I, DANIEL BLAKE
UK, 2016, 101 minutes, Colour.
Dave Johns, Hayley Squires,
Directed by Ken Loach.
Seeing I, Daniel Blake, is an activity to be recommended.
This film is a moving slice of contemporary life in Britain, Newcastle upon Tyne, but a story that many audiences around the world will resonate with. It is the work of Ken Loach who, for almost 50 years, has been committed to social concern, the problems of daily living in real life, showing them with compassion – but also an undercurrent of anger. Some have commented that this film is partisan, unsubtle, lacking artistic complexity and finesse – but, that is the way Loach makes films and presents his story with a force that most audiences do respond to.
So, who is Daniel Blake? He is a 59 year old carpenter who has had heart problems, a widower, no children, but the kind of decent man that you might find in the street, or anywhere. He is played by stand-up comedian, Dave Johns, who has not appeared in many films but has made television appearances – a new face for most audiences who comes across as a very likeable character.
The film opens in darkness with Daniel heard filling in a form with a succession of bureaucratic questions that don’t necessarily meet the situations in which he finds himself as regards health, possibilities of working again, financial help from government agencies. He is frustrated – and we along with him. That is only the beginning. There is a lot more bureaucratic frustration as the film goes on – maybe exaggerated a little when he tries to make contact by phone, hears the various recorded responses, and the music played over and over – and over – with a wait of over an hour and a half. Many in the audience are really on side by this time, everyone thinking about their similar experiences.
His visits to the government offices are not much better.
Only this morning in the local paper, somebody has written a brief letter saying that all bureaucrats and those who work in such centres need to see this film. It is not as if Daniel Blake is saying that there should be no bureaucracy. Rather, it is how the rules and regulations, interviews and forms, should be handled with people as people and not as file numbers. We know this but seeing some of these officials in action, obtuse in their demands for details the client is unable to offer, insisting on forms being filled in online when the older person is not adept at using a computer let alone the online complexities…
But, Daniel Blake is a very nice man, sticking up for a young woman with two children in the office as she is ushered out because she cannot answer questions accurately. This is Katie, moved up to Newcastle from London to government accommodation which has been impossible in London. Katie is played by Hayley Squires, and creates a very believable and sympathetic character, a good woman, conscientious with her children, wanting the best for them while going hungry herself. But, with Daniel she finds a kindly friend whom the children can respond to and who does a lot of handy work around the flat.
Daniel also has an interesting neighbour who imports sneakers from China, dubiously, and sells them cut-price in the street. Daniel is a wise figure in his life as well.
So, for much of the film, we follow Daniel trying to phone, trying to answer questions in the interviews, struggling with the forms, going from place to place enquiring about job opportunities – only to be told that he has no proof to offer that he actually did this, even after he was ordered to go to a workshop on writing CVs, which he did, handing them out.
The film becomes much sadder as it goes on, especially for Katie trying to make decisions for the children, a moment of shoplifting, a seemingly kindly offer of help from a security guard that isn’t. And, it is sad for Daniel as he finally gets a date for his appeal to get some kind of financial subsidy, his doctor and physiotherapist truly angry at the way that the bureaucracy has mishandled the case.
One of the criticisms of the film is that Daniel and Katie and the next-door neighbour are engaging characters and not the kind of dole-bludgers whom it is easy to condemn. But, we know this – and do we really want to spend this time with cons and bludgers and their way of doing things or do we want to see genuine people and share their experiences? Of course. But, they (and we) are so often trapped, become the victims of people whose characters are rules and regulations focused, rigidly interpreting them instead of listening to people and trying to be sympathetic if not empathetic.
(Of all film directors, Ken Loach is the director who has received the most awards from Catholic and Ecumenical juries around the world, including this film. Invited to Cannes in 2004 to receive a lifetime award from the churches, he attended, gave a speech of appreciation, saying that he grew up with an image the Catholic Church as a monolith but, over the years, especially because of his 20 year collaboration with Scots, Paul Laverty, who spent a number of years at the Scots seminary in Rome, and writes all Loach’s screenplays, he has become a great dramatist of social justice issues. Actually, at the time of the award in Cannes, the entertainment union was on strike in can’t and Loach brought in to young people on strike as a symbol of his film concerns.)
