Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

Hunger

  		Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> Hunger Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Hunger - 29/10/2008 10:19:30 PM   
Empire Admin

 

Posts: 26334
Joined: 29/6/2005
Post your comments on this article
Post #: 1
This films is AMAZING - 29/10/2008 10:19:30 PM   
fiercehairdo

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 6/10/2005
I saw this at the LFF. It was an incredible experience. A very powerful film that is as much about the body as it is about the politics. Visceral, brutal yet also beautiful. The best film I've seen this year.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 2
RE: Hunger - 31/10/2008 10:41:59 AM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2155
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast
 One of the few Irish set, (and certainly the first Northern Irish set film) that didn't make me cringe with embarrassment or feel patronised.  Despite being highly politicised subject matter Hunger is not seeded in the plaintive milieu that mars….oh just about every single political Irish film…ever.  (Bear in mind that it can't side-step controversy entirely and that "plaintive” thing is subjective). Steve McQueen keeps a suitably Kubrickian eye of detached mastershots.   In a quasi-silent film he employs achingly protracted extended takes to lend the prison set-film it's obligatory sense of boredom , a sense of time without reverting to clichéd montages of seasons shifting outside a barred window.   It's a non-comittal and intentionally meagre style of filming that was first seen in Alan Clarke's sectarian murder anthology Elephant, and later in Gus Van Sant's Columbine tinged film of the same name.  It would be wrong to think of this appropriation as homage – it's nothing but a practical approach to harsh and often thankless subjects.

McQueen's recent CV had him as a visual artist and there's something a bit Damien Hirst about the still-life decay of Michael Fassbender's Bobby Sands.  Through his decline the film becomes an abstract portrait of the hunger strike in general.  Metaphorically, it's a film in solitary confinement.  A twenty-something minute dialogue is the crux of the piece, though done in one take it is not meant to smack of virtuosity but is brilliant all the same due to its matter-of-factness.  A product of a far too polite education the hunger strike wasn't talked about in my school so this scene provides something of a history lesson.  I didn't realise for instance that there were two attempts at this, that while the starvation was couched in the "dirty protest” they were in essence separate and didn't just begin at the same time.  Even the most erudite aficionado of the history may learn something new in Sand's perception of the bid as purely suicidal from the beginning.  Because it's a sole portrait it doesn't have to ply this allusion to the rest of the prisoners who took part.

It's an admirable film, but not flawless, it might have done without the soft-focus flashback to a twelve year old Sands – the accompanying monologue features some brilliant writing but as a qualification of a political leader it may come across a bit mawkish.

Ultimately, Hunger brings on-screen Northern Ireland into the 21st century and is an achievement by virtue of what it leaves out as opposed to what it puts in.  A long way now from a Guinness ad Fassbender is a character actor finally given his due and Steve McQueen may someday become a house-hold name.  You never know!

4/5

< Message edited by demoncleaner -- 31/10/2008 10:45:30 AM >

_____________________________

Just flirting to keep you cheerful.


(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 3
RE: Hunger - 1/11/2008 10:00:45 AM   
Mute


Posts: 1969
Joined: 27/2/2008
Here's the Daily Mail's contribution. Exactly what you'd expect from them really.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1081911/Hunger-More-pro-terrorist-propaganda.html

_____________________________

PSN: blackout505

(in reply to demoncleaner)
Post #: 4
RE: Hunger - 1/11/2008 11:34:46 AM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2155
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mute

Here's the Daily Mail's contribution. Exactly what you'd expect from them really.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1081911/Hunger-More-pro-terrorist-propaganda.html


I think Confucius said it best when he said "The Daily Mail are cunts".


Word.


_____________________________

Just flirting to keep you cheerful.


