'Hunger'

[ballinaman]

Strange - it must have been the advance build-up, but I was very disappointed with it. I know I'm out of step with the majority and with the critics, but there y'are.

I didn't see any insight at all. There was no attempt to explore the motivations, ideologies or even the human interest issues. I was a simple cataloguing of a series of events, without commentary. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't see where that merits the superlative plaudits it's received. And it was delivered with a lot of self-indulgent cinematic cliches, like the sixteen-minute single shot or the dwelling on the screw sweeping the corridor for the whole length of it. What was that for?

In summary, I knew no more, intellectually or emotionally about the whole time, the events or the personalities involved at the end than I did before I saw it.

I have to say I agree with Hardy. I was underwhelmed by the film after watching it. I felt it failed to explore enough the context in which the events of Long Kesh happened and didn't deal enough with the negotiations leading up to, and during, the Hunger Strikes nor the impact they had on the wider community. In particular, I felt that not dealing with the election campaign or result was a glaring ommission which couldn't be rectified simply by a sentence at the end of the film.

Perhaps this makes me an intellectual oaf in the film world but I thought the film just moved far too slowly without nearly enough dialogue for my tastes.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I seem to remember the film's makers saying that their intention was to focus on the situations and experiences rather than the politics or circumstances around them.

Nope, you're spot on.

[lynchbhoy]

I'd say what ballinaman and AFS state to be the films objectives must be true after watching that last night.

It wasnt about insights or personalities

it was outlining the harrowing treatment to prisoners and treatment in long kesh
then what the actual hunger strike 'experience' must have been like

feck that was hard to watch and I know a few fellas who were in long kesh couldnt watch the film for long as its stark reality was too much of a painful reminder of the past.

no what I call entertainment but maybe a lesson or insight into what this kind of treatment was like to endure for people that might not have heard or known what this kind of thing was like in the not so recent past.

harrowing and emotionally tough to watch is all I could describe this as.

absolutely brilliant in its accuracy and portrayal though so the director and actors deserve huge praise.

[Zapatista]

Strange - it must have been the advance build-up, but I was very disappointed with it. I know I'm out of step with the majority and with the critics, but there y'are.

I didn't see any insight at all. There was no attempt to explore the motivations, ideologies or even the human interest issues. I was a simple cataloguing of a series of events, without commentary. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't see where that merits the superlative plaudits it's received. And it was delivered with a lot of self-indulgent cinematic cliches, like the sixteen-minute single shot or the dwelling on the screw sweeping the corridor for the whole length of it. What was that for?

In summary, I knew no more, intellectually or emotionally about the whole time, the events or the personalities involved at the end than I did before I saw it.

I have to say I agree with Hardy. I was underwhelmed by the film after watching it. I felt it failed to explore enough the context in which the events of Long Kesh happened and didn't deal enough with the negotiations leading up to, and during, the Hunger Strikes nor the impact they had on the wider community. In particular, I felt that not dealing with the election campaign or result was a glaring ommission which couldn't be rectified simply by a sentence at the end of the film.

Perhaps this makes me an intellectual oaf in the film world but I thought the film just moved far too slowly without nearly enough dialogue for my tastes.

That wasn't what the film was about. If it had have covered background and the election it would have been a different movie. It wasn't about politics but ordinary people in extraordinary situations. I wasn't keen on the arty farty stuff either but I suppose it was as close as the director could get the viewer to the conditions in the cells. If the guy sweeping the floor for a few minutes annoyed you can you imagine what it would have been like locked up there 24 hours a day.

[redhugh]

This was 'nt meant to be a  re- telling of historical events.The angle that moved McQueen to the point where he felt he had to do something,was that these men were using their bodies as the last line of defence in the face of such brutality and humiliation.He was'nt at all interested in the politics of the situation,his fascination was with the fact that these young men believed in something to the extent that they were willing to lay down their lives fo it,not just in word ,but in deed.

[ONeill]

Strange - it must have been the advance build-up, but I was very disappointed with it. I know I'm out of step with the majority and with the critics, but there y'are.

I didn't see any insight at all. There was no attempt to explore the motivations, ideologies or even the human interest issues. I was a simple cataloguing of a series of events, without commentary. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't see where that merits the superlative plaudits it's received. And it was delivered with a lot of self-indulgent cinematic cliches, like the sixteen-minute single shot or the dwelling on the screw sweeping the corridor for the whole length of it. What was that for?

