Ken Loach’s Guernica, a vivid recollection of death, brutality, suffering, and helplessness, unalleviated by a happy ending. Its subject is the birth of the IRA, the unbearable emotional toll on the lives of those involved, and the price paid in blood. Incredibly manipulative, biased, and deterministic, it is also an accomplished piece of filmmaking. As is usually the case with Loach, the film somehow manages to take the broad view while keeping his human characters sharply in focus. Gradually, a theme of ruptured familial relationships emerges from the rubble. The roving, restless camera unites all the performers within the frame without emphasizing one over the other, so that the entire film resembles a tapestry or portraiture. And the seemingly improvisatory acting is invigorating for its ease and naturalness. (The difficult Irish accents are not attended by subtitles.) Excellent performances by Cillian Murphy, Padraic Delaney, and Orla Fitzgerald accompany this unashamedly tenacious polemic, though it is that very tenaciousness that tends to work against its success.
7 comments:
It pains me to say I have not yet seen any films by Ken Loach. Is there a good place to start?
Begin at the beginning, with Kes. (Or before the beginning, with Poor Cow, if you can find a copy.) From there, you can pretty much skip around his filmography without consequence, although it might be fun to go chronologically, since it gives you a sense of the changing times.
Loach is an interesting fellow, and probably the most liberal filmmaker around. Technically he's Marxist/socialist, and has been since the '60s. But one gets the sense that he actually likes people, and isn't just tooting his own horn. And he works miracles with actors.
Your description of Loach really intrigues me. Thanks for the recommendations! I'll check out Kes the next time I have an evening to spare.
Gosh, as much as I hear Loach referenced, I've never seen him either. I'll definitely see this, though.
I don't want to glamorize the film with my enthusiastic review. It's literally wall-to-wall suffering. Some may not find it very edifying, but to me it registered as a cry of despair, almost a prayer. I'd be curious to hear what you all think.
I saw this about a year ago at the theater and it struck me as reminiscent of Godfather II in its depiction of the heartrending (self)destruction of families that takes place when a cause (and inevitably "trust") becomes more important than love within a family. Except the characters are much more sympathetic than in Godfather II.
It was difficult for me to imagine what I would have done in the same circumstances, so therefore I'd say the film was successful. How important can, or should, a cause become?
Thanks for all the talk about this, everyone. I'm about halfway through watching it now and am and thoroughly depressed, though I do agree that it is a success.
Between watching this, Patton, Eastern Promises, Zodiac, Chinatown, and Ken Burns' documentary on WWII, as well as reading a couple of Hemingway novels, I think I'm going to have to put a comedy or a good old fashioned musical at the top of my queue next. One's heart can only stand so much.
Post a Comment