(in reply to Mute)
Post #: 5
Bold, audacious film making but morally questionable - 2/11/2008 12:17:06 AM   
Col.Dax

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 1/11/2008
Its not difficult to be impressed by the visual qualities of Hunger, neither is it by the performances, which are extremely brave and convincing. The violence through out the film put upon the prisoners by the prison officers is about as real as its gets, it makes you wonder how it could be achieved without actually doing it - the director and team clearly deserve all the credit and plaudits they've received in recent months, and I imagine it's a film we'll be talking about for many years to come - my biggest issue with the film however, and as much as it pains me to say it, the Daily Malice have a point, somewhere deep within that shameless excuse for a review, (see 'Mute's' comment) - the bottom line is that these men were murderers, and were responsible for the deaths of many innocent (and not so innocent) people, however beautifully someone portrays a character like those in the film, I felt this should be remembered despite Fassbender's charasmatic and impressive turn and McQueen's startling, and occasionally indulgent debut.

< Message edited by Col.Dax -- 2/11/2008 12:30:15 AM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 6
Bold, audacious film making but morally questionable - 2/11/2008 12:17:26 AM   
Col.Dax

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 1/11/2008
Its not difficult to be impressed by the visual qualities of Hunger, neither is it by the performances, which are extremely brave and convincing. The violence through out the film put upon the prisoners by the prison officers is about as real as its gets, it makes you wonder how it could be achieved without actually doing it - the director and team clearly deserve all the credit and plaudits they've received in recent months, and I imagine it's a film we'll be talking about for many years to come - my biggest issue with the film however, and as much as it pains me to say it, the Daily Malice have a point, somewhere deep within that shameless excuse for a review, (see 'Mute's' comment) - the bottom line is that these men were murderers, and were responsible for the deaths of many innocent (and not so innocent) people, however beautifully someone portrays a character like those in this film, I felt this should be remembered despite Fassbender's charasmatic and impressive turn and McQueen's startling, and occasionally indulgent debut.

< Message edited by Col.Dax -- 2/11/2008 12:29:11 AM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 7
RE: Bold, audacious film making but morally questionable - 2/11/2008 8:42:47 AM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2155
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast
quote:

the bottom line is that these men were murderers, and were responsible for the deaths of many innocent (and not so innocent) people,


I agree with that.  But in an earnest depiction of group self-abasement are we really obliged to think that those men cared, or were inclined to care about innocents?        If you go on IMBD on the forum for this film you'll see a...shall we say "contingent" from the "East" who will readily supply a list of names of those men on that row who were accountable for every child murder in the mid-to-late seventies; whether it be a bombing, a shooting, a hit and run; or a girl-guide blinded in a school chemistry experiment gone wrong.. They'll give you names. Sands, for some reason, never seems to be one. I don't know.  Google's unreliable that way for them.  Still having said that I am not making an excuse.  Nor, does this film (in my opinion).  In this respect Sands is not a convenient focus for the film because we quite plainly see he has sanctioned (and more than possibly ordered) the killing of Stuart Graham's character.  A shared gallows quip along the lines of "you should see the other guy" effectively makes a Catholic Priest complicit in the normalcy of that.  While it is cosseted and quite intentionally limited in it's scope I still don't think McQueen makes room for a moral "dodge". 

Personally              



_____________________________

Just flirting to keep you cheerful.


(in reply to Col.Dax)
Post #: 8
hunger - 3/11/2008 8:53:27 AM   
moviemaniac2


Posts: 525
Joined: 17/9/2006
It's all conceived with the bare minimum of dialogue - that is until Hunger's centrepiece: a fifteen minute-or-so scene involving Fassbender's Bobby Sands and Liam Cunningham's priest, playing Devil's Advocate to Sands's proposed suicide. The scene is almost one shot, and the dialogue has to be the very best to sustain it. It is a beautifully written scene. What follows is all Sands, as he embarks on that 66-day hunger strike, and McQueen doesn't allow the viewer anywhere to hide from the horror with Fassbender's emaciation and skin welts in constant close up. Hunger, despite the horror the prisoners are put through, isn't a one-sided either: McQueen leaves us in no doubt that the guard hates his job, lingering on a distressed guard long enough for him to break down and shows a UDA supporter carrying a weak Sands to his cell like a baby. There isn't much of a story going on here, but that doesn't stop it packing an emotional punch.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 9
RE: hunger - 4/11/2008 1:57:41 PM   
RJNeb2

 

Posts: 87
Joined: 30/9/2005
I found the film to be extremely engrossing and beautifully made. It took chances that British films don't normally take and is a very important film for our industry this year. It should also make a star out of Michael Fassbender. I thought Christian Bale took his job seriously in "The Machinist" but Fassbender's dedication to his role was exemplary, and very disturbing to behold. That 20 minute scene with the priest should easily net him some award nominations, though I doubt there's the money behind a small film like this for it to gain much traction with the Academy.

