(Historical Post - 2014)
Before all this fuss and hundreds of awards for 12 Years a Slave, Steve McQueen was responsible for one of the most thought provoking films I've ever watched; I mean on a personal level, this made my mind race and internally argue with itself.
Actually, that’s not strictly true – it didn’t argue with itself it had a mini hissy fit, because I just do not understand what went through these peoples brains.
It took five years from the birth of the idea to actual release, SM has been quoted as saying that after the film’s release he would probably need a couple of years to get over the whole process and I can totally understand why; I’ve only seen it twice and I left about 4 years in between but I still had dread in the pit of my stomach from the silent opening credits to the moment the end credits rolled. I knew what was coming but still watched – because that’s what we do isn’t it? – We, as people, are natural voyeurs. If we weren’t there would be no film industry to speak of.
Anyway…
Hunger is the story of the 1981 hunger strikes, undertaken by IRA paramilitaries, imprisoned in HMP Maze in Northern Ireland. This was the second hunger strike of the 1980's for the same reasons, but this one resulted in 10 deaths, all from the effects of starvation.
SM said in an interview that his motivation behind the project was having seen the hunger strikes being reported on the news at the age of 11 and being forever changed by it; being the same year as the Brixton riots he said it was a year of realisation for him, that people will go to ridiculous extremes, putting their lives in danger to be heard or to make change happen, it stuck with him for so long that when Channel 4/Film 4 gave him the opportunity to make the move from short film to features in 2003, he knew straight away what his subject matter would be and wrote the screenplay himself with the help of Edna Walsh.
Funding was hard to come by - I think because of the subject matter - but they eventually secured the money from the Irish Broadcasting Commission and the rest is history.
This movie is absolutely not for the faint of heart and to be honest, I questioned myself when it had finished and I was sat there open mouthed - why do I put myself through this stuff?? Am I a bit sick in the head?? Am I sorry I won’t get those 90 minutes back?? The answer is no I'm not sorry, because Steve McQueen is a clever, clever man, he knew exactly what he was doing when he made this movie, largely silent and mundane in appearance and colour, it gives you time to acknowledge your thoughts and question what the hell is going on in front of your face, rather than being swept up in all the action or the hilarity or the love story, which is what movies usually do and are supposed to do, but this is a break from the norm - it’s also a massive kick in the teeth, but its pure genius in my eyes.
It’s essential that you go into this with and open mind, and it also helps if you know a little bit about why the hunger strikes took place and what preceded it, if you don't then I'm not sure what this movie will look like to you. To help the viewer slightly, there is some statistics and a short sentence or two during the opening credits, explaining the situation, but being the total geek that I am, I have read so much about the hunger strikes and The Troubles that this to me, was an opportunity to see it all played out on screen, instead of in my head, what we actually get though, is only a 90 minute snippet of what really happened, through the story of Bobby Sands.
The film opens with a man bathing his bloody knuckles in a sink a few days before the hunger strike is started, we learn that he is a prison officer, an ordinary man, living a normal life, in a non-descript home, except when he leaves for work in the morning he looks over his shoulder, when he starts his car he holds his breath in case of a car bomb; all this is implied, but like I said if you know the subject matter you know that's exactly what he's doing. We learn later on where these bloody knuckles came from and it’s not pretty.
Like I said at the beginning of this post, the movie is almost completely silent for large amounts of time, its dull and basic, purposely to show you the reality of this situation, to show you that this monumental event in history happened right under our noses in everyday life. Or maybe it was something to do with the banality of evil - SM said in an interview that he isn't telling the story from one side or another, so painting the prison officers as evil probably wasn't his motivation.
I'm really struggling to get all these words out without writing a bloody book! This is a subject I feel very strongly about and could talk for hours about, but I'm trying not to waffle so people don't actually fall asleep. I will stick to the film as much as I can but please read until the end because I think you will be surprised by my take on the whole situation..........
The first act of the movie is setting the scene basically, letting the viewer know what these prisoners were doing, we see them refuse prison uniform and only wear blankets, we see the prisoners smearing their own shit all over the walls of their cells, refusing to bathe, refusing to cut their hair, refusing to wash and as a result having to sleep in a bare cell with maggots and bluebottles. Horrific conditions to the eye but nothing is actually said about them, no tales of woe about living in shit etc. (literally) but let’s not forget they did this to themselves, they aren't in some foreign hell hole with no choice - they are the manufacturers of their own hell.
These silent sequences with long, contemplative shots of prison guards and prisoners alike and the stomach turning close ups of the human faeces on the walls are punctuated by implied violence, the occasional conversation and dull unassuming surroundings - all this does is makes what happens next even harder to stomach, it’s a proper smack in the face.
