MUBI

Forget In the Name of the Father – except perhaps for the title, because the connotations of that title lurk (inevitably?) in this skeleton of the Bobby Sands story, and annex (irresistibly?) the writing and reading of the images. It’s so present, and so urgent, that one can’t help wondering if there was any way to avoid it, if indeed there ever is, or is the body politic in Western culture bound irrevocably to act as the body of Christ? Of course, given the Catholic context, one could argue that it would have been a distortion to do anything else here, since the iconography belongs to the experience – and besides the audience is free to question it. McQueen isn’t sanctifying arguments, since he doesn’t really present any: he isn’t even sanctifying actions, since their justification is questioned. Mostly he’s observing. The observation hurts. It homes in on the body and the flesh to such an extent that it breaks the comforting illusion of film – whose is this body, really, this actor’s body that can’t possibly be acting, and what the hell is he doing? The what takes precedence over the why, with its own striking conviction, its immediacy – and, arguably, its neutral irrationality which finds its own way into meaning, not always controllably. If it speaks it speaks about despair, and it speaks – and would even despite itself – about Catholicism, because the unconscious Fassbender/Sands in a hostile jailer’s arms looks like a Pietà, and connects to everything that image ever said or meant, and the image becomes a positive bombardment of meanings and emotional connections. It speaks about conviction, but it says next to nothing about republicanism.It speaks not to the ideas involved, desirable or undesirable, but to the situation they’re in: as the central debate suggests, it’s an irrationality in response to an irrationality That the situation is intolerable has been made sufficiently clear. The detail, let alone the merits, of the Republican position aren’t even at issue. Which in a sense is how it should be – to this response the appropriate causes, and no others, are given, but the Christian iconography complicates the question, because it carries ideas with its images, and in the absence of the relevant arguments they slip in, subliminally, to fill the void. And so a response to a situation becomes the proof of a position …

Dying was not ALL that Bobby Sands was about.

Actually, the structure of the film is rather awkward: relatively short, but extraordinarily intense, it clips itself into two, or, with the long debating-scene in the centre separate again from the rest, into three: part I is about dirt and violence rather than hunger – close-up images trying to connect with other, more visceral, senses – and it belongs to a relatively unknown and unprepared young man (quite unknown to me) who then vanishes from the film. Was he one of the other nine hunger-strikers who died subsequently? (No, apparently – their names for the record, since the film doesn’t offer it, were: Francis Hughes, Raymond McCreesh, Patsy O’Hara, Joe McDonnell, Martin Hurson, Keven Lynch, Kieran Doherty, Thomas McElwee, Michael Devine. Just in the name of equity, since all ten must have gone through the same). The intensity of the ‘Hunger’ section is so great, it was only in retrospect that I realised a character was lost; on realisation, it seemed a little like a desertion.

Between Part I and Part II comes a long confrontation between Sands and a Catholic priest – a similar strategy to that adopted in ‘Sophie Scholl’, forcing the audience in the middle of the film to step back and to assess arguments. What is at issue is the ethics of hunger striking in this situation, the foundation of the subject of the film – something approaching the issues it raises itself, although the debate regards the urgency of doing, not the complications of showing. It’s even longer than the argument in ‘Sophie Scholl’, it’s not certainly resolved except as regards the practicalities of what will happen, it represents an interestingly demanding strategy for engaging films with issues which stands out all the more here given that everything else that happens in this prison or in this film is viscerally non-verbal.

It’s very powerful – I guess you can tell that by the time I’ve spent circling it. It’s probably important – but partly because of the political questions it raises, no? yes/YES, she says, wary.

Title: Hunger
Year: 2008
Language: English, Irish Gaelic
Country: UK, Ireland
Genre: Biography, Drama
Director: Steve McQueen
Writers:
Enda Walsh
Steve McQueen
Cast:
Michael Fassbender
Liam Cunningham
Stuart Graham
Liam McMahon
Brian Milligan
Ciaran Flynn
Rating: 7/10

I had been intrigued to watch this internationally acclaimed debut of Steve McQueen for quite a long time, my hesitation was self-evident (it seemed that the hunger strike and its political inclination had been pushing me back), not until yesterday my zeal to being a serious film critic finally won over my inward unwillingness.

