15 responses so far.

• 1 StanleyRumm // Apr 26, 2009 at 1:37 pm

  I disagree with Jett that the ending didn't need to be shown. It's too easy to say someone is resolved to go on hunger-strike and not show it. That would glorify the action -or at least lend it a kind of romantic dignity.
  Not that those prisoners lost their dignity overall. They are still idolised today in many quarters, but yet no other film has shown the depth of their commitment (or stubbornness) and just what it means to go on hunger strike.

  I would think the 10th person to die was bravest (and most committed/ stubborn/ possibly dumbest) of all since he had to endure not only his own death but all the others too. Yet his name is mostly forgotten. Not by everyone of course.

  I agree that it's interesting to reflect on the way Northern Ireland has become as globalised and homogenised as any other Western country. I'm fairly sure Bobby Sands and the others would be disheartened to know their great dream of a united Ireland has (for the moment at least) been rendered almost irrelevant.

  Great film to watch once.

• 2 Jett Loe // Apr 26, 2009 at 2:00 pm

  hunger

• 3 Tom // Apr 27, 2009 at 12:27 pm

  Now, please don't get me wrong. There's a very valuable place for documentries and films like Hunger about challenging subjects..

  But please chaps – let's have a return (for a week at least) to a longer show with the two of you pulling the latest piece of fluff to pieces. I need some levity!

• 4 Jett Loe // Apr 27, 2009 at 12:32 pm

  normal service will resume shortly

• 5 Phil // Apr 27, 2009 at 1:15 pm

  Maybe past it's shelf life, but would have liked to have heard a review of “State of Play” — not a great film, but based in the newspaper industry and would have liked to hear your comments about that.

  Sorry – not trying to divert from the review above – appreciate you guys expanding our horizons, but Tom is right…it's been very “artsy” around here lately!

• 6 Jett Loe // Apr 27, 2009 at 2:37 pm

  Yes, Gareth and I noticed that the comments dropped waaaaaay down after we went to the Full Frame Festival… art is good for you – it doesn't all have to be 'Wolverine'! ;)

• 7 Phil // Apr 27, 2009 at 4:57 pm

  I know. It's been good stuff, too.

  Yer just makin' us think too much…

• 8 Jett Loe // Apr 27, 2009 at 5:04 pm

  Film Criticism

• 9 StanleyRumm // Apr 28, 2009 at 2:46 am

  I think the lack of replies during the documentary fest is mostly due to lack of exposure. We can't see them or know much about them so we can't have much to say.
  Also, although I agree that a lot of documentaries are much better than what's coming from 'mainstream', I still somehow have a “so what?” feeling at the end of most documentaries that I don't get from movies.
  eg. Religulous is probably the most recent, good, 'cinema' documentary I've seen recently. Although I enjoyed it on the whole, I can't shake the feeling that it belongs on TV. If, however, it was a fictional tale about a guy (Woody Allen?) trying out various religions and finding something stupid in each then that could make for a great movie.
  …And we could also discuss/ dissect it at leisure, talking about how the story builds, the makeup, the camerawork, the lighting, certain shots, elements of the plot or whether we 'buy' the concept or not.
  We are _allowed_ to choose -or even not choose, but enjoy (or otherwise) the film/story for other reasons entirely.

  With documentaries, you are kind of stuck with the underlying tale being told. There are other elements, but it's hard to get people involved in “a worthy subject” when they almost need to be aware or interested in the topic beforehand. It's like crying to the converted -which most documentaries do anyway in my opinion.

  On the other hand, “worthy” films such as Andrei Rublev, Happiness, Zodiac or Chitty Chitty Bang Bang can be appreciated more without seeing them, from an enthusiastic (or otherwise) review or discussion, since you can portray your feelings on a wide variety of things other than the central theme itself.
  Documentaries are good, but usually go for the jugular when sometimes a thousand little cuts is the only way to go. I happen to think “Barney” is putrid crap because he points out the obvious and says “now kids don't this” or “do this” without any real underlying context or reason -actually removing that analytic ability from young minds that should be prodded and inspired rather than told.

  Documentaries can be guilty of this too. We need a bigger framework to be able to allow ourselves appreciate complexities and to allow us to build thought processes through -to work through them in our own thoughts (and discussions) rather than being told “ABC”.