The force used to first extract the prisoner from the cell, then cut his hair, then cut his beard, then scrub him in the bath is absolutely unnecessary and brutal to the uninformed eye, I did find myself thinking yes but were these guards at the end of their tether like the prisoners were? These prisoners would fight and kick and scream but the way that this is depicted makes the guards look sadistic - apparently that wasn't SM's intention but when you think about who these people are it makes you wonder, they're terrorists do they deserve this treatment? Or are we just being shown the levels that mankind will sink to given the motivation and opportunity to do so? My brain hurts but I know in my heart that no one should behave like that when they are in a position of authority or power no matter what the situation, no matter if the person deserves it; abuse of power is the root of the biggest atrocities, with the highest death tolls - always.
This god awful sequence may leave you with a knot in your stomach but it is also revealed that the long haired, filthy, bearded prisoner is actually Michael Fassbender, which gives you a few seconds of relief from what you've just seen when you realise the naked man you just saw pulling a 'full on Fassbender' was actually the man himself and that's where the ever so eloquently worded phrase gets its origins.
The violence continues with further scenes of prisoners being beaten one at a time by a ten strong team of guards in riot gear and being forcefully searched anally and orally with the same pair of gloves, this is a relatively short sequence but it's gut wrenching, especially when we see a glimmer of humanity when the screen is split - one side is a vicious beating, the other, a guard in riot gear sobbing his heart out - I questioned those tears though, were they supposed to be remorse or guilt, because there's a massive difference between the two. I found myself asking that question during every scene where the facial expression or muted actions of a guard are the focus.
I wish I could watch a film like a normal person.
The pull of this film for me is the fact that its up and down like a frigging yo yo, one minute it's silent the next it's deafening with these horrendous repetitive noises; an example is the shot of the cleaner sweeping away the contents of an entire cell blocks bladders, it’s a still shot, the camera doesn't move an inch and all you can hear is the broom hitting the floor over and over again for over 3 minutes - doesn't sound long but in reality it's excruciating, it’s time to reflect on what you've seen or to get extremely irritated, either way the entire first act of the film is an assault on the senses that provokes physical and mental reactions from your body, you have no idea what’s going to happen next; its exactly like that tension you feel from a supernatural horror - it’s exhausting. The image that sticks in my mind the most is the aerial shot of Bobby Sands beaten and bloody face, conscious but dazed, accompanied by the sound of batons on riot shields - its the very definition of haunting.
The imagery in this movie is so thought provoking it makes me ache - even the jet washing of the shit off the cell walls will have you mesmerised, it’s baffling to me how one man with a camera can do this. But then on the other hand it shows you what one man and a camera can do - who needs overblown action sequences when you've got shit and a jet wash?? Seriously though, this wasn't a mainstream blockbuster, but it won some pretty heavy duty awards and the highest critical acclaim - deservedly so.
One thing that makes this movie stand out even more so than its subject matter and violence was the 17 minute long take. It’s a conversation that takes place between the first act and the second. The camera is still, there is no editing, the actors don't move, it's all conversation and it is supposed to serve as an explanation of what’s just happened and what’s about to happen, it gives the viewer a teeny tiny glimpse of who Bobby Sands was, but not nearly enough in my opinion and also, more importantly, what motivated him to starve himself to death - we get his entire thought process from start to finish and we get to hear the voice of reason, who asks the questions we would have asked.
I actually think even though it is a stroke of genius on the actor’s parts, both Michael Fassbender and Liam Cunningham are masters of their craft and it’s unflinching and seamless, it’s just too long! I had to rewind it 3 times because I kept drifting off and not listening, but that may be because I've seen it before and I know from research what his motivation was, but that can’t take away from the fact that these guys only needed 4 attempts, 4 ATTEMPTS, to get a 17 minute conversation on film with no editing - how absolutely amazing is that!?
Throughout the film we hear excerpts from a speech that Margaret Thatcher gave during this time, regarding the hunger strikes and at this point we hear her say '....they are turning their violence against themselves' and I totally agree with her, this is an example of the fact, that SM is very careful not to take sides in this movie, he's simply telling a story, no more no less.
Following this conversation, the remainder of the movie is relatively silent again and shows the process of starving to death in gruesomely stark detail, amazing make up and sweeping camera angles, along with cut away sequences of the young bobby sands and some birds, I don't get that bit to be honest, I mean I get what its symbolising, but it’s just not in keeping with the tone of the rest of the film; it’s out of place and not necessary. MF lost so much weight for this role that you genuinely believe he is on the brink of death, coupled with the bed sores and the throwing up of blood etc. you feel like it’s as real as it can possibly be - you feel he did his job and did it well.
