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.