However, I have to slightly agree with the Daily Mail, much as that galls me. Coming from Northern Ireland and having lived through "the Troubles", I couldn't help but notice that nowhere in the film does it make reference to the fact that Bobby Sands was a convicted terrorist who was instrumental in the deaths of several people. What is made clear - and I actually don't doubt the reality of it - was the prison officers were thugs to the prisoners. It was terribly one-sided. To the film's credit, as it continues, the political stance becomes less of an issue as you become so absorbed with the details, but it still is a point to ponder.

(in reply to moviemaniac2)
Post #: 10
RE: hunger - 8/11/2008 8:33:14 PM   
Spider


Posts: 2075
Joined: 30/9/2005
Although that Daily Mail review is clearly over the top, I don't completely disagree with the point that this film is rather exploitative in its presentation of the prisoners. It would have been good to balance their plight with mention  of the murders and terror that they committed - political cause or otherwise these men were no saints.

However, the film is successful in its intention of being harrowing, engrossing and brutal. It's one of the toughest watches I can remember, with some of the details and scenes of violence being almost too much to bear. That a film with so little dialogue (away from the middle third) is so involving is an achievement.

One thing I didn't get, perhaps someone can explain to me, what was the reason for the scene where the warden is sweeping away the urine in the corridor? It went on forever and didn't strike me as having any particular point. I sighed when I realised that McQueen was going to show the cleaning of the whole corridor as it just seemed like trying to be arty for no reason at all!

_____________________________

Rudi Manchego's Simple Rustic Wisdom:
If you look at a pebble, you will see your own face

Howard Moon: Fusion Minstrel Vince Noir: Gothic Fairy. The Boosh is Loose and it's coming at you like a shark with knees!

(in reply to RJNeb2)
Post #: 11
- 10/11/2008 1:36:45 AM   
Ace Rothstein

 

Posts: 177
Joined: 8/4/2007
Terrific film, it takes a detached approach yet is very human in what it portrays- absorbing and often Kubrickian in it's style, one of the best films of the year

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 12
- 10/11/2008 1:39:06 AM   
Ace Rothstein

 

Posts: 177
Joined: 8/4/2007
Terrific film, it takes a detached approach yet is very human in what it portrays- absorbing and often Kubrickian in it's style, one of the best films of the year

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 13
RE: - 4/12/2008 8:36:06 PM   
agent cooper

 

Posts: 162
Joined: 28/11/2005
Chris Tookey is the biggest idiot in Film Journalism, nuff said.

Hunger was audacious and balanced in it's treatment, the execution of the prison guard was enough to show McQueen was not going for a one sided view. It wasn't about whether he was idolizing Sand's and his colleagues, more about the fact that the treatment of prisoners was utterly shocking. Magaret Thatcher is one of the most evil women to draw breath

Hunger was mesmirising and one of the most sober cinematic experiences of my life but I implore people to see it, it was incredible. Fassbender is mesmirising and McQueen a huge talent, may both their stars ascend and ascend.

Frankie Boyle said it best when he said the 3 million quid they want spend on a states funeral for that women they could buy everyone in Scotland a spade and they could dig a big enough hole to personally hand her to Satan themselves.

She should be forced to watch this film and what her policies and so called defiance caused.

Sand's may have been a terrorist but he never condemned to death the amont of lives that evil woman did! 

