Ken Loach

[jake]

Ken Loach (1936- )



1. Kes
2. My Name is Joe
3. Carla's Song
4. Land and Freedom
5. Raining Stones
6. Sweet Sixteen
7. The Navigators
8. 11'09"01: September 11 (2002) (segment: "United Kingdom")
9. Tickets (2005) (segment)
10. Riff-Raff
11. Ae Fond Kiss

[RNL]

I really should see some of his films, but I just know I'm not going to like them.

Socialist cinema? Social realism? Realism?

I'm not sure if I still have Kes lying around...

[jake]

I don't think you'd like them either.

I went through a period where I hated anything which strove for realism and his films aren't formally interesting but it's difficult to think of a more passionate or committed filmmaker. A constant voice ever since he burst onto a scene, he has never relinquished his political aspects and I find that very admirable.

[Capo]

1. Kes 1969
2. Bread and Roses 2000
3. Riff-Raff 1990
4. United Kingdom 2002 (segment from 11'09"01 - September 11)
5. The Golden Vision 1968

[Capo]

Palme d'Or winner The Wind that Shakes the Barley gets "Film of the month" in Sight & Sound's July issue.

Edward Lawrenson's opening paragraph claims thus:

Over the course of his 40-year career Ken Loach has been unusually adept at making films that enlarge and contest our understanding of the big issues of the day. From challenging alleged aspects of UK government policy, as in Hidden Agenda (1990), to pointing up class inequalities through dramas about low-income Britain, such as Sweet Sixteen (2002), his films have the persuasive force of crusading journalism. That he also brings to each project a masterly economy of style, a stirring dramatic urgency and a gift for bold strokes of raw emotion (a mix unmatched in British cinema) is overlooked by those who dismiss his work as 'mere' polemic.

Full review.

Not sure if I'm looking forward to Loach's new film; I'd like to revisit the work I have before seeing it.

[Michael]

Why is realism such a bad thing?

[RNL]

I think the correct term for the visual style that Loach and Leigh practice is "naturalism," and what it usually amounts to is films in which no attention is paid to the visual composition, it's a documentarian attitude, you just need a camera to "capture" the drama. I don't see the merit.

Of course, I speak from a position of ignorance here, with regard to Loach, but I'm familiar with the aesthetic and it's always the first thing mentioned in any article on the guy; that he's a "social realist" with a "naturalistic" style - if naturalism could even be considered a style, and not an absence or rejection of style.

[Capo]

Even so, it's terribly hard to evoke the performances Loach does. And for that, if directing is evoking good performances from actors, Loach happens to be a very fine one.

[RNL]

That's certainly what makes a good stage director, but focusing solely on that as a filmmaker means ignoring most of what makes the form unique. Don't you think?

[Capo]

But if the ignorance is a conscious one, he's made the style his own. A rejection of style becomes style?

I think he approaches the medium in a way not unlike, say, Tarkovsky, but whereas Tarkovsky's philosophies were insular, told through imagery, Loach uses the medium to voice his thoughts on external, wider, "social" issues.

A mis-use of the medium? Perhaps, but if the result is a film with an emotional intensity such as Kes, I'm not complaining.

[RNL]

Maybe 'style by necessity', but I think the basic ethos of "naturalism" is that if you put no emphasis on composition it becomes more "realistic", or something.

I think cinema is inherently unrealistic, that it's primarily a visual artform, and that those are both positive things, so that philosophy kind of rubs me the wrong way.

Still, I should make an effort to see some of his films.

[Capo]

Or, as a midway point, an ice-breaker, check out Lynn Ramsay's Ratcatcher (1999), which manages to feel, if I remember rightly, very naturalistic, in the vain of Loach, without sacrificing composition.

To be honest, though, it's been too long since I saw a Loach film that I can't really offer a meatier defence. Perhaps you can visit his work while I revisit it...?

[RNL]

Okay, I'm downloading Kes.

[Michael]

From the way you guys talk about it, I think I would love Kes.

I don't think minimal use of the camera is a "rejection of style." It's a style in itself because it allows you to focus on what's happening in front of the camera. Bresson and Cassavetes use it wonderfully. Some of the best moments in Diary of a Country Priest is when the camera stays on Claude Laydu's face for almost minutes at a time, allowing the viewer to study it, creating their own emotions due to a lack of his. Powerful method.

[RNL]

I'm not sure Bresson's style is anything like Loach's. Bresson wasn't a 'naturalist'.

Cassavetes' may be.

I didn't say 'minimal use' of the camera was a rejection of style, but merely using the camera as a documentation device directed at drama quite possibly could be.

[Anasazie]

1. Kes (1969) [blue]8.5/10[/blue]
2. Riff-Raff (1990) [blue]8/10[/blue]
3. Sweet Sixteen (2002) [blue]8/10[/blue]
4. My Name Is Joe (1998) [blue]7.5/10[/blue]
5. Raining Stones (1993) [blue]7/10[/blue]
6. Ladybird Ladybird (1994) [blue]7/10[/blue]
7. The Navigators (2001) [blue]7/10[/blue]
8. The Golden Vision (1968) [blue]7/10[/blue]
9. Land and Freedom (1995) [blue]6/10[/blue]
10. Carla's Song (1996) [blue]5/10[/blue]
11. The Wind That Shakes the Barley (2006) [blue]4/10[/blue]
12. Looking For Eric (2009) [blue]4/10[/blue]
13. Ae Fond Kiss...(2004) [blue]3/10[/blue]

[Anasazie]

Jun 22, 2006 16:10:50 GMT RNL said:

Maybe 'style by necessity', but I think the basic ethos of "naturalism" is that if you put no emphasis on composition it becomes more "realistic", or something.

I think cinema is inherently unrealistic, that it's primarily a visual artform, and that those are both positive things, so that philosophy kind of rubs me the wrong way.

Still, I should make an effort to see some of his films.

I totally agree with this sentiment. Naturalism is virtually impossible in most cinema. Loachs films are very very constructed and contrived just like everybody elses. Bresson's stuff couldn't be further from naturalism and although Cassavetes' is closer, it's still manipulated and manipulative because that's what you do when you decide what to frame.

Watch Effi Briest those that haven't, it'll tell you all about the nature of framing in cinema and in society.

[quentincompson]

1.Sweet Sixteen 8/10
2.The Navigators 6/10

[Capo]

Nov 1, 2008 23:18:19 GMT Anasazie said:

Watch Effi Briest those that haven't, it'll tell you all about the nature of framing in cinema and in society.

I got interested by wetdog's five-star rating and the film's alternative title alone; your 10/10 rating made me download it. I just need some subtitles, and I'm off...

[Anasazie]

It may be my ultimate favourite ever of all time....anywhere.....anyway......anyhow