Hunger (McQueen, 2008)

[madali]

Hunger (McQueen, 2008)
IMDB Link

Steven Soderbergh’s masterpiece with “Che” was not really a biopic, but a look at guerilla warfare and the torture a man with certain ideals and unshakable principle willingly puts himself under. The characters of “Hunger” and especially Bobby Sands are similar people. Sands and his friends are all IRA revolutionaries, and they are dedicated to their cause. People like Sands do not fear suffering because they have already resigned themselves to it. They have stripped away everything from their life; family, friends, and life of comfort, to be able to dedicate themselves mentally to their cause. A person like Sands has a vision of his ideal world and he has an objective to help him realize it, and nothing will divert him from his path.

The film shows us how Bobby and the other IRA fighters are treated by the British police in prison. It is brutal and torturous and not an easy watch. But it is also important to highlight that a lot of their difficulties in prison are the result of their own actions. They do not want a peaceful co-existence with their prison wardens. Their arrest has not ended their battle, and they treat their imprisonment as a continuation of the war they were waging outside the prison cells. They fight on by making the life of the prison guards as difficult as possible even if it means it means they voluntary make their own situation worse. They smear their walls with their own shit, they pour urine under the prison doors, they struggle and fight with the guards when they are taken for a haircut, and when they are given new clothes and better prison conditions, they fight against it, for they see it as being indirectly bribed. They want freedom for Ireland, not prison comforts as appeasement.

And finally, they go on a hunger strike, and this is preceded by the film’s best moment. A long conversation between Bobby Sands and a priest, as they discuss the struggle, the hunger strike, and the morality of it all. Apparently this was a 17 minute single shot, but it was so good, that I could have sworn it was much shorter.

We do not have to agree or disagree with Sands’ ideologies but it is difficult not to admire a person that is so dedicated to his principles. In a world where people change ideologies like one changes shirts, people like Bobby Sands remain true to their cause. But the world is not ruled by such people, so people like Bobby Sands die young. And they die, because they almost never win, only raise awareness through their suffering and pain.

4/5

[shariqq]

I can swear by that center-piece conversation in this movie. Honestly, I'll use it to swear at people what a movie can do with one-shot & one-conversation.

[madali]

I'd love to have the dialogue for that scene. Anyone who comes across it, please post it.

[shariqq]

Bobby Sands, one of the Irish political prisoners of the British takes part leads his group through a series of protests against the Prison and the British as a whole. It culminates with the lot of them going on a hunger strike. Steve McQueen, the director of Hunger gives us enough time and reason to understand the character and the reason behind the protest, until eventually taking us through Sands' harrowing journey of torture, defiance and suffering. But he does so silently. The 96-minute movie hardly has any dialogues, maybe four spoken scenes in all. He instead prefers to show us actions, reactions, and counter-actions. He shows us silent plotting and silent protests. We see the wardens' emotions and the visitors dispair. But hardly any lines. Images of bloody knuckles and nervous riot-police firmly root the movie to a reality that defies disbelief. You have a reasoning behind the purpose (the protests), and hence a concern for the opressed. Effectively, the movie ends up saying so much more than words could have accomplished. But for such word-starved movie, the pivotal scene is the centrepiece 17-minute single-shot dialogue between Bobby Sands and a priest. Before going on hunger strike, the two have a conversation across a table - the camera sits at a vantage point, fixed for the length of the scene. The conversation, in content, manner of delivery, and specifically it's length, lends such fierce strength to the movie that it transcends wonder and achieves amazement & a hearty applause, and an immersive believability that carries on for the remainder of the movie. Thankfully, it does not overshadow the movie, but rather becomes the integral component to make Hunger one of the best movies of the year.

Rating --> 4.5 of 5

[X.]

Hunger
Steve McQueen | UK/Ireland | 2008
96 min (IMDb link)



Hunger is about a man that starved himself to death for his principles. His name was Bobby Sands, and he was an IRA member whom the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher eulogized as ‘…a convicted criminal. He chose to take his own life.’ In this meticulously crafted film, images play a crucial role and expository dialog is at the mercy of economy — yet there is a 17-minute conversation about morality, religion and politics between Bobby Sands and a visiting priest, all shot in one long take from a static camera, that is a touchstone of writing, acting and cinematography. Sound is also important to director Steve McQueen, who uses it most effectively in the wordless third act, as we watch actor Michael Fassender, playing Sands, gradually reduce to skeletal bones before our very eyes.

The British Government is depicted unsentimentally in Hunger, that while does not explicitly takes sides, uses the documented torture of the IRA prisoners by British jailers and the resolute conviction of Sands to elicit strong reactions from the viewer. The closing title card informs us that Bobby Sands, aged 27, died 66 days after he went on hunger strike, and 9 other IRA prisoners followed him to death.

[shariqq]

The Ebert has reviewed it.

[X.]

I screened Hunger for my Critical Analysis class, and the general reaction was less than enthusiastic. Americans are strange.

[ayaa1977]

This film is a borderline masterpiece. A true triumph for cinematic language where vivid image and intense shots says more than a thousands words. This virtually a silent film, with the minimum amount of spoken words, safe for that long scene in the middle between Bobby Sands and the Priest which was brilliant. It presented both points of view, but it was not there so we can take side. Even Bobby Sands admitted he was scared, but he id doing it because he thinks it is something needed it to be done and he will step up and do it, and you don't have to agree as a viewer with him to respect that.

I don't know how was Michael Fassbender overlooked last year at the Oscars, everyone was gushing about Mickey Rourke and Sean Penn but this young man in my opinion gave a far better performance, a physical and emotional memorable role, and although I liked him a lot in his badass role in Inglourious Basterds, and when I saw him before in a small British horror film called Eden Lake which I liked, but I was pleasantly surprised by what I saw from him in this film, highly surprised.

This is now easily one of my favorite 2008 films and I am looking forward to see more of Mr. Steve McQueen's work and I am sure he is gonna do amazing films because he has a great eye for what works on screen, the composition of the shots, the colors, the symbolism, and the strong images tells about a great artist behind the camera. As for the film itself, it gets 4.5/5 from me, although it is a hard watch and not for the weak of heart.

[shariqq]

There's a Criterion out for this movie @ Amazon

[madali]

Well, shit, what a fucking cool looking case

[X.]

Shit is absolutely the right word.