|
No
wonder he's smiling. Wouldn't you be if, despite tepid reviews, you'd
just won the Palme D'Or and with yet another FilmFour deal in the bag.
Welcome to the world of Ken Loach, in
whose gritty purview aspiring young filmmakers are invisible. Which is
what the industrious, illustrious Ken must have felt when he started
out last century. Since the early sixties he's had a good run at it,
according to IMDB, crediting him with 42 productions, arguably the most
consistent output of any living British director.
Good for him, but not for us next generation filmmakers.
I'm reluctant to slay this sacred cow because it looks plain churlish,
but somebody has to call it. Many filmmakers, whatever their
background, are hungry for a break, yet like Ken's favoured subjects we
are deprived, largely in part to him and his producers hoovering up
every bit of subsidy going. Living in Scotland, I sense a terrible
crisis of confidence in what passes for a film industry, a nation that
has always parted company with its talent, from the genius Alexander
Mackendrick to Bill Forsyth, Michael Caton-Jones and Paul McGuigan,
they've all had to leave for want of opportunity. Shame on Scotland for
denying their ambition while repeatedly backing Ken Loach.
Digging into the past, it seems Ken has received more subsidy than any
other filmmaker in this country. Which begs a lot of questions because
I wouldn't object if Ken Loach's films returned a profit back into
Scotland. But they don't. And we're talking millions here. Millions
that didn't fund local filmmakers like you and me. It's not like
filmmaking's a good cause anyway when you can't get a doctor's
appointment and people are sleeping on our streets.
From Carla's Song, My Name is Joe, Sweet Sixteen to Ae Fond Kiss, Ken's
earned a fair old wage over the years at the expense of the poor, the
main purchasers of Lottery tickets, the same people who would never
dream of parting with six quid at the multiplex to watch other
downtrodden people somehow 'overcome' or 'accept' their lot in life.
Hell, for the same ticket price you can watch a zillion dollars of
entertainment.
But that's only part of the problem I have with Ken Loach.
Beyond the rumours of him directing commercials, I get the sense of a
man with good intentions. Politically correct and socially aware Ken
may be, but when I heard him address a Scottish Socialist party rally
in 2001 at the Mitchell Theatre in Glasgow, I thought to myself, here's
a man patronising his audience, coming across as he did like some
hectoring nineteenth century cleric or some latter-day Dickens, talking
down to the people about such matters as Iraq and telling us how awful
it was. Like we didn't know already? And your point being, Ken?
To make a living by portraying the lives of the working/underclass as
morally flawed is a cheap thrill and an indecent racket. To make
victims of the poor is a treacherous lie. We're in the 21st century
now, not the 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s where folks like me and my family -
decent ordinary working people - get by. In ASBO country there's many a
story, but you don't have to live there Ken. Your films are not even
good drama - witness the ludicrous plotting on My Name is Joe. Unless
there's a point that goes beyond exploiting the disenfranchised and
until Ken's prepared to be more explicit in telling us who the real
antagonists are (like we don't know) all he's doing is flying the flag
for victimhood and in Scotland, handing out ammo to a feeble-minded but
vicious provincial press who love nothing better than put the boot up
film for being miserable.
An actor friend of mine once told me about his audition with Loach,
reckoning the only way to get a part in his movie was to pretend to no
previous acting experience. In My Name is Joe he said the majority of
actors told Ken they were plasterers or carpet-fitters to be in with a
shot and what's more, he bought it.
To learn that Ken Loach has yet another film lined up just depresses
me. It's not like I'll rush to the cinema to see it and nor, I suspect,
will anybody else. If this sounds disrespectful I don't apologise
because when I read that his next outing has been funded by the UK Film
Council's New Cinema Fund, yes, NEW Cinema Fund - I think, surely this
is a joke but sadly it's one made at my - and my fellow filmmaker's
expense.
So get your hands off my class, Ken. Away and draw blood from your own.
 |
Show/Hide comment form
Avarice was a sin last time I checked.
Why do BBC and Film 4 fund Loach consistently? It probably has something to do with talent.
You argue that we're in the 21st century now and not the 1960s. Are you attempting to infer that because the clock has spun a few times, things are magically better now than then? That there's no poor, injustice or suffering because you and your family 'get by'? That social commentary should be resigned to the dustbin of history? I dread to think what film you'd make with Loach's funds if you got your hands on them...
I want to see a film about the Irish war of independance and the black and tans etc.
Curiously, despite enjoying history at school, it was not until I was 25 that I found out about the period of history Loach's new film looks at. I had many Irish friends but never new about how dreadful the British Army had been to their grandparents. My Irish friends were always amazed and patient as I learned our shared history for the first time.
This period of history is missing from the lessons taught in English schools.
The English are ignorant on this matter - in much the same way that young americans seem to know nothing about their governement's past involvement in South America. So Loach's film will reduce ignorance in the English audience - this is to be applauded, not criticised because Leanne Smith can't fund her movies.
Congratulations Ken! Can't wait to see your film.
Good luck on securing funds Leanne.