In summary, I knew no more, intellectually or emotionally about the whole time, the events or the personalities involved at the end than I did before I saw it.

Missing the point Hardy. That's like saying 2012 gave you little insight into global warming or that Jaws gave little or no indication of the appetite of sharks. It was clear from the opening 20 mins that this was more of an 'arty film with a take on individual experiences.

[Main Street]

I'd say what ballinaman and AFS state to be the films objectives must be true after watching that last night.

It wasnt about insights or personalities

it was outlining the harrowing treatment to prisoners and treatment in long kesh
then what the actual hunger strike 'experience' must have been like

feck that was hard to watch and I know a few fellas who were in long kesh couldnt watch the film for long as its stark reality was too much of a painful reminder of the past.

no what I call entertainment but maybe a lesson or insight into what this kind of treatment was like to endure for people that might not have heard or known what this kind of thing was like in the not so recent past.

harrowing and emotionally tough to watch is all I could describe this as.

absolutely brilliant in its accuracy and portrayal though so the director and actors deserve huge praise.

Thats about it, the film is what it is for 90 or so minutes and succeeds brilliantly.

The scriptwriter in an interview talked about himself and the director and how they went about it.
http://www.eventguide.ie/articles.elive?session_id=12262796792343&sku=081031121955

'We both wanted to do something cold and detached. I had no interest in writing anything on this subject that was familiar. So, we had similar sensibilities, and I felt that it would be good for me to work with an artist, just to explode certain notions I might have had of narrative and drama.'

'We researched together quite extensively; we took one entire week to interview inmates of prisons – around eighteen men I think – including prison officers. This experience really informed how we created the structure and tone of the film. We both felt that if we could find the intensity with which these men talk, then we would have the film.'
'we were so struck by the lucidity of the men we spoke to. We wanted to do justice to their use of language. They would always begin with small talk, and all of a sudden, we felt that they were shifting gears and raising the level of the conversation, dropping in astonishing phrases and wording. We wanted this to be replicated in the conversation between Michael [Fassbender, who plays Bobby Sands] and Liam [Cunningham].'
'We had all the information about the period, and the story could be worked on, but it was the intensity of these men and their stories that we need to capture and project onto the screen'

first third of the film

'So I was asking what we are giving the audience here; is there forward momentum, or is all of this just an aesthetic exercise? What is the viewer getting beyond painful images? I think that we managed to convey a forward momentum in that opening half hour; we're building towards meeting Bobby Sands, and towards a well-documented riot that is the culmination of this opening section. The longer dialogue is absent, the more the audience craves it.'

[haranguerer]

Strange - it must have been the advance build-up, but I was very disappointed with it. I know I'm out of step with the majority and with the critics, but there y'are.

I didn't see any insight at all. There was no attempt to explore the motivations, ideologies or even the human interest issues. I was a simple cataloguing of a series of events, without commentary. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't see where that merits the superlative plaudits it's received. And it was delivered with a lot of self-indulgent cinematic cliches, like the sixteen-minute single shot or the dwelling on the screw sweeping the corridor for the whole length of it. What was that for?

In summary, I knew no more, intellectually or emotionally about the whole time, the events or the personalities involved at the end than I did before I saw it.

Missing the point Hardy. That's like saying 2012 gave you little insight into global warming or that Jaws gave little or no indication of the appetite of sharks. It was clear from the opening 20 mins that this was more of an 'arty film with a take on individual experiences.

Aye, thats true, but it seems most people missed the point, bacause having listened to reviews, and other people talking about it, I was expecting a film about the hunger strike.

It wasnt, however - rather, it was about a man who was prepared to lay down his life in the most deliberate way possible, and the reactions of those around him to that. I would love to see a good film about the hunger strike, and having listened to said reviews, I thought this was to be it. However, while this is a good film, beautifully shot, its not what I was hoping for.

[Hardy]

Strange - it must have been the advance build-up, but I was very disappointed with it. I know I'm out of step with the majority and with the critics, but there y'are.

I didn't see any insight at all. There was no attempt to explore the motivations, ideologies or even the human interest issues. I was a simple cataloguing of a series of events, without commentary. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't see where that merits the superlative plaudits it's received. And it was delivered with a lot of self-indulgent cinematic cliches, like the sixteen-minute single shot or the dwelling on the screw sweeping the corridor for the whole length of it. What was that for?

