criterionforum.org

Bobby Sands' character is far too eloquent, he is a mouthpiece for the writer's ideas as opposed to a convincing IRA foot soldier.

Sands wasn’t a foot soldier: he was leader of the IRA prisoners and had been very prominent outside too. The new inmate, seen in the first third, is a foot-soldier. As for Sands’ character being a mouthpiece for the writer’s ideas-what exactly is this based on? Sands’ own ideas are well known as is his manner of expression. The rhetoric or eloquence of Sands isn’t questionable - he did manage to persuade people to follow him - but the writerly way the foal story is interwoven is.

The purpose of the scene is simply to explain and explicate, to underline through dialogue what should anyway be apparent through the film making.

Why should it be apparent through film making but not dialogue - is this Arnheim’s rule book? Dialogue is an acceptable part of film, and, as such, filmmakers are free to employ it as they see fit. You may evaluate the use of dialogue in a film to convey information as being flawed but this is quite different from saying that something should be made apparent through film making but not dialogue. That is a film making rule-obligation.

The point, in real world terms, is that a conflict now exists between an audience-led, executive-led cinema on the one hand and, on the other, a director-led cinema, a cinema where the director is in full creative control.

This conflict has only arisen ‘now’? Art is a commercial enterprise -that may be regrettable for artists, but that is what it is ‘in real world terms.’ Also, one of the main functions of the auteur theory was to discern the coherent ‘personality’ of a filmmaker in his body of work in spite of the test screenings, the studio interference, and the drive for profit that also influenced those films.

I do appreciate where you’re coming from in terms of film criticism. However, to argue that Hunger is a largely conventional work being touted as great art cinema is quite different from your earlier arguments concerning McQueen’s lack of conviction in this film.

Ruby wrote:Sands wasn’t a foot soldier: he was leader of the IRA prisoners and had been very prominent outside too.

Sands was never a part of the IRA leadership and he took part in direct action, that makes him a foot soldier. Secondly, just because Sands persuaded some other fanatics to follow him in his protest doesn't suddenly turn him into the Corpus Christi debater presented in Hunger.

Ruby wrote:Why should it be apparent through film making but not dialogue

Because otherwise this is lazy filmmaking that fails to utilise the full possibility of the medium. But, in fact, a lot of what is said in the conversation is explored visually, so the conversation primarily serves only to emphasise the 'meaning' of the film for the idiots - because there is nothing a commercial film company or a lazy film journalist or a middlebrow cinema audience fears more than ambiguity.

Ruby wrote:This conflict has only arisen ‘now’?

I didn't say that. We are talking about a process that has been underway for the past twenty five years, although it is now reaching a head.

Ruby wrote:Art is a commercial enterprise

I beg to differ, at least as far as art cinema is concerned. Whilst commercial entities at the top end of the recoupment scale - distributors, sales agents, exhibitors - provide political window-dressing, the films themselves are inherently unprofitable for the european public funding bodies and television stations that provide the bulk of the finance. For example, the Danish Film Institute have a 0.01% recoupment rate...

And that's okay. Classical music, opera, ballet, these cannot function commercially either. The problems arise when, as in the UK, governments, corporations and arts administrators get caught up in the myth that serious cinema should be profitable, leading to a culture of executive interference that does little except degrade the quality of the art.

What is particularly interesting/concerning about Hunger is that it represents something I'm not sure I've seen before, that is a director who has been hired in to a corporate project, a project in which the concept, the hook, the storyline and the politics are already fixed, not just to 'get the job done' in the traditional Hollywood sense but to bring an 'auteur respectability' to the proceedings that helps the marketing by opening the film up to a Cannes premiere, acclaim from weak-minded critics, etc. And this actually ties very succinctly back into my central criticism (that I became aware of simply from watching the film, without any prior knowledge of how it came about), ie. that, whilst McQueen provides the pretty pictures that have been asked of him, there is no greater sense of genuine commitment or interest from him beyond that. If that's enough for you, if you're satisfied with this level of convinction, that's up to you. However I find such work troubling, pandering cynically to baser instincts and taking up screen and column (and message board) space that could be better spent elsewhere.