< Message edited by Harry Lime -- 22/3/2009 6:23:23 PM >

(in reply to Ace Rothstein)
Post #: 14
RE: RE: - 4/12/2008 8:50:06 PM   
agent cooper

 

Posts: 162
Joined: 28/11/2005
Tookey completely misses the point, McQueen's point was not show Sand's terrorist side, surely he doesn't condone their treatment or maybe he does.

Apart from Alexander Walker's comment that Fight Club was akin to Nazi propaganda no other film journalist winds me up more.

Continuing sucking Speilberg's cock Tookey, this put to shame SS obvious Hollywood devices used during Schindlers List.

Speilberg would never have the balls to make a film as harsh as this!

Tookey wanted Cronenberg's Crash banned along with other british film journalists, what does this kind of right wing narrow minded view bring to film Jornalism, I bet he love Patriot Games!

(in reply to agent cooper)
Post #: 15
RE: RE: - 10/2/2009 9:18:56 AM   
MOTH

 

Posts: 3169
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Sittin' on the dock of the bay
 A harrowing and distressing viewing experience, regardless of your political leanings. McQueen fashions some wonderful imagery, finding beauty amongst the ugliness and concentrating on the humanity behind the brutality. Arguably, there could have been more attempt to contextualise the events and include the stories of the other hunger strikers, but to be fair that wasn't really the aim and McQueen probably realised that would bring a whole new set of criticisms. Powerful and brave cinema.(8/10)


_____________________________

I've only gone and set up a blog! This week I've been mostly paying tribute to Ray Harryhausen and reviewing The French Connection double bill Click : The Fast Picture Show

(in reply to agent cooper)
Post #: 16
Brilliant, Yet Brutal. - 1/3/2009 9:27:26 AM   
joanna likes films

 

Posts: 987
Joined: 27/10/2007
From: Bexhill
 I was well disappointed that Hunger didn't appear in this years Oscars, I heard good reviews and excellent pefomances that should have been noticed. So I rented it out to see why this film was pushed aside for the same old ones. It begins with a man getting ready to go to work, his hands covered in scars and blood from the inmates pushing themselves to death. But when Bobby Sands comes to the jail after a failed hunger strike, he plans another and giving a twenty minute conversation to the local priest he knows. It leads with horrifying moments, disturbing images and bound to get the tissue box. This film truely affected me within the first five mintues, the condition is disgusting with poo and wee involved I could imange the smell and being in those cramped cells. Steve McQueen did a brilliant and awesome job as a director, giving a horridly bleak film that has no happy endings but something to really think about. Many of the unknowns gave outstanding pefomances but the real great one was Michael Fassbender, brilliant in Eden Lake and 300 this can be the film that gives him a proper leading status. Skinner than Christian Bale in the Machienist, his stunning acting skills took my breath away and is a actor that I look out for without fancying the pants of him. His shocking body with boils and his deathly skull face will haunt me for the rest of my days, this should be noticed a lot more than a few awards and not the big ones. I wished that the Accemdy would look back on this and change their minds about what to put up instead of the same old films. In all, it's a brilliant and visually stunning film with it's brutallity and the ending that gave me tears and shivers down my spine.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 17
Hunger - 1/3/2009 11:27:10 PM   
Chris Rees

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 6/9/2006
All the parts to the film capture the harshness of the situation brilliantly. The art of each shot is beautiful in its ability to capture the emotion of each scene. Should have been up for some major oscars for this is powerful art. Well done Mr McQueen I look forward to your future works.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 18
RE: Hunger - 2/3/2009 1:03:00 PM   
Fluke Skywalker


Posts: 9540
Joined: 23/4/2006
From: the dark side of the sun
 I think this is a bit overrated personally. Ok the unflinching depiction of the brutality the IRA prisoners suffered is shocking and really eye opening but apart from that I actually felt the film dragged a bit despite the 90 minute running time.

Micheal Fassbender does give a great performance when he's given the chance (namely the scene with Liam Cunningham) but beyond that he really doesn't do much apart from either sitting in his cell or lying in his bed dying.