So after watching it, my first response is that it’s a film for cinephiles, it is visually stunning, the myriads of techniques are mind-blowing, the film also noted for a bundle of ingenious long-shots, most significantly is a tug-of-war conversation between Bobby Sands and the priest (a showy yet memorable performance by the two actors, a budding Michael Fassbender confronting the Irish veteran Liam Cunningham). Rookie director Steve McQueen economically spent every penny to showcase his talent in every possible respect, the visual art is overwhelmingly redundant within a rather thin narrative, in spite of the fact that the entire film runs only 96 minutes.

Mr. Fassbender dedicated another horridly traumatic weight-lost performance which vividly reminds me of what Christian Bale did in THE MACHINIST (2004), this time the effect is even more haunting and disturbing because of its biographic basis, which I deem is more a manifest to an utter allegiance to cinema art than a means of acting. I think Michael is right on his path to become the next big thing globally (checking his filmography and the upcoming projects, honestly speaking, he could go much far than Mr. Bale had achieved in my humble opinion).

The ethos aside, I am totally ignorant of the film’s historical backdrops, the film efficaciously indicates the weighty potential from the director himself, and I am waiting with pleasure to watch his next work SHAME (2011), starring Mr. Fassbender for a second round and Carey Mulligan, which theoretically will proffer an escalating eminence for the director and his team.

THE AUTEURS: How do you conceive of the relationship between bodies and physicality, and politics?

STEVE MCQUEEN: It’s the whole idea of people incarcerated in a cell 24 hours a day, for four and a half years, and what they did to protest – using their excrement, using their urine, not washing. Using their body as a weapon – if that’s all you have, what do you do with it? Maximizing your resistance as such. That was interesting for me to show, visually, because it had never actually been filmed.

McQueen’s Hunger provides the first visual examination of prisoner resistance in its most visceral, primal, and biological form. Unlike Un chant d’ amour’s Dionysian prison revolt,Hunger novelly captures (or should I say chronicles) the prisoners of ‘H-block’ complete biological metamorphosis into instruments of subversion. The 1976-81IRA prisoner strikes were a completely corporeal form of resistance in the same tradition of Lysistrata’s bio-riot against the Peloponnesian War. Their conclusive act of an all-too-human defiance is reminiscent of the organic lines of Pessoa:

“How about that, I found a solution, via my stomach!”
“Every [bodily] gesture is a revolutionary act.”

Throughout the film, the inmates entire anatomy and physiology is refitted for strategic subversion. Urine becomes a weapon deployed offensively; excrement a (thin) defensive barrier, all cavities (nostrils, vaginas, anuses, mouths) are now uncomfortable repositories for messages and contraband. The economy of fluid transfers embedded with these mail transfers is also voyeuristically portrayed. McQueen’s unflinching Tate Modern meets Robert Capa reportage is truly the first true cinematic examination of this type of carceral combat. It is unquestionably the most visually arresting (or interesting) affirmation of Foucault’s comment on disciplinary power: “Power, after investing itself in the body, finds itself exposed to a counterattack in that same body.”

“War is fundamentally embodied. War is enacted and experienced through the surveillance, classification, wounding, rape, mutilation, torture, death and display of human bodies. Diverse bodies are mobilized, disciplined, drilled, augmented, sacrificed, decorated, produced in war. The history of war is one of corporeal destruction and reconstruction…”— War and the Body Conference

McQueen’s Hunger is a subversive exploration into the body’s biological ‘reconstruction.’

McQueen (+) Rembrandt—Capa meets Tate Modern

This historically fictionalized film is based on an account of Bobby Sands (Michael Fassbender), the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) volunteer who led the 1981 Irish hunger strike and participated in the no wash protest in which Republican prisoners tried to regain political status. It dramatizes events in the Maze prison in the period leading up to the hunger strike. The film is intensely moving.

First time British director Steve McQueen drops us, without landing gear, in the midst of vicious brutality. Without prior investment we are situated within the detainment facility as a bystander to the beatings and mistreatment of malnourished prisoners. The violence was realistically conveyed in a slightly more appropriate manor than, say, Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom.

