Ken Loach is a British film director and screenwriter, with a directing style that is socially critical. He confronts issues such as poverty, homelessness and labour rights. As a result, he is both a loved and hated filmmaker – likely loved by those lower and working class who feel seen by his work and disliked by those who have no grasp on the concept of poverty and only live and spend for themselves. He confronts issues head on and recognises the problems particularly with Britain by making realistic films revolving around those struck by poverty and the misfortune we have had of our British Prime Ministers making some of the worst choices for the economy in history.
Ken Loach has a range of films and is probably one of the most notable British filmmakers. He has created films such as ‘Kes’, ‘Kathy Come Home’, ‘Ladybird Ladybird’, and perhaps his most recognisable, ‘I, Daniel Blake.’ Ken Loach in an interview with The Guardian said, ‘I’ve always tried to capture the truth of the moment.’ He uses themes of social realism to draw attention to the real socio-political conditions in Britain, to critique the structure of the system and those in power. At 77, he is far from retirement and continues to create films that engage audiences who feel the resentment towards how the British system is structured – and those from other countries watching may feel the same in terms of their economy. Loach’s films follow real events and are based on the way that people are forced to live due to the choices of those in powerful positions making cuts and increasing taxes, while taking the money for themselves. This message was especially prevalent at the time when releasing ‘I, Daniel Blake’ with David Cameron as Prime Minister, who did nothing but fail the economy, and did not look out for those lower and working class. Introducing Brexit, he is now one of the most hated politicians and a reason behind the downfall and what will eventually be the collapse of the economic system in Britain. This still applies today with the ‘Cost of Living’ crisis, showing how nothing much has changed and why Ken Loach continues to make these films – it is his own retaliation to these issues that no one seems to be doing anything about.
Loach’s films had success due to his exploration of issues in modern Britain that others feel the same way about, and these films show them that they are seen and heard – they are not alone, and people want to make changes but don’t know where to begin. Ken Loach’s socially critical style of directing alongside his socialistic ideals make his films engaging and is the reason why his films captured the public's attention. Even if his films were received in a negative light, they were still received – and those looking at it in a disliked taste are likely those upper class. At least they see the issue, but they still choose to ignore it and instead dislike the filmmaker rather than themselves for making the state of the economy the way it is so that films like this must be made.
Loach has a unique visual style in which he presents things in a natural but pictorial manner. His films are unassuming and modest, and he uses a working style when approaching the making of his films. Unlike the standard ‘Hollywood model’ of how a film is made, Loach is ‘driven by a collective spirit’, with a desire to create a film that radiates harmony and entails his views on the current state of whatever it is he’s covering. He films using natural lightning to keep the scene authentic and uses long lenses and shots to show the surroundings -as though to say there is nothing more going on than what can be seen. He is a passionate filmmaker that cares about his projects despite not having high budgets and top-end actors – he cares more about what the film is about and how it is presented than having the best of the best to make something pointless and boring that doesn’t get his message across but instead is just filled with recognisable faces and costly sets, props, etc.
Loach made his first film ‘Poor Cow’ in 1967 and followed this up two years later in 1969 with ‘Kes’, two films which are acclaimed as the finest films made in Britain. His return to the screen came with his 1990 film ‘Hidden Agenda’ which signalled him as a major figure in British cinema. The film was successful, following the killing of a human rights lawyer.
The video below refers to Loaches style of making film as ‘The Loach Method.’ He brings in socialism and unionism in everything he creates and does it in a realistic way. The video also mentions his use of first-time actors, and this is something very notable when it comes to his films. As mentioned, he does not use established actors to sell the film, he uses real people, and it gives the film so much more authenticity. Despite the serious feel of his films, he still includes an aspect of humour, and makes the films enjoyable to watch. The locations of where he films are never places particularly beautiful or special, they are just normal places that we see in our everyday life, which again, makes the film that much more pragmatic. As Ken Loach himself said, ‘The duty of a film director is to focus more on the soul than on the spectator.’