I saw Hunger today and was quite surprised but heartened by the cool response by forum members. I also am surprised by the more or less unanimous praise from critics towards the film. You'd never guess it was the work of a first time director but you would guess it was the work of an artist (in the professional sense, not the lazy "genius" sense). There's not one shot that doesn't look great. I'm not bothered about the narrative being all over the shop a little, it's a tableux of episodes inside the Maze, isn't it? However, it seems so analytical and clinical that it's positively remote. I don't feel as though I learn anything from 'Hunger' beyond what the factual captions tell me. The 17 minute scene between Sands and the priest, shot with a fixed camera, unbroken, is indeed technically impressive and Fassbender's physical transformation is both staggering and horrible. McQueen possibly milks this a little too much, lingering his camera on Sands' deterioration more than one would like to see. Still, the things we have reservations over are the same things others will praise as the best aspects of the film. I'm glad the critical consensus isn't quite as one sided as I thought it might be.

A little bizarre (because usually it's all or nothing) but the e-mail I received about this release states that the DVD will be available in Canada but the Blu-ray will NOT be available in Canada. You'll still be able to import it I'm sure, but I thought that was kind of odd.

I found Hunger to be absolutely breathtaking. While it was obviously heavy-handed, I didn't see any major problem with the way it was presented. In fact, the closeups and inventive long sequences only drew me further into a hypnosis that was only broken by the closing credits. Everything's been pretty well covered in this topic so far, so I won't ramble. But this'll make for a stunning Blu-Ray and one I'll enthusiastically add to my collection.

thirtyframesasecond wrote:I saw Hunger today and was quite surprised but heartened by the cool response by forum members. I also am surprised by the more or less unanimous praise from critics towards the film. You'd never guess it was the work of a first time director but you would guess it was the work of an artist (in the professional sense, not the lazy "genius" sense). There's not one shot that doesn't look great. I'm not bothered about the narrative being all over the shop a little, it's a tableux of episodes inside the Maze, isn't it? However, it seems so analytical and clinical that it's positively remote. I don't feel as though I learn anything from 'Hunger' beyond what the factual captions tell me. The 17 minute scene between Sands and the priest, shot with a fixed camera, unbroken, is indeed technically impressive and Fassbender's physical transformation is both staggering and horrible. McQueen possibly milks this a little too much, lingering his camera on Sands' deterioration more than one would like to see. Still, the things we have reservations over are the same things others will praise as the best aspects of the film. I'm glad the critical consensus isn't quite as one sided as I thought it might be.

this post pretty much sums up my feelings 100%, and i'm glad the Sundance Channel made it possible to see this for free before succumbing to the intrigue and making a blind buy. One film I thought of watching it was the impressive German film Baader Meinhof Komplex - a grand big budget extravaganza of Germany's brand of political terrorists in the 60s and 70s. It was among my favorite films of last year (saw it at a fest last summer) and I hoped Hunger would similarly evoke a time period and the struggles of the IRA in an equally effective manner. In the end, I didn't learn a damned thing, got kind of bored really, and tired of the hamfisted unrelenting shock factor. the films are ultimately polar opposites, but only BMK really succeeds in my eyes.

Many of the earlier posts brought up a lot of the questions and issues I had with the film...it was all just a long exercise in frustration for me. I was amused to see the 'crumb shot' brought up, because that was precisely the point I rolled my eyes and said "oh boy...Mr. McQueen certainly thinks he's a clever one!" That is not to say that many of the images are not great - they are....but you need more than pretty pictures - or ugly ones - to make an effective film. This one fails in every way in that respect. I get the sense that a lot of the critic praise comes from crap like the crumb shot...."ooooh! look how clever that is!" meh.

