This review will be slightly different from my others as it is a review that I have written for some English homework. So if you feel like you're getting bored, then stop reading because I got bored writing it, trust me.
In director Steve McQueen’s films, it is undeniable that
each one is a different personal passion project of his. From his directorial
debut here to his latest slavery based true story 12 Years a Slave, set to be released in the UK later in the year,
it seems as if he is trying to tell his audience something honest and authentic
about human nature. More specifically the nature of men. McQueen’s 2011 film Shame demonstrated the total disarray a
man can go through when faced with a powerful and cruel addiction. McQueen’s
introduction to the directing world gives a more important message, how far
will a man go to have his demands met?
The film tells the short yet prolific story of Bobby Sands
(rising star Michael Fassbender), an IRA terrorist kept locked inside a
Northern Irish prison. Fassbender portrays Sands as vigilant and determined
through the first segment of the story as we see Sands fight against his
captors and instruct his fellow inmates. Sands’ fortitude is proves to be most
extreme in an incredible scene in which he describes to a Priest that his plans
are to lead his followers on a lethal hunger strike. The scene I describe here
lasts roughly 17 minutes and is performed in the style of dramatic theatre. It
is filmed in one take and contains some fantastic acting. From the audience’s
perspective you can imagine McQueen simply stepping aside and placing trust in
his actors to be able to deliver the carefully crafted dialogue. This is a
style that was used by Steven Spielberg for his latest American History Biopic,
Lincoln, and it works here just as beautifully.
McQueen’s tone has been wisely constructed and kept
consistent throughout all three of his films. It’s clearly a style he feels
confident with, and rightly so because it completely and perfectly amalgamates
with the dark themes of Hunger. The
only way a film with themes as grim as this could be done justice would be from
a director such as McQueen who is capable of showing scenes that could easily
upset the majority of his audience, or even those with a weak stomach. For
example a scene in which the IRA prisoners are brutally dragged from their cells
and subjected to an awfully violent wash and shave is filmed so realistically
that the viewer is left feeling shocked and appalled.
I compare a scene like this to a similar scene in Jim
Sheridan’s In the Name of the Father.
The two films have similar plots and deal with related issues. In Sheridan’s
film Gerry Conlon is tortured by police officers into admitting to a crime he
did not commit. The scene is shown through fast cuts and loud noises. In no way
is this scene poorly filmed, quite the reverse. But when compared to McQueen’s
scene in which prison guards force prisoners from their cells and brutally bash
them into submission with riot shields and night sticks. With no non-diegetic
music and a lack of obvious editing, McQueen’s camera simply follows the events
gracefully, and it works perfectly as a contraction with the happenings that
are in motion.
As the whole film is set within a prison, the stone walls
and unbelievably dirty surroundings give the whole feel of the story a claustrophobic
environment. The audience is taken into the life of an inmate at this poorly
kept prison and they are made to feel controlled. This feeling is balanced conversely
by a few clips of sun and sky as Fassbender’s character describes his days as a
runner, making the audience feel as if there is a glimpse of freedom no matter
how bleak the circumstances are.
Like I said the sets do feel realistic and give this ideal
sense of entrapment as a prison should. But McQueen goes so far to make this
world he has created feel lived in. Any director from film school can have
people build a set or go to a location but if the set doesn’t feel as if it is
frequently used, the director has lost. It was George Lucas who irritated his
production crew by stopping them from cleaning as the footprints and dirt gave
his original Star Wars film a weathered
and realistic look. McQueen excels in this respect.
With McQueen’s work there is no doubt that it is a man’s
world. In Hunger there are many strong
masculine roles that show men taking actions that display this gender role.
Minimal female characters are involved in the film and this cements the theory
that McQueen believed the IRA was mainly a male organisation. There is also
constant references to Margaret Thatcher, giving the impression of male vs
female conflict which of course is factually correct in this time. The way it
is handled is exceptional as it completely emphasises Thatcher’s view that
there is only criminal terrorism, as opposed to political terrorism. This is a
huge theme within the film and Thatcher’s view is carried out by the actions of
the prison guards and anyone against Bobby Sands’ and indeed the IRA’s ideas. So
although she is not a physical presence Thatcher’s claws are felt within the
story, as I’m sure they were prominent in the real life events.
In the lead Michael Fassbender is fantastically mesmerising,
his minimal movements and laid back attitude give his character an impression
of great intractability, intelligence and portrays him as an unstoppable spirit.
Fassbender’s approach to this role made him an up and coming force to be
reckoned with, within the acting community. Had Hunger been given a higher marketing budget this film could have
been for Fassbender what My Left Foot
was for Daniel Day-Lewis: a launching pad to skyrocket him into Oscar glory. Hunger is a film that encompasses
something that we all have and tells the true story in a respectful manner that
doesn’t hold back its facts, never patronising with McQueen allowing his
audience to make their own decision on who was right and who was wrong.