Undoubtedly it's grim and powerful but there's something missing - it's all a bit cold and heartless despite the subject matter and you don't really feel for Bobby Sands. My overriding impression was that it was all a bit dull so for that reason it gets no more than 3 stars from me.

(in reply to Chris Rees)
Post #: 19
- 29/3/2009 12:45:51 PM   
Romarth


Posts: 45
Joined: 30/12/2007
From: Dublin
 Here is an immaculate movie that is ultimately weighed down by it’s own abstract innovation. Though this doubles as both a hindering and an attribute, Hunger is exceptional in being a depiction, a presentation and a re-imagining of an event, and, to an extent, life, and it’s struggles, and McQueen orchestrates this maelstrom of expressionism with the expert nuance of a veteran, even if his personal insight is sometimes jarring.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 20
wow! - 7/6/2009 9:36:45 AM   
Paulicarz

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 9/9/2006
Excellent review empire, you hit every nail on every head, watched it the other day courtesy of lovefilm (did request it the first day it came out) and was not disappointed! it is gritty beyond belief and Fassbender is a million miles away from "the we will fight in the shade" character of 300! very minimalistic soundtrack, but with the visuals on display who needs uneccessary dialogue! Only gripe is that if you go in blind you may not quite grasp the point of the prisoners actions, 1981 seems a million miles away now! but thats what google is for!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 21
RE: hunger - 27/8/2009 1:01:01 AM   
TrendMeUp


Posts: 977
Joined: 11/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Spider

One thing I didn't get, perhaps someone can explain to me, what was the reason for the scene where the warden is sweeping away the urine in the corridor? It went on forever and didn't strike me as having any particular point. I sighed when I realised that McQueen was going to show the cleaning of the whole corridor as it just seemed like trying to be arty for no reason at all!


Mcqueen says it was supposed to be a lull after the intense dialogue scene, for the audience to settle and take everything in. I think it also shows how easily the protests are washed away, yet we know it will be washed again tomorrow and the next day. To me it was a mini metaphor for the officers vs the prisoners.

(in reply to Spider)
Post #: 22
RE: hunger - 27/8/2009 10:05:01 AM   
richCie


Posts: 4028
Joined: 11/11/2006
From: Wells, England
quote:

ORIGINAL: TrendMeUp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spider

One thing I didn't get, perhaps someone can explain to me, what was the reason for the scene where the warden is sweeping away the urine in the corridor? It went on forever and didn't strike me as having any particular point. I sighed when I realised that McQueen was going to show the cleaning of the whole corridor as it just seemed like trying to be arty for no reason at all!


Mcqueen says it was supposed to be a lull after the intense dialogue scene, for the audience to settle and take everything in. I think it also shows how easily the protests are washed away, yet we know it will be washed again tomorrow and the next day. To me it was a mini metaphor for the officers vs the prisoners.



i think Trend is right - it's certainly what i did during the scene. and again i agree that it is showing the almost pitiful conflict between the prisoners and the guards - they obviously dont care what the prisoners are actually doing - they clean it up anyway - to be honest they;d probably be cleaning the corridor anyway. it's like the prisoners dont have any proper way to protest, same with the shit on the walls - they clean it up and forget about it even if the prisoners themselves spent ages creating patterns and covering all the walls etc.
it;s only with the hunger strikes that their actions actually have an impact.

_____________________________

A Blog!! http://richcie.wordpress.com//

#5 member of The Wire fan club. PM Dantes Inferno to join.


(in reply to TrendMeUp)
Post #: 23
RE: hunger - 27/8/2009 10:50:42 PM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2155
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast
quote:

ORIGINAL: richCie


quote:

ORIGINAL: TrendMeUp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spider

One thing I didn't get, perhaps someone can explain to me, what was the reason for the scene where the warden is sweeping away the urine in the corridor? It went on forever and didn't strike me as having any particular point. I sighed when I realised that McQueen was going to show the cleaning of the whole corridor as it just seemed like trying to be arty for no reason at all!


