I don't know how many of the critics that hated The Passion of the Christ for its brutality are among the crowd praising Hunger. If there are any, shame on them.
Hunger is, at its most grueling moments, an unflinching look at some of the worst abuses against Irish political prisoners during the late 1970s to early 1980s. Shit on the walls, involuntary anal probing, raw scrubbing, old-fashioned head poundings. The images are there. The strangeness of this film, to me, is that I was never really emotionally impacted by those scenes. Neither was I moved by the images of Bobby Sands wasting away from hunger. There was a distance despite the immediacy presented.
That said, I was absolutely on the edge of my seat for the 15 or so minute shot of Sands consulting with his priest. It's a single long shot of the two sitting across from one another at a table, casually jesting, then getting down to the serious business of arguing the morality of a hunger strike. Exhilarating! When the cut finally comes to a close-up of Bobby's face, it's earned and the emotional impact of what he says next is real, worth more than every image that lead up to it.
In the end, I didn't care for Hunger. Maybe the detatchment was my fault and not the film's. Maybe it's because I'm ignorant of much of the historical context, but I just didn't care. Suicide by hunger strike just doesn't seem noble to me. I side with the priest and that's probably why I can't enjoy a celebration of Sands's "martyrdom."
2 comments:
I'm pretty sure that critics were mad at Gibson's depiction of Jews, particularly the Pharisee's, and their responsibility for the death of Christ. The movie came out and it proved to be extreme sensitivity and follow the flock critical behavior. Then the brutality, which was far more troubling, became the center of the attention until Gibson proved everyone right by saying all that ridiculous shit about the Jews.
Would you say that Steve McQueen is a promising director? It sounds like you are taking more issue with the story than the direction and performances.
McQueen is a promising feature director, if he's interested in pursuing the career.
The film is well made, but I don't think that the story can be separated from the direction so easily, especially since the director is also the writer. Little things like the film opening on a shot of a prison guard at home, eating food at a table and obvious shots of the food falling off the table and off his lap to be wasted on the ground. That's not all, but it is the best example of writing and directorial decisions that shaped the way that the story was told that I just didn't care for. The performances are great. The direction is fine. And, really, I like the film a lot more than I let on. It is one of the best movies I've seen this year and it's challenging material is worth a thousand Dark Knights or whatever other "moral issues" movie that the public is championing.
Post a Comment