This is not a black and white depiction of history, nor is it manipulative. The answers we are looking for are never revealed but instead we are dealt, incidentally, a mixed bag of emotions. A seventeen minute, single shot take tells us that there are two very different opinions on this social incident, leading down two very different paths of righteousness. Sands believes that he is doing the right thing, the human thing. During this scene he converses with a priest about the finality of this unfortunate circumstance and, as the priest tries to convince him of giving in to save his life, Sands never gives it any thought. With a firm belief in all things just and virtuous in the world he is willing to do anything to make a difference. This may be the most challenging scene in the film.

I was awe-struck throughout, not only by its masterful photography but also the desolation of the setting and the loneliness amidst the unsettling courage of Sands. To say Fassbender did what he could for the film would be an understatement. His physical performance was phenomenal, certainly the role of a lifetime and one that will stick with his audience for ages.

I was initially interested in Hunger because I wanted to know why and how this happened. McQueen does an excellent job at presenting those questions in an analytical sense, much like the famed Austrain director Michael Haneke and his unflinching masterpiece The Seventh Continent. Both films are similar in more ways than one—placing the physicality of the acting above all else, relying on long takes for symbolic interpretation and systematically studying a historical tragedy.

Hunger is a masterpiece of the 21st century and I hope to see much more from Steve McQueen in the near future.

el ascetismo de la puesta en escena, la violencia y la determinación de los camaradas del eri, hacen de esta película un ejercicio de trascendencia. no se enfrenta el espectador a algo cotidiano, trivial. algo de misticismo, de pasión, sin duda de trascendencia. la mayoría de las producciones mexicanas parece un juego de niños tímidos y brutos. hunger es un ejercicio puntual y magistral de lo que el cine puede llegar a ser y, por vía negativa, de lo pedestre que lamentablemente, es

Hunger is a really disturbing Film, hard to watch, but actually beautifully done. The cinematography is incredible, and every shot is serene and pretty damn close to perfect. I really liked the fact that the Film didn’t follow one Character throughout. It switched off seamlessly between several Characters. I don’t think this is one I’ll ever be reviewing, but it was very well done and it packs one hell of a powerful punch.

A powerful film.

The first 15 minutes of the film are nearly wordless but convey the toll. The guards must go through and deal with. It’s a haunting beautiful sequence which I can also say about the rest of the film.

The film begins stylishly though in a subdued way throwing you off guard by beginning on the prison guards. One in particular thinking we are going to follow him and his role in all of this. But it is just a peak of how we are going to at least show both sides in this drama of the prisoners and the guards but really this is the only time we see the drama involved in there side of the story.

Once we meet the prisoners it just is brutal the beatings, the cells, they’re protests. It can get disgusting especially the scenes introducing us and the new prisoner to the cells. This is a depressing movie and one. Not to definitely watch while eating.

Take the scene where bobby sands is talking to a priest as a warning sign after this point if you have made it this far now it gets brutal emotionally and physically. Though at this point most of the film has shown suffering on both sides

It’s a colorful film that only uses dark dull colors Michael Fassbender is excellent. Since he is a screen actor who is new to me. He disappears into his role making it seem more realistic.

Since it is based on a true story we know or can find out how it ends but you still stay riveted and amazed at how deep the characters believe in something that they will sacrifice there lives and health for what they believe.

The scene with the priest is a masterpiece as most the scene is done in one unitnterupted take noflashy distracting camera movements it stays put in a midshot and feels like a play but it is so full of emotion and faith that it almost feels like the priest is arguing with a suicide note. If that makes sense to you.

The film is great and the directing debut of Steve McQueen not the deceased actor but a british acclaimed artist who happens to be African American. This is a skilled debut from filmmaker I look forward to seeing more work by.

Especially since he made a film about a historical tragedy that I would think would be cut and dry to me. Yet he managed to bring me in and feel something and be amazed by what he was putting on his palace the movie screen in this instance.

Defiantely a must see. It more then gains it’s reputation.