Mcqueen says it was supposed to be a lull after the intense dialogue scene, for the audience to settle and take everything in. I think it also shows how easily the protests are washed away, yet we know it will be washed again tomorrow and the next day. To me it was a mini metaphor for the officers vs the prisoners.



i think Trend is right - it's certainly what i did during the scene. and again i agree that it is showing the almost pitiful conflict between the prisoners and the guards - they obviously dont care what the prisoners are actually doing - they clean it up anyway - to be honest they;d probably be cleaning the corridor anyway. it's like the prisoners dont have any proper way to protest, same with the shit on the walls - they clean it up and forget about it even if the prisoners themselves spent ages creating patterns and covering all the walls etc.
it;s only with the hunger strikes that their actions actually have an impact.


I personally don't think the point of those long takes is as politically pronounced as that.  Yes, the scene you're talking about might have connotations of visually sweeping the protest under carpet, but I really, really, don't think McQueen was as snide or pointed about the security forces when he observes a scene like that.  The sheer practicality of depicting a dirty protest must be the counter-balance of... cleaning it up.   There's the small part where the guy that played Sand's nurse, in an earlier incarnation, is clothed in the bee-keeper suit, armed with a steam gun, goes into the cell and sees the expressionist excremental art on the wall.  And like the introduction of the monolith on the moon in 2001 (astronaut and all that he is) is totally taken aback by it. 

I really think the exhaustive long takes are meant for us to experience the banality of years passing in a prison-set film that doesn't get to go outside and show the passage of the seasons by cliched ellipses of summer-glare sunshine, leaf-fall, and snow-deep winter.  Prison films generally want to convey the "passage of time" but this is the first film that attempts to convey the mundane experience.  The only way to convey the mundane is to experience it through the protracted fixation of the banal detail.

That's why the domestic sweeps it until the end

< Message edited by demoncleaner -- 27/8/2009 10:53:08 PM >

_____________________________

Just flirting to keep you cheerful.


(in reply to richCie)
Post #: 24
RE: hunger - 28/8/2009 12:33:28 PM   
richCie


Posts: 4028
Joined: 11/11/2006
From: Wells, England
quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

quote:

ORIGINAL: richCie


quote:

ORIGINAL: TrendMeUp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spider

One thing I didn't get, perhaps someone can explain to me, what was the reason for the scene where the warden is sweeping away the urine in the corridor? It went on forever and didn't strike me as having any particular point. I sighed when I realised that McQueen was going to show the cleaning of the whole corridor as it just seemed like trying to be arty for no reason at all!


Mcqueen says it was supposed to be a lull after the intense dialogue scene, for the audience to settle and take everything in. I think it also shows how easily the protests are washed away, yet we know it will be washed again tomorrow and the next day. To me it was a mini metaphor for the officers vs the prisoners.



i think Trend is right - it's certainly what i did during the scene. and again i agree that it is showing the almost pitiful conflict between the prisoners and the guards - they obviously dont care what the prisoners are actually doing - they clean it up anyway - to be honest they;d probably be cleaning the corridor anyway. it's like the prisoners dont have any proper way to protest, same with the shit on the walls - they clean it up and forget about it even if the prisoners themselves spent ages creating patterns and covering all the walls etc.
it;s only with the hunger strikes that their actions actually have an impact.


I personally don't think the point of those long takes is as politically pronounced as that.  Yes, the scene you're talking about might have connotations of visually sweeping the protest under carpet, but I really, really, don't think McQueen was as snide or pointed about the security forces when he observes a scene like that.  The sheer practicality of depicting a dirty protest must be the counter-balance of... cleaning it up.   There's the small part where the guy that played Sand's nurse, in an earlier incarnation, is clothed in the bee-keeper suit, armed with a steam gun, goes into the cell and sees the expressionist excremental art on the wall.  And like the introduction of the monolith on the moon in 2001 (astronaut and all that he is) is totally taken aback by it. 