  Fiction is the only way to do that. Proper fiction that is. The type that nobody buys.

  …By the way, can I cheekily point out there's an excellent book called Ooyay, available online, the likes of which you've never seen or heard of before. :) Would make an excellent movie too of course. Maybe someday.

• 10 Jett Loe // Apr 28, 2009 at 6:46 am

  Documentary Action

• 11 StanleyRumm // Apr 28, 2009 at 7:07 am

  I just recalled my favourite documentary -the only one I can recall re-watching multiple times and enjoying it more each go…
  American Movie.
  As you say, it's to do with letting the story evolve rather than going in with an agenda. I dislike Michael Moore type stuff.

  As for Ooyay -congratulations, you pronounce it same way I do.

  Anyway the best “art”, be it painting, traditional movie, documentary or groundbreaking unique fiction is usually that which we are unsure of beforehand, but convinces us after we give it a go -leading us to someplace we never knew we wanted to be.
  ;)

• 12 StanleyRumm // Apr 28, 2009 at 9:46 am

  I think the lack of replies during the documentary fest is mostly due to lack of exposure. We can't see them or know much about them so we can't have much to say.
  Also, although I agree that a lot of documentaries are much better than what's coming from 'mainstream', I still somehow have a “so what?” feeling at the end of most documentaries that I don't get from movies.
  eg. Religulous is probably the most recent, good, 'cinema' documentary I've seen recently. Although I enjoyed it on the whole, I can't shake the feeling that it belongs on TV. If, however, it was a fictional tale about a guy (Woody Allen?) trying out various religions and finding something stupid in each then that could make for a great movie.
  …And we could also discuss/ dissect it at leisure, talking about how the story builds, the makeup, the camerawork, the lighting, certain shots, elements of the plot or whether we 'buy' the concept or not.
  We are _allowed_ to choose -or even not choose, but enjoy (or otherwise) the film/story for other reasons entirely.

  With documentaries, you are kind of stuck with the underlying tale being told. There are other elements, but it's hard to get people involved in “a worthy subject” when they almost need to be aware or interested in the topic beforehand. It's like crying to the converted -which most documentaries do anyway in my opinion.

  On the other hand, “worthy” films such as Andrei Rublev, Happiness, Zodiac or Chitty Chitty Bang Bang can be appreciated more without seeing them, from an enthusiastic (or otherwise) review or discussion, since you can portray your feelings on a wide variety of things other than the central theme itself.
  Documentaries are good, but usually go for the jugular when sometimes a thousand little cuts is the only way to go. I happen to think “Barney” is putrid crap because he points out the obvious and says “now kids don't this” or “do this” without any real underlying context or reason -actually removing that analytic ability from young minds that should be prodded and inspired rather than told.

  Documentaries can be guilty of this too. We need a bigger framework to be able to allow ourselves appreciate complexities and to allow us to build thought processes through -to work through them in our own thoughts (and discussions) rather than being told “ABC”.

  Fiction is the only way to do that. Proper fiction that is. The type that nobody buys.

  …By the way, can I cheekily point out there's an excellent book called Ooyay, available online, the likes of which you've never seen or heard of before. :) Would make an excellent movie too of course. Maybe someday.

• 13 Jett Loe // Apr 28, 2009 at 1:46 pm

  Documentary Action

• 14 StanleyRumm // Apr 28, 2009 at 2:07 pm

  I just recalled my favourite documentary -the only one I can recall re-watching multiple times and enjoying it more each go…
  American Movie.
  As you say, it's to do with letting the story evolve rather than going in with an agenda. I dislike Michael Moore type stuff.

  As for Ooyay -congratulations, you pronounce it same way I do.

  Anyway the best “art”, be it painting, traditional movie, documentary or groundbreaking unique fiction is usually that which we are unsure of beforehand, but convinces us after we give it a go -leading us to someplace we never knew we wanted to be.
  ;)

• 15 The Film Talk » Re-visiting ‘Hunger’, the Most Important Film I’ve Seen this Year // Jul 22, 2009 at 8:04 pm

  [...] April we presented Episode 62 of TFT, focusing on ‘Hunger’, the astonishing feature film debut of the visual artist Steve McQueen, [...]

Leave a Comment