1. Acclaim for the film? The prize at Cannes? Ken Loach at 80, in the light of his whole career?
2. Loach and his 20 years plus collaboration with writer Paul Laverty? Laverty’s religious background? Social concern? The strong writing – and Loach able to elicit deep feeling from the screen plan performance?
3. A British story, a universal story? Daniel as an Everyman, of the 21st century?
4. The Newcastle setting, the north of England, the characteristics, language, accent, its not being London? The look of the city, the streets, homes and flats, offices, garages and worksites, the food bank, the supermarkets? The feel of the city? The musical score?
5. The opening, the screen black, the audience hearing the questions and Daniel’s answers, the bureaucratic questions, his wanting to explain the answers? Audiences identifying with him? Establishing the mood of the film? Partisan in terms of critique of bureaucracy?
6. The themes of work, the workplaces, injury, health and heart attacks? Social support? Legislation? Rules and regulations? Forms of their complexity? The strict interpretation of regulations? No human understanding of the clients and their questions? Harshness of interviews? Officials being definite? Phone calls to social services, the long waits, the repetitious music, the recorded voices? Forms to be completed online, older people and their lack of capacity for working on a computer? Audience expectations of bureaucracy, the bureaucratic world? Some officials – and some moments of sympathy, Anne and her concern for Daniel, in trouble with the boss?
7. Daniel, his age, 59, his life so far, his happy marriage, his love for his wife, the photos, the memories and mementos, his telling the stories about her? Her health, physical and mental condition, the hard life and so long looking after her? No children? His work as a carpenter, his skills, fixing Katie’s house, building the bookcase, his knowledge of wood and his feeling for wood and the woodwork? Going to the doctor, the visits, the physio? The documents? The forms – and his application to work again or his health benefits, his need for money, his later having to sell everything In the house? The bureaucrats and the reference to the Decision-maker, passing on the forms? The possibility for an appeal? Daniel being put down? Having to fill in forms on the computer, owing to the library, getting help, make mistakes? The help from his next-door neighbour?
8. Dave Johns, a stand-up comedian, his embodying Daniel Blake, his presence and communication, look, bald, a genial man, his flat, his worry about the litter from next-door, receiving the parcel, his neighbour, his scheme with the sneakers and explanation, the Skype link with the man in China, the enthusiasm about British football? Daniel and his having to go to the seminar on writing CVs? The tone of the instructor? His being required to seek out work, asking various bosses, no work available, his CV, the sympathetic man phoning – but his not being able to accept? The bureaucrats and the requiring proof that he had sought work?
9. The character of Katie, the argument at the office, Daniel intervening, asking the people waiting to let her go first? The guard, severity? Daniel ousted? Befriending Katie, her story, child born at 18, the second child, the two fathers, dependent on her mother, waiting years for accommodation, transferring to Newcastle? Daisy, attractive, intelligent? The boy, the experience of being confined, lack of communication, bouncing the ball – and later answering the question about coconuts and sharks? Katie phoning her mother in London? The lack of money, Katie hungry, Daniel buying food, the meals, the sharing? Repair work in the house, the various ways of heating the house, his repairs, the domestic details? Going to the food bank and Katie opening the can, so hungry? At the supermarket, the shoplifting, the kind manager letting her go, the security guard apologising, giving her the phone number – and a contact for prostitution, her going to meet him, the Madam and the setting up of the room, the Madam and her offering to take care of Katie?
10. Daniel finding the note and phone number, finding Katie, his being upset, her upset, having the money, breaking off seeing him?
11. The hearing of his appeal, her going in support, the lawyer in the wheelchair, waiting, the tribunal, the talk and his declaration about his situation and its seeming impossibility?
12. Is going to the bathroom, collapse, death?
13. The funeral, Katie and the significance of her eulogy, Daniel is a good man?
14. A comment on the film that it showed no dole bludgers but rather good people – and audiences seeing enough of those rorting the system but
seeing the story of those in genuine need?