All this is accompanied by the voice of a doctor explaining exactly what will happen to Bobby if he continues not to eat and no one does anything - not his parents, not the government, not the prison staff - no one, but that was the reality of this situation, he and all the others chose to do this to themselves and all because they, as convicted violent criminals indirectly responsible for countless deaths, wanted to be classed as political prisoners and when you know how insignificant the difference between a regular prisoner and a political prisoner was in the British system you will be where I am, you will be utterly confounded as to what all the fuss was about and sad at the waste of human life. I understand having passion and beliefs and standing up for whats right, but seriously............
We see the process from the start of his demise into starvation to the moment he takes his last breath, which is hauntingly reminiscent of Chris McCandless in Into The Wild, the angle, the sound, everything, even down to the fact that he sheds a tear, but again I questioned that tear - was it for himself? Was it regret? Was it for his mother?? Again it makes you ask questions and that I think is the goal of any movie - it provokes thought.
I think at this point I need to make it clear how utterly ridiculous I find this, these people basically committed suicide because they thought they deserved political prisoner status, which basically meant wearing their own clothes and not working - these people were convicted, violent terrorists, who thought they were fighting for a political change, but really they were a bunch of thugs who bombed innocent people and executed anyone who pissed them off with a bullet to the back of the head. However, in the same vein the brutality these guards showed, if that's even an accurate account, will never be justified, regardless of what a prisoner has done it is a prison officers job to keep their charges safe, fed and clean - nothing more and nothing less, but then that raises the question of how far is too far? How far can a man be expected to be pushed in a situation like that without snapping. The fact that 16 prison guards were killed during this period of time shows just how far they were pushed.
I totally agree with what the British government did, they stood firm as always and as my dad says 'they don’t take no shit' so they didn't bow to these stupid demands, they alluded to the fact that they were going to, but they never actually did, as a result only one or two of the five demands were met by default and the 10 people who died during the second hunger strike certainly never got to see it, so what the fucking hell was the point????
Now, I wasn't even born during that period of time and I am aware of the skulduggery and underhanded bullshit our government is capable of but as Margaret Thatcher said 'Crime is crime; it’s never political'
Before all this fuss and hundreds of awards for 12 Years a Slave, Steve McQueen was responsible for one of the most thought provoking films I've ever watched; I mean on a personal level, this made my mind race and internally argue with itself.
Actually, that’s not strictly true – it didn’t argue with itself it had a mini hissy fit, because I just do not understand what went through these peoples brains.
It took five years from the birth of the idea to actual release, SM has been quoted as saying that after the film’s release he would probably need a couple of years to get over the whole process and I can totally understand why; I’ve only seen it twice and I left about 4 years in between but I still had dread in the pit of my stomach from the silent opening credits to the moment the end credits rolled. I knew what was coming but still watched – because that’s what we do isn’t it? – We, as people, are natural voyeurs. If we weren’t there would be no film industry to speak of.
Anyway…
Hunger is the story of the 1981 hunger strikes, undertaken by IRA paramilitaries, imprisoned in HMP Maze in Northern Ireland. This was the second hunger strike of the 1980's for the same reasons, but this one resulted in 10 deaths, all from the effects of starvation.
SM said in an interview that his motivation behind the project was having seen the hunger strikes being reported on the news at the age of 11 and being forever changed by it; being the same year as the Brixton riots he said it was a year of realisation for him, that people will go to ridiculous extremes, putting their lives in danger to be heard or to make change happen, it stuck with him for so long that when Channel 4/Film 4 gave him the opportunity to make the move from short film to features in 2003, he knew straight away what his subject matter would be and wrote the screenplay himself with the help of Edna Walsh.
Funding was hard to come by - I think because of the subject matter - but they eventually secured the money from the Irish Broadcasting Commission and the rest is history.
This movie is absolutely not for the faint of heart and to be honest, I questioned myself when it had finished and I was sat there open mouthed - why do I put myself through this stuff?? Am I a bit sick in the head?? Am I sorry I won’t get those 90 minutes back?? The answer is no I'm not sorry, because Steve McQueen is a clever, clever man, he knew exactly what he was doing when he made this movie, largely silent and mundane in appearance and colour, it gives you time to acknowledge your thoughts and question what the hell is going on in front of your face, rather than being swept up in all the action or the hilarity or the love story, which is what movies usually do and are supposed to do, but this is a break from the norm - it’s also a massive kick in the teeth, but its pure genius in my eyes.
