I, Daniel Blake (15)
four stars
Dir: Ken Loach
With: Dave Johns, Hayley Squires, Dylan McKiernan
Runtime: 100 minutes
UNUSUALLY for a Ken Loach film, his latest picture, I, Daniel Blake, has been backed by the kind of marketing campaign more suited to the latest superhero caper from Hollywood. Is it because it is a Palme d’Or winner, or could it be that, at the age of 80, this is the great British auteur’s last hurrah as a director? On the strength of this outing, let us hope not.
As part of the publicity push, Loach sat down with Will Gompertz, the BBC’s arts correspondent, who asked him if people would not be put off seeing I, Daniel Blake, because they suspected it might be more of the same old Loachian fare. The director declined to lamp Gompertz for his cheek (that’s yer impeccable North London manners for yer…), instead pointing out that this was like saying people would have a problem with Jane Austen because she tended to write about the society of her time.
Gompertz had something of a point, though. From Cathy Come Home in 1966 through to Riff-Raff, Carla’s Song, My Name is Joe, Sweet Sixteen and many other titles, we have grown used to Loach attempting to right the wrongs of society on screen. Can he still have an impact beyond those who already agree with him? Again, we return to that commodity called hope.
I, Daniel Blake begins in despair and frustration. The titular Daniel (Dave Johns), a carpenter living in Newcastle, is trying to explain to a benefits assessor that he is recovering from a heart attack and is therefore limited when it comes to finding work. Cue his entry to a world of regulations, bureaucracy, and hanging on the telephone for hours, trying to speak to a real, live human being. It is a world that would have made Kafka weep. Daniel needs the system to survive but the system seems purposely designed to prevent or deter him from claiming the help to which he has a right. So what does he do? In the words of the hymn, he dares to be a Daniel ("Dare to be a Daniel; dare to stand alone; dare to have a purpose firm, dare to make it known").
It is while doing battle at the job centre that he meets Katie (Hayley Squires), a young mother of two who has moved north from London to find a home. Daniel befriends the family, doing what he can to help. Like two souls adrift in a sea of troubles, Daniel and Katie keep each other afloat, but it is often an exhausting, disheartening existence.
It is impossible not to feel sympathy. It is pretty difficult, too, not to be exasperated at times by the way Loach and his screenwriter Paul Laverty make their points. Subtlety is not always the first tool they reach for. Characters are painted with a broad brush, being either wholly good or entirely bad (an exception is made at the job centre, where everyone on staff is awful except for one woman). Moreover, there is little here that will not be familiar to anyone who reads a paper or watches the news. Broken Britain - it even made it into Theresa May’s first speech as prime minister, don’t you know.
That said, the sheer energy and conviction with which Loach and his cast press home their points has to be admired. While Loach and Laverty may take a sledgehammer to crack a system that would drive anyone nuts, they can also operate with scalpel-like precision, as in the section when Katie visits a food bank. That is one scene that will live long in the memory of anyone who witnesses it.
Loach, then, is still the best at what he does - speaking the truth to power on behalf of those whose voices are so often unheard. And he can still appeal to the head as much as the heart, demonstrating here the sheer cruelty of a system that hammers the poor more than it ever helps them. They might be centuries apart, but one suspects England’s Jane would have been a fan.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here