Hunger (2008)

I knew going in that this would be gloomy. Nevertheless, I was interested to see something directed by Steve McQueen (the British one) other than 12 Years a Slave. He really hasn't done many feature-length films, before or since.

The first spoken line gives a good idea of the plot: "I will not wear the uniform of a criminal." In the early '80s, prisoners in Northern Ireland identifying with the Irish Republican Army want to be officially recognized as political prisoners and given more humane conditions. When the "dirty" protest doesn't work, they resort to -- you guessed it -- a hunger strike.

The results are not as merciful as they were to Gandhi. As in the true story, some participants do not survive, and not all their demands are met before the end. We see disturbing physical effects especially on strike leader Bobby Sands (Michael Fassbender again already, the only actor you're likely to have heard of), in more detail than I ever cared to know.

That's hardly the only stark aspect either. The flick is unrated but should have an R in the U.S., in light of rampant male nudity, a gratuitous masturbation scene, general squalor, beatings, and foul language. Kids probably wouldn't have the patience for the pacing anyway.

One more thing about the language: There isn't a whole lot of dialog, and some of it is very hard to make out even if you're well versed in Irish accents. I can take long stretches of silence, having loved the half-hour heist in Rififi, but here it's mainly just awkward. Then we get one long scene that's basically all dialog, with almost no camera movement. You'd almost think it was by a different director and/or for a different picture.

At any rate, despite the lack of visual interest, I consider that the most watchable scene, if only for its overt discussion of the controversy in carrying the strike all the way. The priest calls it suicide. Sands calls it homicide. My personal position is closer to the priest's. While I have little confidence in bringing about change by merely talking with a hostile government, the responsibility for a hunger striker's death is ultimately his own. Otherwise, we'd be calling for a capitulation whenever someone threatened to starve for anything. The best I can say about the method is that it proves sincere devotion to a cause, resisting multiple opportunities to save oneself from one of the worst ways to die.

Yes, my sympathy for the prisoners in question is limited. We never see their crimes depicted, but characters mention the kind of terrorism I'd come to associate with the IRA of old. At least present-day U.S. rioters have yet to bomb anyone (knock on wood). And these guys have the nerve to deny their criminality. Nor do I see much point in refusing to dress the part when you're already locked up. They won't even accept civilian-style clothes other than their own. Rubin Carter in The Hurricane was more compromising on that point.

You'd think that more of the 96 minutes would be spent showing what terrible treatments were worth protesting. Taking batons to unarmed naked men is certainly overkill, but that wasn't happening before the resistance. The food sure doesn't look appetizing, but that might just be the contemporary U.K. for you. In truth, the worst conditions we see are self-inflicted, starting with the dung smeared all over the walls. Dudes, you're the ones living with that; you expect the screws to hate it worse? Maybe my low sympathy has less to do with how badly they behave and more to do with how little I relate to their way of thinking.

I have opted not to put any more McQueen fare on my queue. If he gets around to another project, it had better be very different. He's an artist, all right, but I prefer art of a pleasant variety.