It’s essential that you go into this with and open mind, and it also helps if you know a little bit about why the hunger strikes took place and what preceded it, if you don't then I'm not sure what this movie will look like to you. To help the viewer slightly, there is some statistics and a short sentence or two during the opening credits, explaining the situation, but being the total geek that I am, I have read so much about the hunger strikes and The Troubles that this to me, was an opportunity to see it all played out on screen, instead of in my head, what we actually get though, is only a 90 minute snippet of what really happened, through the story of Bobby Sands.
The film opens with a man bathing his bloody knuckles in a sink a few days before the hunger strike is started, we learn that he is a prison officer, an ordinary man, living a normal life, in a non-descript home, except when he leaves for work in the morning he looks over his shoulder, when he starts his car he holds his breath in case of a car bomb; all this is implied, but like I said if you know the subject matter you know that's exactly what he's doing. We learn later on where these bloody knuckles came from and it’s not pretty.
Like I said at the beginning of this post, the movie is almost completely silent for large amounts of time, its dull and basic, purposely to show you the reality of this situation, to show you that this monumental event in history happened right under our noses in everyday life. Or maybe it was something to do with the banality of evil - SM said in an interview that he isn't telling the story from one side or another, so painting the prison officers as evil probably wasn't his motivation.
I'm really struggling to get all these words out without writing a bloody book! This is a subject I feel very strongly about and could talk for hours about, but I'm trying not to waffle so people don't actually fall asleep. I will stick to the film as much as I can but please read until the end because I think you will be surprised by my take on the whole situation..........
The first act of the movie is setting the scene basically, letting the viewer know what these prisoners were doing, we see them refuse prison uniform and only wear blankets, we see the prisoners smearing their own shit all over the walls of their cells, refusing to bathe, refusing to cut their hair, refusing to wash and as a result having to sleep in a bare cell with maggots and bluebottles. Horrific conditions to the eye but nothing is actually said about them, no tales of woe about living in shit etc. (literally) but let’s not forget they did this to themselves, they aren't in some foreign hell hole with no choice - they are the manufacturers of their own hell.
These silent sequences with long, contemplative shots of prison guards and prisoners alike and the stomach turning close ups of the human faeces on the walls are punctuated by implied violence, the occasional conversation and dull unassuming surroundings - all this does is makes what happens next even harder to stomach, it’s a proper smack in the face.
The force used to first extract the prisoner from the cell, then cut his hair, then cut his beard, then scrub him in the bath is absolutely unnecessary and brutal to the uninformed eye, I did find myself thinking yes but were these guards at the end of their tether like the prisoners were? These prisoners would fight and kick and scream but the way that this is depicted makes the guards look sadistic - apparently that wasn't SM's intention but when you think about who these people are it makes you wonder, they're terrorists do they deserve this treatment? Or are we just being shown the levels that mankind will sink to given the motivation and opportunity to do so? My brain hurts but I know in my heart that no one should behave like that when they are in a position of authority or power no matter what the situation, no matter if the person deserves it; abuse of power is the root of the biggest atrocities, with the highest death tolls - always.
This god awful sequence may leave you with a knot in your stomach but it is also revealed that the long haired, filthy, bearded prisoner is actually Michael Fassbender, which gives you a few seconds of relief from what you've just seen when you realise the naked man you just saw pulling a 'full on Fassbender' was actually the man himself and that's where the ever so eloquently worded phrase gets its origins.
The violence continues with further scenes of prisoners being beaten one at a time by a ten strong team of guards in riot gear and being forcefully searched anally and orally with the same pair of gloves, this is a relatively short sequence but it's gut wrenching, especially when we see a glimmer of humanity when the screen is split - one side is a vicious beating, the other, a guard in riot gear sobbing his heart out - I questioned those tears though, were they supposed to be remorse or guilt, because there's a massive difference between the two. I found myself asking that question during every scene where the facial expression or muted actions of a guard are the focus.
I wish I could watch a film like a normal person.
The pull of this film for me is the fact that its up and down like a frigging yo yo, one minute it's silent the next it's deafening with these horrendous repetitive noises; an example is the shot of the cleaner sweeping away the contents of an entire cell blocks bladders, it’s a still shot, the camera doesn't move an inch and all you can hear is the broom hitting the floor over and over again for over 3 minutes - doesn't sound long but in reality it's excruciating, it’s time to reflect on what you've seen or to get extremely irritated, either way the entire first act of the film is an assault on the senses that provokes physical and mental reactions from your body, you have no idea what’s going to happen next; its exactly like that tension you feel from a supernatural horror - it’s exhausting. The image that sticks in my mind the most is the aerial shot of Bobby Sands beaten and bloody face, conscious but dazed, accompanied by the sound of batons on riot shields - its the very definition of haunting.