In summary, I knew no more, intellectually or emotionally about the whole time, the events or the personalities involved at the end than I did before I saw it.

Missing the point Hardy. That's like saying 2012 gave you little insight into global warming or that Jaws gave little or no indication of the appetite of sharks. It was clear from the opening 20 mins that this was more of an 'arty film with a take on individual experiences.

Ah sure that was clear enough to me too. I just don't think it succeeded as art either. I'd hesitate to expound about art, as I know as much about it as a pig does about a bank holiday, but as best I understand it, art should give you a new view (an insight, if you like) of what it's trying to portray. Or it should inform you in some sort of way and leave you knowing more or something new or at least seeing the thing in some other way that hadn't occurred to you before. That was what I was trying to convey when I said I knew no more emotionally or intellectually at the end of it. At the very least, I'd say good art should leave you saying "that was very well done", whatever "that" was.

It didn't do any of that for me. Clearly it did for many and that's great. That's the way it goes.

[Main Street]

You sound very confused Hardy, it must be all those little voices nattering away
I don't have an appreciation of Film art or Film techniques.
I would object if one had to have some appreciation of art or technique in order to appreciate this film.
It is not an intellectual process.
Like many who appreciate such a film, all that needs to be done is observe the effect of the scenes upon yourself and appraise it in the context of the film.
Possibly you may have a lot of preconceived notions about the central story which creates some conflict with appraisal, possibly you have an open mind on the central story but this film did not hold your attention.

[Zapatista]

Possibly you may have a lot of preconceived notions about the central story which creates some conflict with appraisal.

The same can be said for me I suppose. I didn't appreciate the art and I already knew the story. I have defended the film and that may be more to do with preconceived notions than the actual content of the film.

[Hardy]

You sound very confused Hardy, it must be all those little voices nattering away

I'm not confused at all. I thought I was quite clear about what I thought of the film.

I don't have an appreciation of Film art or Film techniques.
I would object if one had to have some appreciation of art or technique in order to appreciate this film.
It is not an intellectual process.
Like many who appreciate such a film, all that needs to be done is observe the effect of the scenes upon yourself and appraise it in the context of the film.
Possibly you may have a lot of preconceived notions about the central story which creates some conflict with appraisal, possibly you have an open mind on the central story but this film did not hold your attention.

Sure that's exactly what I thought I did and said here I did.

[ardmhachaabu]

Strange - it must have been the advance build-up, but I was very disappointed with it. I know I'm out of step with the majority and with the critics, but there y'are.

I didn't see any insight at all. There was no attempt to explore the motivations, ideologies or even the human interest issues. I was a simple cataloguing of a series of events, without commentary. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't see where that merits the superlative plaudits it's received. And it was delivered with a lot of self-indulgent cinematic cliches, like the sixteen-minute single shot or the dwelling on the screw sweeping the corridor for the whole length of it. What was that for?

In summary, I knew no more, intellectually or emotionally about the whole time, the events or the personalities involved at the end than I did before I saw it.

I have to say I agree with Hardy. I was underwhelmed by the film after watching it. I felt it failed to explore enough the context in which the events of Long Kesh happened and didn't deal enough with the negotiations leading up to, and during, the Hunger Strikes nor the impact they had on the wider community. In particular, I felt that not dealing with the election campaign or result was a glaring ommission which couldn't be rectified simply by a sentence at the end of the film.

Perhaps this makes me an intellectual oaf in the film world but I thought the film just moved far too slowly without nearly enough dialogue for my tastes.

+ 1

[longrunsthefox]

I thought it was a remarkable film. It seems others here are more into the way the Hunger Strike was done in 'Some Mothers Son'....which is fair enough. Is hard to explain but the 'arty' stuff as some call it was mesmorising and to me caught very vividly the anguish and pain of all involved. Suppose is a matter of opinion but it didn't win top awards for nothing. Would be interesting to know what former blanketmen thot of it.

[Puckoon]

I very much understand the points made by hardy, but after watching this last night it definitely affected me. I couldn't take my eyes off it, can't even begin to understand the mindset of the strikers. Tough movie to watch, yet very watchable.

[ziggysego]

I very much understand the points made by hardy, but after watching this last night it definitely affected me. I couldn't take my eyes off it, can't even begin to understand the mindset of the strikers. Tough movie to watch, yet very watchable.

I believe that was one of the points the director was trying to portray.