Though this has to be put in the context of the last few decades of much more emphasis on the politics of Northern Ireland in films, often to the detriment of any artistic aspirations or focus on the philosophical and mental toughness required to make such a stand as something 'beyond' the political, which might be why it seemed to be received as such a breath of fresh air by critics in the UK (though I'm a little concerned at the focus on artistic aspects of the film to maybe sidestep, or least downplay, some of the more trickier issues and wider implications, something that also arises with the similarly highly praised Waltz With Bashir).

Perhaps a film to see and contrast with Hunger which tackles the hunger strikes in a more conventional manner would be Some Mother's Son.

colinr0380 wrote: Perhaps a film to see and contrast with Hunger which tackles the hunger strikes in a more conventional manner would be Some Mother's Son.

well crap, that's not available in R1 at all and sounds like a fantastic film. maybe criterion can release it as well - put together an IRA box or something

DVD Review
Blu-ray Review

Also have a few high-res grabs from the Blu-ray:
High-res 1
High-res 2
High-res 3

Having read this thread, I'm still not sure I understand why some members disliked Hunger so much, but I'm also not about to wade into that argument. Suffice it to say that I was pleasantly surprised. Heavy-handed, yes, but less heavy-handed IMHO than, say, Paisa', which is more consistently praised 'round these parts. I like the structure of vignettes that often ignore the outside world, emphasizing the sheer otherworldliness of the H-block. Anyway, I came away impressed by Hunger, esp. since it's a first-time director who had reservations about doing the project in the first place. That he manages to make such as visually arresting film anyway is to his credit.

Like jbeall, I'm also confused regarding the hate for the film around here. Though I do think the ending is a bit pretentious, there's so much in this film that stuck with me. I don't think it was a biopic that set out to capture the exact events in as realistic a way as possible (Mike Leigh would've been a great choice for director), but to capture the mood of that place and time, and I liked that a lot. I also think that scene between Sands and the priest is absolutely teriffic.

Nothing wrote:This is what one gets from Bresson, Dreyer, Godard, Antonioni, Greenaway, etc.

And Tarkovsky. Except that even Tarkovsky has said that a filmmaker can make legitimate works of art on commission.

Nothing wrote:However - it fails on two critical levels:
1/ Bobby Sands' character is far too eloquent, he is a mouthpiece for the writer's ideas as opposed to a convincing IRA foot soldier. Why? Because:
2/ The purpose of the scene is simply to explain and explicate, to underline through dialogue what should anyway be apparent through the filmmaking. Therefore, whilst the scene serves an interesting formal purpose (in a very broad sense) it demonstrates a (justified?) mistrust of the audience and is patronising, unconvincing and unnecessary.

To my mind it serves much of the same purpose as Francis Jeanson's dialogue sequence in La Chinoise. It punctuates what comes before and after. It's a statement of purpose and if nothing else a much needed breather in what otherwise would be ninety minutes of bleak prison scenes. Why should a film be exclusively image-based? If a filmmaker feels that dialogue is necessary then by all means he should use it. The only thing that matters is if the sequence works in relation to itself and the rest of the film. And in this case it certainly did. The last few moments of the sequence were especially effective with the close-up on Fassbender.

I don't agree that the dialogue scene simply repeats what the other sequences show. It expands, fleshes out and counterpoints what is seen in the rest of the film. Would the the priest's point of view have been possible to elucidate in any other way? Would ninety minutes of shit closeups been a more palatable alternative?

JonathanM wrote:I don't think the problem is that he lacks conviction in what he believes in, that's a moral failing, what the film displays is a lack of focus, which is an intellectual failing as an auteur.

Exactly. McQueen said that he's always had an interest in the conflicts. There's nothing in the film that makes one doubt this. The film is no masterpiece, but it's not because McQueen wasn't into it. It's because his pictorial sensibilities are far stronger than his intellectual ones at this point in time.

Nothing wrote:The point, in real world terms, is that a conflict now exists between an audience-led, executive-led cinema on the one hand and, on the other, a director-led cinema, a cinema where the director is in full creative control (ie. working from a first draft screenplay with full editorial approvals) and where the director forms the work without 'test screenings', without regard to what may or may not please an audience full of idiots fed on MTV and HBO, ie. where the notion of profit never enters into the equation. The former type of cinema has it's HQ in Los Angeles (American cultural and corporate imperialism, essentially), whilst the latter, which I was loosely referring to as auteur filmmaking, draws the majority of it's support from Paris.

