'The Hunger'.

arybvtcw0eolkf

The Hunger

Just seen it this evening.

IMO its a half decent made for TV movie from Film4.

The first half is very, very good. But extremly raw & violent.

It sets out to tell the story of Bobby Sands and the 1981 hunger strike & dirty/blanket protest.

Staying as it does politically unbiased it loses the plot in the second half of the moving, when Sands goes on hunger strike. When instead of showing the political implications of Sands hunger strike and death, it focuses on his suffering until his death.

At the end I felt that the charactor (Bobby Sands) could have been anyone from a South African black in apartheid South Africa to a Jew in Auschwitz, or an African American in a 50's/60's jail in one of the USA's southern states.

This could have been a politically powerful movie, but like Sands, in the end it dies a death.

Feelgood

Wasn't bad Mairt, though like you said I started losing interest coming towards the end. How long was that scene when he was talking to the priest (can remember his name). Must of been 20 minutes??. Zzzzz

Some Mothers Son was a lot better IMO.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Feelgood wrote: »

Wasn't bad Mairt, though like you said I started losing interest coming towards the end. How long was that scene when he was talking to the priest (can remember his name). Must of been 20 minutes??. Zzzzz

Some Mothers Son was a lot better IMO.

It was 22 minutes, and entered the Guinness Book of Records this week for having the longest continuous script in movie history (I hope I have that correct) beating the previous by something like four minutes.

I thought this was a fantastic bit of cinema tbh, I was totally gripped by this scene.

I'm pretty well read on the 1981 hunger strikes and the suffering endured by the men so I was expecting the scenes where Sands goes deaf & blind etc. And while I do appricate a film of less than two hours duration I thought and extra ten minutes showing the implications of Sands death would have totally transformed this movie.

Thumpette

I thought it was really good that this film focused on an individual and his motivations for an extreme act (flawed or not) rather than turning into another piece of political propoganda. I thought the scene with Sands and the priest was amazing- and the photography in general in the film was suberb- You can really see the artristy of the director in it.

It wasnt in my top film list or anywhere near it- but I thought it was a great attempt in portraying a man's story- without drowning in politics.

brianthebard

Mairt wrote: »

It was 22 minutes, and entered the Guinness Book of Records this week for having the longest continuous script in movie history (I hope I have that correct) beating the previous by something like four minutes.

Longest piece of continual dialogue maybe? Why is it a bad thing that it showed elements of human suffering that weren't explicitly political?

arybvtcw0eolkf

brianthebard wrote: »

Longest piece of continual dialogue maybe?

Yes, thats how I should have posted it.

brianthebard wrote: »

Why is it a bad thing that it showed elements of human suffering that weren't explicitly political?

I didn't say it was bad. But if it was telling Bobby Sands story it should really have focused more on what makes the story of Bobby Sands life and death. As I said, the charactor could have been any political prisoner in any jail in any part of the world save for the few lines of type at the end.

Maybe I'm being too critical, I remember Sands death very well. I also remember the aftermath of his death, the burning of the British Embassey here in Dublin, riots in N.I. etc & I guess thats all still very important to me.

Thumpette wrote: »

I thought the scene with Sands and the priest was amazing- and the photography in general in the film was suberb- You can really see the artristy of the director in it.

I have to agree with you there.

I knew it was coming, needed a pee (badly) and sat totally memerised through the whole 22 minutes.

Guys, don't get me wrong. I think this was a fantastic film, it plays like a very good made for TV movie but still it works on the big screen. I just felt it lacked something, esp. for the viewer who has no idea about Bobby Sands and the 1981 hunger strike.

I'd highly recommend people go and see it, but familiarise yourself with the story to get the best from the movie would be my suggestion.

johnny_ultimate

Watched this today and was hugely impressed. I generally have no interest in Troubles films (have had too many classes and lectures showing us Bloody Sunday and the like) but this isn't all about the politics. They are there, but it is very objective and human film. Very unflinching (they don't hold back on the conditions of the people and prison) but really gets into the reasons why Sands did this (that conversation in particular was a tightly written, brilliantly shot and beautifully acted quarter of an hour). Extraordinary visuals too: absolutely loved the final shot

which I thought was a deeply ironic, painful moment: Sands only manages to escape the prison through death, and yet the doors close and life goes on for the other prisoners, and doesn't draw any explicit conclusions. Was it futile? Frustrating?

.

But all in all a very accomplished, moving and shocking film about the human side of politics, struggle and prison. Brutal, but honest and probably one of the best Irish films in decades.

MooseJam

very shocking - he actually goes the whole way and dies in the end, sad

Acacia

I thought it was a very good film, but I would agree with Mairt, that it was a little lacking in background information, i.e. if you didn't know much about the hunger strike or its aftermath , you wouldn't learn a lot from the film. But I think maybe this was the point- it was , as my friend put it, 'very cut and dry'. Perhaps the director intended to bring the audience into the immediacy of the situation.

On the plus side, the acting was brilliant, the scenes were beautifully shot, and the atmosphere was conveyed very well. I actually think it wasn't 'policital propaganda' at all- I found it to be quite un-biased.

Dont be at yourself

The Hunger

Hunger

I thought Hunger was a very good film. It didn't really beat you over the head with political or moral messages, it just let the actions speak for themselves.

