Film Review: I, Daniel Blake

 "I, Daniel Blake"

 **** (out of ****)

Ken Loach is a British filmmaking icon and his "I, Daniel Blake" (2017) has had the most profound effect on me these past seven years since I first saw it. Back then I declared it as not only the very best film of 2017 but a few years later would name it as the best film of the last decade. With this year's theme of Was I Right? - a year long re-examination of my previous "Top Ten" choices - now felt like an appropriate time to take another look at Loach's film to determine if I was right to lavish such acclaim at the film.

"I, Daniel Blake" is a masterpiece plain and simple. It remains relevant and continues to serve as a powerful statement on the every day living conditions of the working class. Not just in the U.K. but throughout the Western world. "Blake" easily ranks among Loach's most accomplished works. It is no wonder it won the Palme d' Or at the Cannes Film Festival - Loach's second film to do so - and was also responsible for a social movement in Loach's U.K. homeland. I suspect this would be more meaningful to Loach than winning the Palme d'Or.

After I saw "I, Daniel Blake" the first time it reminded me of Loach's talents. Oddly, Loach had fallen off of my radar following his film "The Wind That Shakes The Barley" (2007) - his first feature to win the top prize at Cannes. Although I placed that film on my year end best list  I can't recall his subsequent films such as "Jimmy's Hall" (2014) and "The Angel's Share" (2012) being reviewed in either of my hometown newspapers. "Blake" however reignited my passion for Loach's films and this period showed a vitality in his work. His next film, "Sorry We Missed You" (2020) was another masterpiece, a critique of the gig economy that just happened to be released during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. It also topped my year end list. Sadly Loach has announced he may retire from making feature-length films with "The Old Oak" (2024) being his final cinematic declaration. I decided to stop commenting on current films on this blog two years ago but if I was still in the "top ten" business, it surely would secure the top spot.

"Blake" shares a common through line within Loach's work, the ways in which government institutions are heartless and seem to only succeed in belittling and abusing working class people by creating a maddening labyrinthine of bureaucracy. In that regard "I, Daniel Blake" recalls Loach's "Ladybird, Ladybird" (1995), the story of government social workers who repeatedly targeted a poor woman, taking away four of her children. What the characters in these films have in common is if they were wealthy, government institutions wouldn't get away with treating them so poorly.

Daniel Blake (Dave Johns) is a middle-aged carpenter that suffered a heart attack on the job. His doctor has advised he is not fit to return to work. As part of a mandated assessment to keep disability benefits, however, a "healthcare professional" - who refuses to identity herself as either a nurse or doctor - has deemed that he is fit for work after not scoring enough points on a Work Capability Assessment test. This sets off a chain reaction causing his financial benefits to be denied. Outraged Daniel would like to file an appeal but that process could potentially take years meanwhile he needs a source of income and so he must prove he is actively looking for work if he wishes to receive unemployment benefits. But since his doctor has advised him not to work, he couldn't accept an offer of employment if given one. Which would in effect cause his unemployment benefits to be suspended. Sound confusing? Annoying? Irrational? Good! That means the system is working as it's supposed to.

The very first thing we hear in "I, Daniel Blake" is the conversation regarding the Work Assessment test. The lady on the other end must ask Daniel a series of questions. Questions that he has already answered on a form. This agitates Daniel but the woman speaks in a cool and calm (and disinterested) voice explaining she must ask these questions. The questions also have nothing to do with Daniel's heart attack, which is the issue he would like to address. In a later scene, Daniel is put on hold for nearly two hours - longer than a rugby match he exclaims, just so he could speak to another disinterested voice.

We have all been in situations like this, which is what makes "I, Daniel Blake" such a relatable and frustrating experience. Having worked in "customer service" I actually understand both sides. The disinterested voice is a coping mechanism. Do you have any idea the mental toll of listening to people complain 8 hours a day, five days a week has on a person? I did it for years and can tell you, it made me anti-social. After a day's work I didn't want to speak to anyone and just wanted to be left alone to build up strength for the next miserable day of having to deal with the general public. Keep in mind, you're not speaking to CEOs, shareholders, or other mover and shakers, when you are on the phone. You aren't speaking to anyone with any power within the company. You are speaking to someone that if they are lucky is making more than minimum wage and just wants to get through the day. We aren't supposed to really consider that in "I, Daniel Blake", as our sympathies are supposed to align with Daniel, which they do, but I wanted to share my experiences to shed some light on the situation. Some of you might say but Alex, you're talking about corporations, these are government workers. They have a responsibility to aid people. That's cute. You think they are run differently.