GRADE: A

Brutally artistic, violent, savage, poetic, and unforgettable prison film from British visual artist Steve McQueen, detailing a political hunger strike in an Irish prison in 1981 that killed 10 I.R.A. members before it was called off. As leader Bobby Sands, focus of the second and third acts (act one details a “no wash” strike), actor Michael Fassbender presents a strong unified front as he literally wastes away to nothing. Both uneasy to watch and amazingly visual, this artistic triumph is decidedly not for junkies of prison movies (there are no well planned escapes here), but for fans of directors like Ken Loach, Terrence Malick, and Abbas Kiarostami, this is a gem.

Hunger é um filme tenso e chocante mas ao mesmo tempo belo e “inocente”.
O diálogo é pouco, a presença é muita.
Documentário facial e de expressão corporal. Hunger apara e cria um monstro cruamente real e artístico, esse monstro é o espirito, é o orgulho, a demandada por uma personalidade; as entranhas! dos presos de Maze.

Não é dramático, mas é real, não é emotivamente emotivo, mas é cruamente verdadeiro.

Cenas como o diálogo entre Dom e Bobby, ou Bobby a olhar para o tecto a rir-se com o sangue a borbulhar por entre os dentes ao som do ritmo dos bastões dos policias de choque, fazem toda a diferença colocando Hunger num outro patamar na cadeia dos filmes sobre cadeia.

I’m not generally fond of biographical films, but Hunger is a distinct exception. The tour-de-force directorial debut of British artist Steve McQueen, Hunger firmly eschews genre convention in its recounting of the final months in the life of Bobby Sands. An IRA volunteer and inmate at Northern Ireland’s Maze prison, Sands died of self-imposed starvation after a 66-day hunger strike, begun in protest of the British government’s decision to revoke ‘Special Category status’ from IRA prisoners.

While McQueen’s subject matter appears inescapably political in nature, he miraculously avoids the transmission of a partisan agenda. Instead, he primarily relates events through a harrowingly intimate prism of human experience. The immediacy with which McQueen depicts Sands’ protest, and its precursor, the appalling ‘No-Wash protest’, is astonishing. The historical events are themselves greatly compelling, but McQueen’s camera elevates them to a work of oppressive beauty.

Michael Fassbender (also of Inglourious Basterds) plays Sands, and, further defying the biopic formula, delivers a powerfully understated performance. His is the foremost in a slate of universally excellent performances, and suggests that he, like his director, will be one to watch in 2010 and beyond.

Directed by Bullitt (what a world we would live in if this was actually true) and featuring a cast of actors who speak a language only vaguely resembling English, Hunger is a contemporary masterpiece of cold, detached yet stylised realism. If this film has given me anything to consider, it’s the true horror of a devoted hunger strike — which is a lot to consider. The impossibly long, static shot of Bobby Sands enjoying a one-sided conversation (because he was only listening to himself) with the priest is a small miracle of recent cinema.

Those worried by descriptors being used in association with this film such as ‘abstract’ and ‘succession of images’ should not be altogether put off: here, ‘abstract’ is being confused with (exaggerated) realism, and the film has a much stronger, more traditional narrative to it than ‘succession of images’ might bring to mind. As far as Art Films go, I would not be hesitant in calling this tradionally entertaining — meaning, alienation runs low.

Hunger, the debut film from Turner prize winning artist Steve McQueen, tells with astonishing brevity and style the story of Bobby Sands and the hunger strike that he undertook in 1981 within the confines of the Long Kesh prison in Northern Ireland. Any film tackling such a polarising subject is bound to be controversial, not to mention relentlessly bleak and extremely difficult to watch. That is a given. What is not though, is that a first time filmmaker could produce something so astonishing, so overwhelming, that it immediately qualifies as one of the most significant British movies of all time. I use the word lightly, but this truly is a masterpiece. McQueen displays not only a preternatural command of his craft, but also a willingness to experiment, that should hopefully mean one day his name is mentioned in the same company as Tarkovsky, Bergman, and even Kubrick. Anyone who can find the beauty in a close-up on a bloodied knuckle, or a wall smeared in excrement clearly possesses a unique gift. This journey is not for the faint hearted, but those willing to take it will be rewarded in spades.