Structurally I felt it was a little all over the place - what seems like an hour passes before we really are introduced to Bobby Sands. The tete-a-tete with the priest was very well delivered, and I suppose that the subdued atmosphere of the film up until that point made it all the more affecting.

Hrududu

I thought it was a very good film, but I would agree with Mairt, that it was a little lacking in background information, i.e. if you didn't know much about the hunger strike or its aftermath , you wouldn't learn a lot from the film. But I think maybe this was the point- it was , as my friend put it, 'very cut and dry'. Perhaps the director intended to bring the audience into the immediacy of the situation.

Yup I think that was the point also. I think it was all about painting a rather intimate portrait of the human situation without bogging it down too much in the politics. For instance they spent a lot of time on that guard and then on the other 2 prisoners before we even got to Sands. The images of what the cells were like during the dirty protests ended up being burned into my mind, and in my opinion that was more powerful than showing the reprecussions etc on the outside. I do however agree that someone with little knowledge of the troubles or the hunger strikes might be a bit lost.

Red Hand

I thought some of it was fairly biased.

Like, the bit where the prision guards are beating up the prisioners. I don't think that was realistic. If that was the severity of the beatings, then someone would have died or sustained brain injury.

Pigman II

It's an overrated piece of artsy crap that's trying to cash in on the fact it is yet another needless example of an actor "doing a DeNiro".

Just as bad it tries to maintain it's not a biased movie yet makes no mention of the fact that Sands was in prison because he was aiding terrorism. As far as this movie is concerned Sands was really just a little boy with a dream not a bigoted criminal who lead 9 men to their deaths by his own idiotic example.

Dont be at yourself

Just as bad it tries to maintain it's not a biased movie yet makes no mention of the fact that Sands was in prison because he was aiding terrorism.

I think you've missed the point. It's not about being biased or unbiased. As a movie, it is apolitical. It was an exploration of the human condition, of what the human body & mind can do to itself under pressure. It is not, and never set out to be, a study into the politics of the characters.

EuskalHerria

Pigman II wrote: »

It's an overrated piece of artsy crap that's trying to cash in on the fact it is yet another needless example of an actor "doing a DeNiro".

Just as bad it tries to maintain it's not a biased movie yet makes no mention of the fact that Sands was in prison because he was aiding terrorism. As far as this movie is concerned Sands was really just a little boy with a dream not a bigoted criminal who lead 9 men to their deaths by his own idiotic example.

HaHaHa men like bobby died to preserve your democratic freedoms to talk that sh1te

Catch yourself on and grow up. Why such an attack on men that were trying to bring political status to the H block prisoners? The british more than once stated it was a war and such conditions should have have been given to the H block political prisoners anyway. It is just a credit that 10 brave men held on in the face of such terrible conditions and such hardship to stand up for what they believe in.

As for the film. I didn't think it was great and i thought H3 was much better and the fact some blanketmen were consulted over the film added to the realism of the overall story.

NekkidBibleMan

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

I think you've missed the point. It's not about being biased or unbiased. As a movie, it is apolitical. It was an exploration of the human condition, of what the human body & mind can do to itself under pressure. It is not, and never set out to be, a study into the politics of the characters.

+1

Pigman II

HaHaHa men like bobby died to preserve your democratic freedoms to talk that sh1te

As a movie, it is apolitical. It was an exploration of the human condition, of what the human body & mind can do to itself under pressure

Fair points. As such may I be the first say "thank you Bobby for going thru everything you did so I could have the opportunity to talk sh1te on this forum tonight". Also may I say thank you Mrs. Thatcher for letting Sands rot away and die in prison so that I could have such a thought provoking essay on the human condition to watch and enjoy.

EuskalHerria

Pigman II wrote: »

Fair points. As such may I be the first say "thank you Bobby for going thru everything you did so I could have the opportunity to talk sh1te on this forum tonight". Also may I say thank you Mrs. Thatcher for letting Sands rot away and die in prison so that I could have such a thought provoking essay on the human condition to watch and enjoy.

I know your username is pigman but that doesn't mean you should be pig ignorant!

Pigman II

EuskalHerria wrote: »

I know your username is pigman but that doesn't mean you should be pig ignorant!

and I know your name is Euskal Herria but doesn't mean you have to defend every movie made about members of a terrorist organisation.

EuskalHerria

Pigman II wrote: »

and I know your name is Euskal Herria but doesn't mean you have to defend every movie made about members of a terrorist organisation.

I assume from that stupid statement you do not understand what euskal herria means:rolleyes:

Second of all I won't Derail the thread further and give you the attention you so sorely seek but i will say that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter and hopefully we will leave it there.

I would hope you would educate yourself a lot more on the north of this country but that is wishful thinking on my part i guess, just hope you would not be so ignorant in future.

Pigman II

EuskalHerria wrote: »

I assume from that stupid statement you do not understand what euskal herria means:rolleyes:

I know what it means. Since we are assuming stuff I assume by using that emoticon that you are 12 years of age?

one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter

Very original.

just hope you would not be so ignorant in future.

There's always hope! Especially with people like yourself around to quote at me from "Noddys big book of cliches for kids".