And I believe that is one of the points Loach is making in "Blake". The world is run as one giant corporation and in that world, your needs (the consumer) are secondary. The system almost seems designed to wear you out so you'll give up in your efforts to receive your benefits. This is despite the illusion everything is simply a click away on the computer. Which of course presents another issue, as it does for Daniel Blake, what about the individuals that don't have a computer or a personalize tracking device (AKA "smart" phone)? The system becomes much more difficult and burdensome. But in the end all it really means is one less person for the workers to have to deal with. There is even a scene where an employee is admonished by her supervisor for helping Daniel access the online form. Because she is told it will set a precedent. The employees in the office are actually quicker to throw people out rather than assist them.

One of the people being thrown out is a young single mom, Katie (Hayley  Squires). She was a bit late for her appointment and becomes irritated when no one in the office is willing to help her. Her time is up and now she must await a response from the "decision maker". Daniel, over hearing the woman's predicament, steps up to defend her. While they are both thrown out, they do become friends.

This is a second point in "I, Daniel Blake". The only help we are going to get in life is from each other. We, the people, are all we've got. Some people, like Daniel Blake, take joy in helping others. Without these individuals, how would we get a long? Daniel agree to help Katie with various things around the house...i.e. plumbing and electrical issues. Along the way we discover Katie has no money, hasn't paid her utility bills, and hasn't eaten in days, in order to make sure her children have enough. In one heartbreaking scene Katie is humiliated after being caught shoplifting tampons and razor blades.

Although the name Daniel Blake is in the film's title, "Blake" is actually a combination of Katie and Daniel's story, making each of them the heart and soul of the film. Katie was originally living in London but got priced out. The only housing assistance she could find would be in Newcastle, keeping her away from her family. Of course this speaks to another issue all working class people face, gentrification. It is truly sad how income affects where we live and the level of safety we should expect based on our income.

Some American viewers may incorrectly assume Loach is setting up the attractive young woman with the middle-aged man so a romantic relationship may form. I understand age differences in relationships is a very uncomfortable and scary topic for American viewers but that is not Loach's intention. I believe if anything the age difference between the characters demonstrates the life long cycle of struggle individuals must endure and the multiple ways it affects our lives.

What makes much of "I, Daniel Blake" so emotional is the wonderful performances Loach is able to get out of his actors. What is even more remarkable is the lack of acting experience his cast has. Dave Johns for example is a stand-up comedian. He made some appearances on various TV shows but "Blake" was his theatrical acting debut. Squires also had a thin acting resume. And yet their acting is natural and believable. It is reminiscent to what is found in fellow compatriot Mike Leigh films. We accept these actors as their characters.

A lot of this may be due to the script which was written by Paul Laverty. Laverty and Loach have been a dynamic writing / directing team having almost exclusively working together since their first collaboration, "Carla's Song" (1996). In each of those films Laverty's dialogue rings true. There is never a false note. The script earned a well deserved BAFTA nomination in addition to being nominated for a British Independent Film Award.

I like the way the great Stephen Holden at the New York Times described Loach and Laverty's approach to the script in his very favorable review writing they are "masters of a dour, clinical neorealism that conveys their feisty resilience in a conservative climate in which struggling workers are demonized as little better than parasitic social refuse."

As a filmmaker Loach was part of the British movement known as kitchen sink realism in the 1960s. It burrowed its visual style from social realism, depicting the struggles of working class life. Loach's directorial debut was "Poor Cow" (1967) however it was his second film, "Kes" (1969) that may have been his greatest early success. The British Film Institute (BFI) included it in its list of the top ten best British films. However it also marked the beginning of a strenuous relationship Loach has had with American audiences. The film was heavily criticized for the Yorkshire dialect spoken in the film, leading many Americans to claim they couldn't understand the film. As the year's have gone on, Loach was never able to achieve crossover success in the U.S. with his films either being completely ignored by the American sheep (AKA "movie critics") or negatively received. In Christy Lemire's review of  "I, Daniel Blake", published on the website rogerebert.com, Lemire described the film as "relentlessly bleak and not terribly subtle". In the New Yorker magazine the "critic" characterized the film as "The emotional wallop grow more zealous with almost every sequence, and Loach's refusal to go easy on us is as stubborn as when he made "Cathy Comes Home". 

