|
Hunger is a film based on the 1981 Maze Prison hunger strike. For those not familiar with Irish history, the strike was established to protest the removal of Special Category Status for IRA prisoners, which had been established through negotiations with the British government during the 1970s. Under those provisions, IRA members being held captive were considered prisoners of war and received certain perks including being allowed to wear their own clothing, not perform prison work, and receive extra visits and packages. I feel the history is important to mention because the movie does little to explain what is happening, so unless you're at least vaguely familiar with it, you're not going to get a lot out of it. I also think it's important to specify just why they were protesting because I think it can be argued that they did not deserve these benefits and the movie has a very clear bias, but I'll get into that later. You should also know who Bobby Sands is before going in, because he's only mentioned by name once or twice and he's the central focus both in the film and historically. At the very least you should know he was sentenced to five years for possessing handguns and that he was the first to partake in the 1981 hunger strike. Now that some basic history is out of the way, onto the film itself. The first thing that comes to mind when I recall the film is that it was brutal. I think this has a lot to do with not only the context of the film and its foundation in reality, but also in the way the events are portrayed. If you've seen There Will Be Blood you may remember the unconventional beginning in which there was very little dialogue and the story was told almost entirely through images. If you enjoyed this style of filmmaking, then you will probably enjoy Hunger a great deal. If you prefer dialogue and some sort of focus in your movies, then Hunger is not the film for you. Aside from a 10-15 minute conversation smack in the middle of the film, there is very little information presented to you with words. The scarceness of words makes it difficult to understand that exact situation without some prior knowledge, but it also lends itself to the primal nature highlighted in the film. Hunger is a long stream of deeply affecting images of barbarism and aggression and pain and suffering. The midfilm dialogue serves to break up the tension and give the viewer some insight to the rationale behind all of the madness they are seeing. The scene is a very impressive feat from an acting standpoint, as it is a 10 to 15 minute long single take of a varied and intimate conversation. The problem is that while it is impressive, it is not particularly interesting to watch, and it completely destroys all the tension built up over the course of the film so far. Immediately following the scene it tries to ramp it back up to where it was before, but it does not allow the time for it to build so it doesn't end up having half the impact that it really should have considering the disturbing nature of the final act. Another criticism I have of Hunger is that it is very one-sided and puts things in a far too black and white perspective. The film is too quick to paint all of the strikers with the hero brush and does not spend enough time considering the fact that they are all there because they had personally been involved in actions that either lead to, or could have lead to the deaths of others. Their motives can perhaps be justified, but I personally don't know if their actions ever could. The movie makes one very brief, empty effort to show that the violence went both ways, but the scene involves a character that was developed as so morally despicable from the onset of the film that it almost instills a sense of justice in the viewer. Ultimately I thought it was a very good film that even those not familiar with Irish history should see because it stems from a civil strife that is still ongoing to this day. The acting was fantastic from all those involved, especially Michael Fassbender as Bobby Sands and Liam Cunningham as his priest, Father Moran. The director took an interesting approach and I feel it really served to highlight the nature of the events surrounding the strike. As it is both socially relevant, and provides a somewhat refreshing approach that, for the most part, succeeds, I feel confident recommending this to anyone with an attention span and an appreciation for visual filmmaking. I would personally give it a 4.5/5. While it had its flaws, it more than made up for them with its strengths.
|
#
?
May 21, 2009 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 05:57 |
|