In all honestly, when I first picked up this DVD from one of the many HMV shelves, I thought this was the directorial debut of Steve 'The Cooler King' McQueen. Rather than being the sadly deceased screen icon of The Great Escape, Hunger was brought to us by a 40 year old Turner Prize winner.
Let's get the trivial information out of the way: Hunger depicts the lives of IRA activists during the 1981 hunger strike in Maze Prison, Northern Ireland. Initially instigated by Bobby Sands / Michael Fassbender (who survived 66 days of the strike), it lasted for seven months and resulted in a further nine men dying for their cause.
To understand this brutal epic you need to understand the director's roots, where he is best known for his work as an accomplished artist. See Deadpan (1997).
The dialogue takes an absence from the majority of the screen-time and replaced by actions that truly speak louder than words (I've put an adequate example below). In fact, the only real dialogue comes in 44minutes after pressing PLAY and stays fixed in a one-shot sequence for 22minutes.
It's strange to watch a movie with no character's opening their mouths, you begin to start interpreting their actions and filling in the blanks, so to speak. Every shot is carefully planned, further evidence that McQueen's previous experiences have helped him here.
This isn't the type of film that you can just sit down and switch off and enjoy (See example above again if unconvinced). You watch brutal scenes based on actual events and, predictably, that's the only way that these can be told with any justice.
One of the most striking images of the entire film has to be the final act where we see a transformed Bobby Sands. At first I believed that there was some kind of digital effect going on to make Fassbender (you might remember him from 300 and Eden Lake - another movie I'll be writing on soon) appear to be not amongst the living. After watching the special features of the disc (a vice that I do alongside listening to directors commentary of the film), I learnt that he was on a diet of 600 caleries per day for three months: that's a handful of nuts, berries and two sardines every day. Very few actors have that degree of commitment so to watch it on the screen made for a chilling viewing.
(Apologies for the theatrics)
It's a must see.
I don't get it. I didn't get it when Christian Bale changed his physical appearance in 'The Machinist' nor did I get it when Renee Zellweger altered her appearance for 'Bridget Jones.'
ReplyDeleteThe reason I don't get it is that I've always understood acting to be an inner expression; actions, movements, vocals...where as films like these draw the focus on the severe change of appearance which isn't exactly acting - yet it's justified by the subject matter and it is compulsive viewing.
I don't dispute the success of this contemporary angle on film making, perhaps it's the times we're in...celebrities, weight etc constantly in the press. Maybe it's just the shock factor of it all, a little too close to reality.
I'm not sure.
I don't get it.