I've always scratched my head at this type of "logic" exhibited by these "critics". They sharpen their blades on films like "I, Daniel Blake" yet throw out the red carpet for movies such as "Parasite" (2019) and "Nomadland" (2020). Those didn't have bleak moments? Were they laugh riots? I actually believed both were inferior to "I, Daniel Blake". Neither was able to convey the same emotion for me. The beauty of "Blake" is in part its simplicity and straightforward storytelling manner. It is a sincere depiction of life. I suppose that is what makes it more threatening to the system and why it was able to start a movement. By contrast, that is probably why American sheep flocked to "Nomadland" and "Parasite" - which became the first foreign film to win a best picture Oscar. Those movies don't challenge the system. At best one could say they dim a light on a social issue but as artistic works featuring injustice, they don't provoke or ask anything of us in return. That makes them easier to digest and celebrate. They create an illusion of being about something without really challenging anything or demanding structural change. If Ken Loach's films seem "bleak" to someone, that should tell you all you need to know about the daily struggles of working class people. Life is bleak and their struggles are real. 

We can further see this lapse of judgement on display in the sheep's annual top ten choices. "Blake" was initially released in New York and California at the end of 2016, in an attempt to secure some Oscar nominations, which it didn't. Because of this however, some "critics" refer to it as a 2016 film. On the website Metacritic, which compiled 256 top ten lists, 14 placed it on their year end list from publications such as Film Journal International, The Guardian, The Irish Times, The Observer,  and Time Out London. In 2017, when it opened in wider release, 2 additional critics placed it on their lists. For context, the following films appeared on more top ten lists in either '16 or ' 17 - "Zootopia" (2016), "Kubo and the Two Strings" (2016), "Deadpool" (2016), "Wonder Woman" (2017), and "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" (2017). Go ahead and sing me a song about high critical standards!

But as I had indicated the film did receive a much more positive reception overseas winning the Palme d'Or at Cannes, scoring five BAFTA nominations and winning the Outstanding British Film of the Year award, earning seven British Independent Film Award nominations with both Johns and Squires winning awards for their performances. As well as winning the Best Foreign Film award at the Cesar Awards in France.

Was I right about "I, Daniel Blake"? I believe so. Watching it again it still retains its power and speaks to universal truths. The performances are sincere and emotional and Loach's storytelling direct and compelling. It baffles me American sheep are deliberating unwilling to recognize Loach's talent and in many cases ignore him. Since Roger Ebert's death I have not come across one review in the Chicago Sun-Times for a Loach film by Richard Roeper, as an example. "I, Daniel Blake" was the best film of 2017 and ranks as one of Loach's finest films of his career. If he decides to follow through with his talk of retirement, it will be a major loss for world cinema.

Film Review: Deconstructing Harry

 "Deconstructing Harry"

**** (out of ****)

With very few exceptions has there been a filmmaker - comedy or otherwise - that has been more closely associated with his screen persona than Woody Allen? In "Deconstructing Harry" (1997) Allen blurs the lines between fact and fiction, fantasy and reality even further. It's what makes "Harry" one of  Allen's comedy masterpieces and the reason I chose it as one of the best films of 1997. During the year of Was I Right? - my year long re-examination of films I placed on previous "top ten" lists to determine if I was right to choose them - I thought now would be a perfect time to revisit the film. 

Allen plays novelist Harry Block, whose latest work of fiction exposes his several extramarital affairs. Besides perhaps shaming himself it also effects the lives of the others involved. In the opening moments of the film Lucy (Judy Davis) storms into Harry's apartment to angrily confront him. The two had an affair when Harry was married to Lucy's sister. Now with their secret out, Lucy's husband has left her. Enraged, she plans for revenge, which consists of killing Harry - "you take everyone's suffering and turn it into gold." she says before taking out her gun. And even within this heightened exchange Allen is able to find the humor in the situation as Harry and Lucy confuse the real life names with the fictional ones, such as Harry's ex-wife Jane (Amy Irving) and her fictitious version, Janet (Stephanie Roth).

Right at the start of "Deconstructing Harry" the film is hitting at the themes the rest of the film will center on - does life imitate art? Can a great artist still be a lousy person? The latter reflects public opinion of Allen at the time. The film was released a few years after  Allen and Mia Farrow's very public breakup that resulted in his marrying Farrow's stepdaughter, Soon-Yi Previn (the famed pianist and conductor Andre Previn was her stepfather). Never a truly beloved national figure the scandal nevertheless affected the public's perception of Allen with many misleading accusations being hurled at him such as he married his daughter, even though such a thing is against the law. That's what gives "Deconstructing Harry" its bite. Since many people often try to interpret Allen's films as justification for his life choices, "Harry" argues artists don't have to be nice people. There is a separation between art and the artist. It is a concept Allen explored prior in "Bullets Over Broadway" (1994) and would further examine in "Sweet and Lowdown" (1999).

