. It is obvious that the order of the day was to stop Franco, and unless and until that had been done all talk of collectivisation was futile.

Where did Ken Loach get his ideas from?

Not from the 2,400 or so people who went to Spain from Britain to fight in the international brigades. It was illegal at that time to go to Spain to fight, because of the Non-Intervention treaty. What one had to do was to go to Paris on a non-passport trip, and then make one's way to Spain from there. Because of this illegality, it was impossible to know exactly how many British people went to fight in Spain, but the approximate number is 2400. 526 of these were killed. Who were these people? In the early days they were mainly writers and artists who realised that fascism was a threat to culture, because they knew that Hitler had been burning books. These people also had the know-how to get out of Britain and get to Spain. It was only later on that miners, dockers, and generally the cream of British industrial workers went out. They were joined by people who were fighting against British imperialism -27 from Cyprus, of whom nearly half were killed in Spain, and 120 from the Republic of Ireland. Nurses and doctors went because fascism had to be defeated first before the Spanish people could make up their minds as to what kind of government they wanted. A socialist revolution was not at that moment on their agenda. Ken Loach has, therefore, confused the issue, and his film has no relation to reality. This is why the true picture must be shown.

Why did the Spanish people lose?

The main reason was those who enforced the policy of 'non-intervention'. Our slogan Save Spain & Save Peace was correct. If help had been given to the Spanish Republic by the government of this country, if the movement had been strong enough to defeat the fascists, then World War II would not have happened.

Another of Loach's slanders is as to the role of the Soviet Union The Soviet Union wanted peace. For a short time, therefore, they went along with non-intervention until they saw the reality of this 'non-intervention' whereupon they decided they had a responsibility towards the democratic, peace-loving people of Spain. They sent help in the form of arms and food, and they gave every possible help to the Spanish people.

What was the role of the Soviet people who went to Spain? Ken Loach says they were murderers acting under Stalin's instructions. Well, I got given a Soviet anti-tank gun. A Soviet instructor showed us what to do with it. We were given Soviet rifles and he instructed us how to use them. While the German planes which were involved in supporting Franco were piloted by German pilots, Soviet instructors taught Spanish lads as airmen. Others were taught to drive tanks.

In addition the Soviet Union suffered great losses in under to help Spain. Its ships were bombed by Italian planes and sunk by German submarines. Some people think that the Soviet Union should have done more, not realising how much the Soviet Union actually did. Much of what it sent never arrived at its destination because of the activities not only of the German and Italian fascists, but also because of the activities of the 'non-interventionists', such as France, who prevented supplies destined for Spain from crossing French territory. In my opinion the Soviet Union did all that was humanly possible to do in the conditions prevailing at that time.

Why has Loach been given so much money to make such a film? Why is Orwell being taught in the schools as if he were a great author? It can only be that the ruling circles in imperialist countries want to lower people's vigilance against fascism.

If you are going to fight fascism you have to realise that it is fascism you fight at that time. You do not fight several other battles simultaneously if that can be avoided.

The second lesson of the Spanish Civil War is that you do have to fight, even if there is a possibility of losing. You may lose, but if you do not fight at the very first signs of fascism you will definitely lose.
''

[Wells]

I don't want to argue against someone who was actually there, but we have to remember that Loach had a limited budget which is not an excuse but a reason on why he concentrated the film on a smaller scale. Although some of the film is set in Barcelona, which was a city split between the stalinists and socialists, it is also set on the Aragon front which was also a vital front in the war.

However, the battle of Madrid was one of the most crucial battles of the war, and if Loach had the finance he would have surely made a film with more scope.

Another criticism of the film is the fact that it is from a viewpoint of a Liverpudlian and not a Spaniard. Many Spaniards were unhappy at this, but for a British flm dirctor this may have ben expected.

Despite all this the film is still very moving and makes you think of what could have been.

[Cassius Clay is back]

Oh I dont doubt it was 'moving'.

Hey I cried at Cool Runnings (not sure I should admit that but hey).

Most films can be what you would call emotional. It doesn't suddenly make the film accurrate though does it?

[The Grey Blur]

That guy sounds like a Stalinist

[violencia.Proletariat]

Cassius, I guess all those libertarian socialists were sitting on their bourgeois asses in Barcelona eh. While the lenninists were the only ones fighting? :lol:

Ever heard of the Durrutti Column? :lol:

[Cassius Clay is back]

Yes I do believe he is a 'Stalinist'.

Does that really matter? The man has no reason to lie. I actually disagree with some of what he says there.

But that is not the point. The point is this was a thread about the film ''Land and Freedom''. Now the general consenus seems to be to go and watch it.

I have never seen the film but do remember reading this article about it. If the film is inaccurate (as most films in the historical genre are) then perhaps it would be better to read the account of someone who was actually there. And if they also happen to be criticising the film on specific issues then even better.

Now maybe some people are intelliegent enough to realise that films should not really be taken as historically accurrate. Unfourtunatly alot of people do.

So yes he is a 'Stalinist'. But as I said he would have no reason to lie and he was actually there. Unlike Ken Loach who has no question mark over whether he is a Trotskyite.

He is.

[Wells]

Like I said low budget, Hollywood for ya. :(

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by Cassius Clay is [email protected] 21 2006, 09:51 PM
But as I said he would have no reason to lie
To make Trots and Anarchists look bad - we know who took away the guns from the workers and they start with 'S' and end with 'talinists'

[Cassius Clay is back]

Who provided the guns to Spanish anti-Franco forces again?

Oh yeah it was Soviet Union. Yet somehow the 'Evil Stalinists' took 'All the guns away'.

:rolleyes:

Again what reason does this comrade have to lie? The man is in his 80's atleast and probably has better things to do than lie. Also it is worth pointing out that I am not sure he is a 'Stalinist', you would have to ask him that to be sure.

You say it is 'to make Trots look bad'.

Yet Ken Loach is a Trotskyite, by your definition would that not be reason enough for him to 'make Stalinists look bad' in his film?

Let's accept your logic as correct for a moment.

Then ask yourself whose word should we be taking. The person who was actually there at the time or someone who was not even born?

[The Grey Blur]

I've just stated facts

People can make their own minds up once they watch the film

[Cassius Clay is back]

I do not see any 'facts' anywhere.

Oh where you just said the 'Stalinists' took away all the weapons. Sorry you saying it does not make it a fact.

You say 'people can make up their own minds when they watch the film' . But it is not really fair to presume that people will form a opinion in 'their mind' when it seems this film is actually wrong and inacurrate.

I'm sure this film is many things. 'Moving' and 'emotional' and even 'entertaining'. So are many other films.

But for a accurate representation of the Spanish Civil War perhaps it would be better to do some reading on the subject by either people who were there or less biased historian/activist than Ken Loach who is a hardened Trotskyite.

[Wells]

But for a accurate representation of the Spanish Civil War perhaps it would be better to do some reading on the subject by either people who were there or less biased historian/activist than Ken Loach who is a hardened Trotskyite.



Yes you&#39;re right, it may be biased, but we don&#39;t have too many fims of that biased nature. So it&#39;s interesting to see a film from that point of view once in a while. It&#39;s quite possible to do some reading on the subject but to watch a film like this can do hardly any harm. As I said there are very few accounts in the film industry of films of this nature. I don&#39;t think Land and Freedom is a film of overly inaccuracy, I think it&#39;s best to look elsewhere for films of that nature. Maybe Hollywood. <_<