I really think the exhaustive long takes are meant for us to experience the banality of years passing in a prison-set film that doesn't get to go outside and show the passage of the seasons by cliched ellipses of summer-glare sunshine, leaf-fall, and snow-deep winter.  Prison films generally want to convey the "passage of time" but this is the first film that attempts to convey the mundane experience.  The only way to convey the mundane is to experience it through the protracted fixation of the banal detail.

That's why the domestic sweeps it until the end


i didnt mean that it was an analogy for the whole protest but it does show how pointless their actions are within the prison. it does show the tedium and banality as well but then i'd say that impression comes from most of the film - particularly with the fly rather than this particular scene

_____________________________

A Blog!! http://richcie.wordpress.com//

#5 member of The Wire fan club. PM Dantes Inferno to join.


(in reply to demoncleaner)
Post #: 25
RE: hunger - 28/8/2009 2:35:25 PM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2155
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast
quote:

ORIGINAL: richCie


quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

quote:

ORIGINAL: richCie


quote:

ORIGINAL: TrendMeUp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spider

One thing I didn't get, perhaps someone can explain to me, what was the reason for the scene where the warden is sweeping away the urine in the corridor? It went on forever and didn't strike me as having any particular point. I sighed when I realised that McQueen was going to show the cleaning of the whole corridor as it just seemed like trying to be arty for no reason at all!


Mcqueen says it was supposed to be a lull after the intense dialogue scene, for the audience to settle and take everything in. I think it also shows how easily the protests are washed away, yet we know it will be washed again tomorrow and the next day. To me it was a mini metaphor for the officers vs the prisoners.



i think Trend is right - it's certainly what i did during the scene. and again i agree that it is showing the almost pitiful conflict between the prisoners and the guards - they obviously dont care what the prisoners are actually doing - they clean it up anyway - to be honest they;d probably be cleaning the corridor anyway. it's like the prisoners dont have any proper way to protest, same with the shit on the walls - they clean it up and forget about it even if the prisoners themselves spent ages creating patterns and covering all the walls etc.
it;s only with the hunger strikes that their actions actually have an impact.


I personally don't think the point of those long takes is as politically pronounced as that.  Yes, the scene you're talking about might have connotations of visually sweeping the protest under carpet, but I really, really, don't think McQueen was as snide or pointed about the security forces when he observes a scene like that.  The sheer practicality of depicting a dirty protest must be the counter-balance of... cleaning it up.   There's the small part where the guy that played Sand's nurse, in an earlier incarnation, is clothed in the bee-keeper suit, armed with a steam gun, goes into the cell and sees the expressionist excremental art on the wall.  And like the introduction of the monolith on the moon in 2001 (astronaut and all that he is) is totally taken aback by it. 

I really think the exhaustive long takes are meant for us to experience the banality of years passing in a prison-set film that doesn't get to go outside and show the passage of the seasons by cliched ellipses of summer-glare sunshine, leaf-fall, and snow-deep winter.  Prison films generally want to convey the "passage of time" but this is the first film that attempts to convey the mundane experience.  The only way to convey the mundane is to experience it through the protracted fixation of the banal detail.

That's why the domestic sweeps it until the end


i didnt mean that it was an analogy for the whole protest but it does show how pointless their actions are within the prison. it does show the tedium and banality as well but then i'd say that impression comes from most of the film - particularly with the fly rather than this particular scene


Yeah, I agree with that (I did come across a bit absolutist there - didn't mean to).  I think that between us all we've proved that the long takes work on "so many different levels" - that admirable old cliche.

_____________________________

Just flirting to keep you cheerful.


(in reply to richCie)
Post #: 26
RE: hunger - 28/8/2009 3:17:21 PM   
richCie


Posts: 4028
Joined: 11/11/2006
From: Wells, England
quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

quote:

ORIGINAL: richCie


quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

quote:

ORIGINAL: richCie


quote:

ORIGINAL: TrendMeUp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spider

One thing I didn't get, perhaps someone can explain to me, what was the reason for the scene where the warden is sweeping away the urine in the corridor? It went on forever and didn't strike me as having any particular point. I sighed when I realised that McQueen was going to show the cleaning of the whole corridor as it just seemed like trying to be arty for no reason at all!