The imagery in this movie is so thought provoking it makes me ache - even the jet washing of the shit off the cell walls will have you mesmerised, it’s baffling to me how one man with a camera can do this. But then on the other hand it shows you what one man and a camera can do - who needs overblown action sequences when you've got shit and a jet wash?? Seriously though, this wasn't a mainstream blockbuster, but it won some pretty heavy duty awards and the highest critical acclaim - deservedly so.
One thing that makes this movie stand out even more so than its subject matter and violence was the 17 minute long take. It’s a conversation that takes place between the first act and the second. The camera is still, there is no editing, the actors don't move, it's all conversation and it is supposed to serve as an explanation of what’s just happened and what’s about to happen, it gives the viewer a teeny tiny glimpse of who Bobby Sands was, but not nearly enough in my opinion and also, more importantly, what motivated him to starve himself to death - we get his entire thought process from start to finish and we get to hear the voice of reason, who asks the questions we would have asked.
I actually think even though it is a stroke of genius on the actor’s parts, both Michael Fassbender and Liam Cunningham are masters of their craft and it’s unflinching and seamless, it’s just too long! I had to rewind it 3 times because I kept drifting off and not listening, but that may be because I've seen it before and I know from research what his motivation was, but that can’t take away from the fact that these guys only needed 4 attempts, 4 ATTEMPTS, to get a 17 minute conversation on film with no editing - how absolutely amazing is that!?
Throughout the film we hear excerpts from a speech that Margaret Thatcher gave during this time, regarding the hunger strikes and at this point we hear her say '....they are turning their violence against themselves' and I totally agree with her, this is an example of the fact, that SM is very careful not to take sides in this movie, he's simply telling a story, no more no less.
Following this conversation, the remainder of the movie is relatively silent again and shows the process of starving to death in gruesomely stark detail, amazing make up and sweeping camera angles, along with cut away sequences of the young bobby sands and some birds, I don't get that bit to be honest, I mean I get what its symbolising, but it’s just not in keeping with the tone of the rest of the film; it’s out of place and not necessary. MF lost so much weight for this role that you genuinely believe he is on the brink of death, coupled with the bed sores and the throwing up of blood etc. you feel like it’s as real as it can possibly be - you feel he did his job and did it well.
All this is accompanied by the voice of a doctor explaining exactly what will happen to Bobby if he continues not to eat and no one does anything - not his parents, not the government, not the prison staff - no one, but that was the reality of this situation, he and all the others chose to do this to themselves and all because they, as convicted violent criminals indirectly responsible for countless deaths, wanted to be classed as political prisoners and when you know how insignificant the difference between a regular prisoner and a political prisoner was in the British system you will be where I am, you will be utterly confounded as to what all the fuss was about and sad at the waste of human life. I understand having passion and beliefs and standing up for whats right, but seriously............
We see the process from the start of his demise into starvation to the moment he takes his last breath, which is hauntingly reminiscent of Chris McCandless in Into The Wild, the angle, the sound, everything, even down to the fact that he sheds a tear, but again I questioned that tear - was it for himself? Was it regret? Was it for his mother?? Again it makes you ask questions and that I think is the goal of any movie - it provokes thought.
I think at this point I need to make it clear how utterly ridiculous I find this, these people basically committed suicide because they thought they deserved political prisoner status, which basically meant wearing their own clothes and not working - these people were convicted, violent terrorists, who thought they were fighting for a political change, but really they were a bunch of thugs who bombed innocent people and executed anyone who pissed them off with a bullet to the back of the head. However, in the same vein the brutality these guards showed, if that's even an accurate account, will never be justified, regardless of what a prisoner has done it is a prison officers job to keep their charges safe, fed and clean - nothing more and nothing less, but then that raises the question of how far is too far? How far can a man be expected to be pushed in a situation like that without snapping. The fact that 16 prison guards were killed during this period of time shows just how far they were pushed.
I totally agree with what the British government did, they stood firm as always and as my dad says 'they don’t take no shit' so they didn't bow to these stupid demands, they alluded to the fact that they were going to, but they never actually did, as a result only one or two of the five demands were met by default and the 10 people who died during the second hunger strike certainly never got to see it, so what the fucking hell was the point????
Now, I wasn't even born during that period of time and I am aware of the skulduggery and underhanded bullshit our government is capable of but as Margaret Thatcher said 'Crime is crime; it’s never political'