Continuing the theme of sad movies this month, I was interested in watching Hunger, directed by Steven McQueen (no, not that Steve McQueen, this Steve McQueen) and starring Michael Fassbender, in preparation for the upcoming film Shame, also directed by McQueen and starring Fassbender.
Hunger is--pun somewhat intended--a slim little movie with a very narrow focus. The film depicts the events surrounding a prison hunger strike led by Bobby Sands, an Irish Republican Army volunteer. Sands and the other IRA prisoners wanted political status and various other rights, including the right not to wear a prison uniform and the right not to do prison work. After an unsuccessful "no wash" and "blanket" strike (during which the prisoners refused to bathe and wear the prison uniform--instead they went naked and wore blankets), the prisoners of Maze prison in Northern Ireland used all they had left--their lives--to barter for their rights.
In the end, they were granted many of their demands, although nine men, including Sands, had starved to death.
Visually, Hunger is grotesque and disgusting. The Maze prison is hellish, the prisoners are filthy, there are several scenes of family members and girlfriends smuggling messages and contraband to the prisoners by way of...body cavities. In McQueen's view of things, the prison guards are robots and the prisoners are animals.
There is very little dialogue in the movie, aside from an intense scene between Sands and a priest. The priest tries to dissuade Sands from starving himself--he asks Sands to think of his family and "wee son". But Sands is insulted by the priest's pleas and is set on dying for what he believes is a righteous cause. I have to say, I sided with the priest.
In the final third of the movie, we watch Sands starve to death. It's amazing they didn't end up force-feeding this guy. I guess for all the rights they refused the prisoners, they didn't bother refusing them the right to die.
Hunger's final act appears more like performance art than a film. Fassbender lost a ton of weight for this movie and he appears to be authentically starving by the end of the film. It was distressing to watch--not so much because I care about Bobby Sands or his cause, but because it was alarming to see how radically Fassbender changed his body for the role. Someone get the man a sandwich!
Hunger accomplishes its goals in the sense that you feel for the prisoners, who faced terrible conditions and abuse at the hands of hardened guards. No matter how you feel about the actions of the IRA (I don't know much about the IRA, but I'm against their use of terrorism and violence), you sympathize with their demands. Yet, at the same time, Sands comes off as more of a martyr than a hero in this movie. He starves himself (and, by example, encourages other men to also starve) for what I believe to be no good reason. I would argue that there are very few causes worth dying for--and that people who want to change the world and make a difference have a big advantage in, uh, being alive to work on their goals.
Hunger is a good film, but, like Bobby Sands' stomach, I felt pretty empty afterwards.
3.5 out of 5 stars
No comments:
Post a Comment