Mcqueen says it was supposed to be a lull after the intense dialogue scene, for the audience to settle and take everything in. I think it also shows how easily the protests are washed away, yet we know it will be washed again tomorrow and the next day. To me it was a mini metaphor for the officers vs the prisoners.



i think Trend is right - it's certainly what i did during the scene. and again i agree that it is showing the almost pitiful conflict between the prisoners and the guards - they obviously dont care what the prisoners are actually doing - they clean it up anyway - to be honest they;d probably be cleaning the corridor anyway. it's like the prisoners dont have any proper way to protest, same with the shit on the walls - they clean it up and forget about it even if the prisoners themselves spent ages creating patterns and covering all the walls etc.
it;s only with the hunger strikes that their actions actually have an impact.


I personally don't think the point of those long takes is as politically pronounced as that.  Yes, the scene you're talking about might have connotations of visually sweeping the protest under carpet, but I really, really, don't think McQueen was as snide or pointed about the security forces when he observes a scene like that.  The sheer practicality of depicting a dirty protest must be the counter-balance of... cleaning it up.   There's the small part where the guy that played Sand's nurse, in an earlier incarnation, is clothed in the bee-keeper suit, armed with a steam gun, goes into the cell and sees the expressionist excremental art on the wall.  And like the introduction of the monolith on the moon in 2001 (astronaut and all that he is) is totally taken aback by it. 

I really think the exhaustive long takes are meant for us to experience the banality of years passing in a prison-set film that doesn't get to go outside and show the passage of the seasons by cliched ellipses of summer-glare sunshine, leaf-fall, and snow-deep winter.  Prison films generally want to convey the "passage of time" but this is the first film that attempts to convey the mundane experience.  The only way to convey the mundane is to experience it through the protracted fixation of the banal detail.

That's why the domestic sweeps it until the end


i didnt mean that it was an analogy for the whole protest but it does show how pointless their actions are within the prison. it does show the tedium and banality as well but then i'd say that impression comes from most of the film - particularly with the fly rather than this particular scene


Yeah, I agree with that (I did come across a bit absolutist there - didn't mean to).  I think that between us all we've proved that the long takes work on "so many different levels" - that admirable old cliche.


or to put it simpler: I long-takes.

_____________________________

A Blog!! http://richcie.wordpress.com//

#5 member of The Wire fan club. PM Dantes Inferno to join.


(in reply to demoncleaner)
Post #: 27
RE: hunger - 29/8/2009 6:06:04 AM   
Qwerty Norris


Posts: 3143
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh
 One of the best films of last year. Beautifully shot, brilliantly performed and never attempts to weigh itself on the side of the IRA or the British Government. The 18 minute single take is also an astonishingly powerful piece of cinema.

And Chris Tookey can shove his Conservative-pandering Daily Mail reviews up his jack...

5/5

_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. In The Fog
4. Good Vibrations
5. McCullin
6. Beyond the Hills
7. The Place Beyond the Pines
8. Wreck-it Ralph
9. Shell
10. In The House



(in reply to richCie)
Post #: 28
RE: hunger - 29/8/2009 10:41:45 AM   
richCie


Posts: 4028
Joined: 11/11/2006
From: Wells, England
quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris

One of the best films of last year. Beautifully shot, brilliantly performed and never attempts to weigh itself on the side of the IRA or the British Government. The 18 minute single take is also an astonishingly powerful piece of cinema.

And Chris Tookey can shove his Conservative-pandering Daily Mail reviews up his jack...

5/5


i still can't get over how exceptional that scene is - and it felt a lot shorter to me - you never once think "this is dragging on a bit" it's way too engrossing.
i really need to watch this film again - but its so bleak

_____________________________

A Blog!! http://richcie.wordpress.com//

#5 member of The Wire fan club. PM Dantes Inferno to join.


(in reply to Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 29
- 25/9/2010 12:53:47 PM   
luke.R

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 17/11/2008
One of the best films of the 21st century, hands down! Luke

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> Hunger Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.107