You're not wrong. But I have a hard time seeing a film that made less than $200,000 as part of the problem. Surely that number was no surprise to the executives in charge considering the subject matter. Anyway, McQueen did have creative control, didn't he?

HistoryProf wrote:One film I thought of watching it was the impressive German film Baader Meinhof Komplex - a grand big budget extravaganza of Germany's brand of political terrorists in the 60s and 70s. It was among my favorite films of last year (saw it at a fest last summer) and I hoped Hunger would similarly evoke a time period and the struggles of the IRA in an equally effective manner. In the end, I didn't learn a damned thing, got kind of bored really, and tired of the hamfisted unrelenting shock factor. the films are ultimately polar opposites, but only BMK really succeeds in my eyes.

Not that Baader Meinhof wasn't ham-fisted in its own way, as most of the opinions in this thread spell out. As stylistically clumsy as a 70s TV cop show. Uli Edel brought everything into it including the kitchen sink, while McQueen merely has shit in the sink. Some better examples would be Costa Gavras' "State of Siege" and Bellocchio's "Good Morning, Night."

colinr0380 wrote:Perhaps a film to see and contrast with Hunger which tackles the hunger strikes in a more conventional manner would be Some Mother's Son.

The latter film wears its heart on its sleeve in a direct way, unlike with Hunger. Been a decade since I've seen it, but in my recollection it was effective in bringing across the point of view of the prisoner's family members. Excellent soundtrack, too.

Saw this recently on the Sundance Channel (a long-ago DVR recording from before Sundance went commercial-happy). When was the last time a movie impressed you with its use of silence and natural sounds, along with top-notch visuals, to carry a story instead of dialogue? McQueen manages to pull this feat off with the first and last act of "Hunger," which are practically dialogue-free and with natural sounds (mostly labored breathing and screams) conveying the the situation. McQueen's mise-en-scène, co-screenwriter Enda Walsh's script (I like that we meet supporting characters inspired and/or affected by Bobby Sands before we actually meet our lead) and Fassbinder's committed performance (the weight loss stunt isn't as impressive as DeNiro's in "Raging Bull" or Bale in "The Machinist" but it works well-enough) are impressive if you can live with the fact "Hunger" isn't trying to be fair or balanced to both sides of the conflict it portrays (Margaret Thatcher's disconnected speech being the sole voice heard arguing in favor of the IRA prisoner's treatment). "Hunger" to me goes for broke with daringly-lengthy single-shot dialogue scene between Sands and the priest (Rory Mullen) that compromises the entire middle act. Yes, it's clearly a stunt to have two thirds of the movie without much meaningful dialogue and a middle act crammed with it, but to me it worked. A couple of scenes involving a guard (Stuart Graham) affected by how he treats the IRA prisoners are also powerful even if his resolution comes across as a stunt. The visual flashbacks to the childhood days of Sands during his dying daydreams come across as empty-but-visually-alluring symbolic art. The complete opposite of how the powerful visuals of the circle of shit inside an IRA prisoner cell's wall, or family members passing contraband during visits, hit both character and audio-visual beats strongly. An amazing movie that I'm surprised isn't more well received around this parts, but maybe I'm just too easily impressed.

dad1153 wrote:. . . if you can live with the fact "Hunger" isn't trying to be fair or balanced to both sides of the conflict it portrays

I think this is a case of "fair and balanced" (almost feel like I need to use hand sanitizer after typing that) being a complete red herring. In terms of the British mainstream media's coverage of "the Troubles", way over 90% of it was on Thatcher's side of the argument, but typically it's the minority stance which gets accused of 'lack of balance.' The minority opinion IS the balance.

Anyway, if you want balance, check out Alan Clarke's Elephant: all sectarian violence looks pretty much the same when you're on the receiving end of it.