As the film goes on we learn Harry divorced Jane but not to be with Lucy. He had instead fallen in love with a younger woman named Fay (Elisabeth Shue), who was a fan of his writing. However karma caught up with Harry when Fay dumped him for his friend Larry (Billy Crystal). Next there was Harry's second wife, Joan (Kirstie Alley) whom he cheated on after the birth of their son Hilly (Eric Lloyd). And finally there is Harry's sister, Doris (Caroline Aaron). They have an estranged relationship after he disapproved of her choice for a husband, Burt (Eric Bogosian), whom Harry believes is a religious zealot and has negatively influenced Doris into becoming one too.

These stories will be contrasted with their fictionalized versions (played by different actors including Demi Moore, Stanley Tucci, Richard Benjamin, and Julia Louis-Dreyfus) illustrating not only how Harry's life turns up in his art, which he uses to vindicate his beliefs, but his carelessness in the way he doesn't bother to even disguise the identity of the real life people involved. All of these individuals are displeased with Harry's interpretation of them and his description of events.

But  Allen takes things one step further. Not only do we see what Harry has written in his novels, those same fictional characters appear face to face with Harry, providing him with life lessons, showing him the error of his ways. It may recall what  Allen did in his later film, "Midnight in Paris" (2011)  where a young writer is transported back in time to meet his literary idols, while they help him with his own work.

The structure of the film is reminiscent to Ingmar Bergman's - one of Allen's cinematic heroes - "Wild Strawberries" (1959), the story of an aging professor who travels back home to be honored by his old university. In "Deconstructing Harry", Harry will also be honored by his old university for his literary accomplishments. Both men learn about how others view them and are confronted by their mistakes. In "Strawberries" the events serves as a moment for the professor to redeem himself. Harry on the other hand I'm not positive learns anything. In Eric Lax's book, Conversations with Woody Allen, Allen doesn't cite Bergman's film as an inspiration. He describes simply conceiving the idea as "you watch the guy and learn about him, but learn about him through what he wrote. You'd see his short stories and excerpts from his novels and that would tell you about him." Allen also goes on to claim the film is not based on his life, "I think that is funny because the film's not remotely about me." It should be noted though that  Allen has always been reluctant to reveal what in his films are autobiographical.

The format of "Deconstructing Harry" is also episodic which allows  Allen the opportunity to really pepper his film with very funny skits that otherwise wouldn't be strong enough to be developed into feature length ideas. Two such skits really standout with one centered around a young man (Tobey Maguire) who cheats on his wife with a prostitute. Unable to afford a hotel room he uses a friend's apartment, resulting in a hilarious mix-up. The other skit is about an actor (Robin Williams) who is literally out of focus, causing major disruptions on the movie set and in his personal life. Making it a perfect symbol of Woody Allen the man and his alter ego Harry.

This material rates with some of the funniest  Allen had put on-screen in many years. Some of its silliness, surreal, and ethnic (Jewish) nature recalls Allen's work from the 1970s, which some would consider his greatest creative period. Although I contend, controversies and all, the 90s was an equally successful decade. When I saw "Harry" opening day (on Christmas) in theaters, I was only 14 years old and yet I don't remember ever laughing so hard at a movie, including one of Allen's, as I did at this. Granted I was already a devoted follower. I wasn't alone however in that feeling. Former  late and great Chicago Tribune critic Michael  Wilmington referred to "Harry" as "one of the funniest (and maybe bravest) pieces he's ever done".

While this may sound terrible to say, what makes "Deconstructing Harry" so enjoyable is that  Allen isn't making his usual commentaries on the meaning of life or does God exist a la "Crimes and Misdemeanors" (1989) or "Hannah and Her Sisters" (1986). The purpose of "Harry" is strictly to be funny. The Allen we see here is the hand gesturing maestro, the neurotic, stammering, wise-cracking working class lovable loser of "Broadway Danny Rose" (1984) or "Bananas" (1971). This results in the film having aged better than some of Allen's other comedies since it lacks a political or societal message. "Annie Hall" (1977) is unmistakably the '70s. "Deconstructing  Harry" could be of any time. Though there is one joke about a President's sexual appetite that will be lost on today's viewers. You must remember Bill Clinton was President at the time.