Hunger contains numerous moments of such beauty and exquisiteness that attempting to convey them verbally is a thankless task, but one sequence, the only dialogue-heavy scene in this remarkable movie, is already destined to become the stuff of legend. Sands meets with his Priest to discuss the impending strikes, and as they sit and smoke the camera remains perfectly still for well over ten minutes, one of the longest single shots in film history. This is no self-congratulatory pat on the back though, or empty moment of artistic pretension. The stillness and clarity that passes through Sands as he reaches the monumental decision to end his own life is captured perfectly. Plaudits too though have to go to Michael Fassbender for playing Sands. His commitment to the role is paramount, and the physical deterioration that he allows himself to endure to successfully convey the scale of Sands’ suffering is truly astonishing. I can only imagine the horror that his friends and family experienced during the films production as he literally allows himself to waste away. This is a performance that genuinely tests the limits of what the cinema is capable of, and the bravery and honesty of it is symptomatic of this film as a whole.

Hunger is a movie that goes beyond politics and religion, and reaches out to something far more important, our humanity. It isn’t interested in choosing sides; it empathises with everyone, successfully articulating the desperation and despair created by these extraordinary circumstances. In any situation where men are prepared to die for their political beliefs there are no winners, only losers, and McQueen captures this perfectly through the non-judgemental gaze of his camera. It is a breathtaking statement, a monumental achievement, and belongs to that rare-category of life-affirming cinema that reminds you why this is truly the most powerful art form known to man. There can be no higher praise than that.

Very very disturbing. One of the most touching films i saw in a while. Perfection through all the way, the story telling, the rising of tension, the disturbance level and the most important aspect for me in this film was camera. It is absolutely sick. Some close shots are more than brilliant, the non steady camera scenes and long scene with powerful dialog (sands-priest) dialogue. Is it really worth dying for political activism, well in the end it made sense.. But do you have what it takes to get there…perfect presentation of it.

My first experience of McQueen was his turner prize winning, Buster Keaton homage ‘Deadpan’. I’ve been studiously following his work since and secretly praying that he’d turn his hand to feature cinema. McQueen is amongst the best British artists working today so it was perhaps inevitable that his debut would be as good as it is. Hunger is a brutal depiction of life as an IRA member in the infamous Maze prison and of the equally infamous Bobby Sands’ hunger strike and eventual death.

The main bulk of criticism leveled against the piece is from those who believe Hunger glorifies Sands, who was after all, a terrorist. I’d suggest that those using terms such as ‘martyrdom’ or ‘glorification’ give the film another viewing or refrain from commenting on what is actually a strikingly impartial film. To followers of McQueen’s art this will come as no surprise. He’s courted and survived controversy before – his work as the official war artist, ‘Queen & Country’ has been described as both pro and anti the Iraq war. He weaves impartiality into Hunger with such mastery that what we are left with is not a film about a political protest within the context of a hunger strike but a film about a physical protest within the context of political struggle. We are reminded, with shocking indifference, of the brutality inflicted by both sides of the conflict. Any IRA sympathy is quickly put to rest by the nursing home scene, in which we are given a stark reminder of their methods and the horrors inflicted on the Maze inmates level the playing field, with regards to the films political leaning.

The entire cast rise to great heights in what must have been a slew of incredibly difficult performances and not just the main speaking roles – although Fassbender and Cunningham are both utterly superb in their amazing 20 minute, single shot colloquy. Much has been writen about the Hunger’s lack of dialogue and resultant focus it places on image. While the film is visually stunning, it boasts some fantastic use of sound (as opposed to just dialogue) that would’ve certainly brought a smile to the faces of Eisenstein or Pudovkin. What we are left with, is as close to audible silent cinema as you can get and it’s wonderfully refreshing.

All this put together makes for a brutal, shocking but unashamedly honest film. With so many strings to his bow it’s hard to say if we’ll get anymore features from McQueen anytime soon but one hopes that this is the start of a long career. If he continues to put out work like Hunger his rise to cinemas highest accolades would seem an inevitability. This is the best debut for a long long time.