Loach tries to capture spontaneous performances in his filmmaking and developed at first not giving a full script to the actors and instead give room for improvisation that made the conversation flow and make it sound realistic – as though it is not part of a film and rather just a conversation being had. For Ken Loach, it is important that the person performing knows the background of their character and can really immerse themselves into that role. He says, ‘you have to shoot the shock, because even the most talented actor will have trouble being shocked twice.’ He looks for realism in what he is creating and is passionate about filmmaking to the very finest detail. The timing of everything is instinctive when filming based on a script, whereas that raw emotion being captured is not something an actor can just do – it makes it feel so much more real to the viewer and to the person portraying the scene. Directors are the people responsible for getting the performance out of the actor without having to indulge them, according to Loach. He also is adamant about each creative piece being its own – not everyone has to be a director, but if that’s what you want, then use that as a starting point.
Ken Loach immerses himself into every film – into every character there is, into every role being performed, into every scene being shot – as if he is the one in the movie, as if he is living out the story that he is trying to tell. He puts a lot of directors to shame by showing them that you don’t need a high budget and the best actors in the world to make a film good, but that you yourself need to be good and care enough about what you’re making. You can’t just be in it for the money-making aspect, you must be in it for what it’s worth. Otherwise, there’s no point in making the film at all.
His films are critiqued both positively and negatively. Matt Cox argues that his films ‘favour the portrayal of working-class people facing misery in life rather than winning.’ He seems to think that Loach only makes film amount the demise of working-class people rather than showing them being able to lead successful and prosperous lives with happiness. Keep in mind this critique comes from someone with a net worth of approximately £35 million, so I’m sure he understands the working class better than anyone. Not to say these critiques aren’t fair – anything can be critiqued and if it is justifiable then do so – but Loach’s films focus on the negative aspect of being a working-class citizen because it is a negative position to be in, with money hoarders ruling the country and in the highest positions of power. Alexander Walker commented saying that his films show that he is an ‘IRA propagandist’ and a British traitor. However, should being an activist for Labour deem a person as a propagandistic traitor? That’s up for interpretation.
Still, there are places where his films are well received. Rotten tomatoes features comments on ‘Versus: The Life and Films of Ken Loach’ such as the following; ‘A favourable but hugely illuminating portrayal of a contradictory man – polite, principled, ruthless – who is still influencing cinema today’, ‘This is a fitting tribute to a director who has made a career out of telling the stories that most urgently need to be told’, and ‘Loach is a man of principle and stubbornness, and he keeps on coming out fighting.’
Loach’s films are fuelled by his own ideologies of an unwavering commitment to left-wing and labour, which can be divisive but whether people love him or loathe him, he is a body of representation for the underrepresented lower and working class. He gives a voice to the persecuted and impoverished, who are left this way not by their own means, but by the greedy upper class. This is a topic that has never until this point been discussed so widely in cinema, and so openly in film, and so this is a largely significant move on Ken Loach’s behalf. It was likely obvious to him what would come as a result of making these films – all the backlash he would receive, all the negativity from those who did not understand – and yet he did not let this stop him. He had an idea and a passion, and he let this drive him forward in what he wanted to do.
Loach’s films have sparked debate all over the country, and all follow very similar themes, following his in real life approach to Britain as a social campaigner who is actually trying to make changes rather than just sitting and talking about it. His filmmaking methods are recognised for their ‘provocative’ nature and talking about modern issues that may be considered by some as sensitive. He has created national conversations and sparked debates. Powerful statements from the film ‘I, Daniel Blake’ were projected onto the House of Parliament. He incorporates local dialects in his films so that they can be suited to everybody and discussed by all, with no international language barrier.
Ken Loach has an approach to films that doesn’t demonise those that are the most vulnerable in society and shows the reality of the bureaucratic hypocrisy that people fighting the system face. This is especially prevalent in his film ‘I, Daniel Blake’ that shows that it’s like for those on benefits trying to live normally and being denied their basic rights and access to things – even hard-working people that have just fallen short. This is why his films are so powerful – he shows real things that can and to happen, and they can happen to anybody. You could be in a family with a great career one day and lose it all the next, and then be treated like scum when asking for help. His films speak to those who have lived through this and helps those who haven’t to understand the state of the world and the way that people are being handled.
Comments