Yet there is much in "Deconstructing Harry" that makes it typical of what a Woody  Allen comedy used to be. The film is full of characters with neuroses and in dysfunctional relationships. Harry in particular is full of insecurities and in passing mentions a fear of dying - a standard fear of  Allen's characters - and even finds a way to name drop Sophocles. In many ways Harry may be the most complete character  Allen had written for himself in years. It could possibly be as quintessential a "Woody Allen" character as Alvy Singer was from "Annie Hall". Namely because both are based on the public's perception of him.

If Harry is the best written character it would also be because he is the one constant in the film. "Deconstructing Harry" is an ensemble piece but unlike "Crimes and Misdemeanors" or "Hannah", "Harry" doesn't have a cast of strong characters. During this period in Allen's films the large cast was kind of comprised of the equivalent of cameos. Big stars would come in shoot there sequence and be gone. If anyone else makes an impression in "Harry" it might be Judy Davis. Her opening scene with Allen is magnificent, demonstrating her intense, dramatic capabilities. And in a later scene she is allowed to show off a much lighter, comedic tone. No one else to my mind is given as equal an opportunity to shine to the degree Davis does.

Visually the film is unlike many of  Allen's previous films due to its editing. Allen copies the same techniques he applied to "Husbands and Wives" (1992) - though the aesthetic is much more conventional here - with its shaky camera work and jump cuts. In "Husbands" this was meant to invoke a naturalistic documentary feel. This time around I believe it is meant to suggest the chaotic personality of Harry. For example the film begins with the usual title credits Allen's films have become known for but this time there are cutaways to same repeated image of Lucy exiting a taxi, while we hear Annie Ross sing Twisted. This may be Allen's way of paying homage to another filmmaker, Jean-Luc Godard.

When the film was released Allen was 62 years old and yet "Harry" has a savage wit and rawness you may not identify with an older filmmaker. The humor is a lot more vulgar than we are used to from Allen, though at this particular period in his career Allen was tip toeing in this direction with films like "Mighty Aphrodite" (1995), "Celebrity" (1998), and "Husbands and Wives". Its frankness and energy is probably why the former Chicago Sun-Times critic Roger Ebert described it as "his most revealing film, his most painful, and if it also contains more than his usual quotient of big laughs, what was it the man said? "We laugh, that we may not cry."

But of course as with any Allen film there are always detractors such as the "movie critic" Jonathan Rosenbaum who in his Chicago Reader review stated, "this runs a close second to September as his worst feature to date". Which has led me to always wonder, while we ask how much of Allen is in his characters, how much of a "critic's" personal contempt for  Allen is in their reviews? It wouldn't be hard to imagine many of them felt insulted by  Allen and his attacks aimed at them. In one terrific sequence taking place in hell, Harry is in an elevator with each floor being called out. One of them has been designated for media but it's all filled up!

And yet despite mixed reviews "Deconstructing Harry" earned one Academy Award nomination for Allen's screenplay, making it his than 13th nomination in the category. It was also named as one of the year's best films by the great New York Times critic Janet Maslin who wrote, "Mr. Allen wins no popularity contests here but delivers a structurally sophisticated, newly imaginative recapitulation of his own most personal work." As well as appearing on New York Press "critic" Godfrey Cheshire's list of the year's best films.

As I began brainstorming titles by  Allen that I could have included as part of Was I Right? I had a few options as I have celebrated many of his films over the years. Watching "Deconstructing Harry" though a couple of thoughts dawned on me. One is I almost forgot the joy of seeing Woody Allen in his movies. His presence added not just humor but contributed to the idea of what a "Woody Allen movie" was. He was the film. I'd forgotten the ritual of once a year going to a movie theater to see Allen on-screen. "Harry" really shows us what we have been deprived off all of these years. Allen's last role in one of his films was "To Rome With Love" (2012). Which led me to my second observation, there is probably an entire generation that doesn't identify Allen with acting in his movies. They also wouldn't even realize a Woody Allen film, at one time, meant a "New York comedy". That concept is completely loss on Gen Z. Allen's latest film for example, "Coup de Chance" (2024) was filmed in France and is his first non-English language film.

To answer the question of whether I was right or not about "Deconstructing Harry", the answer is a resounding yes! This is such a comfort to me especially after having the slightly disappointing experience of rewatching "The Ice Storm" (1997), which I initially called the very best film of 1997. On a second viewing it didn't hold up for me during the year of Was I Right?.

"Harry" is still able to pack a punch, remaining as fresh and bold as it did back in 1997. I still believe it remains one of the best films released that year. "Deconstructing Harry" stands as one of Allen's great comedies and reminded me of what a Woody Allen film used to be.