Hunger – Review

You have to just put the popcorn down. There is no way you can come in and sit, munching aimlessly during this film. Hunger isn’t a movie as it’s more of an experience, carefully controlled piece of art, that even if you do munch during this, the police brutality is so extreme, that you’ll throw it up anyway. Hunger is an absolutely stunning first film by newcomer Steve McQueen.

The film is an account of the 1981 political hunger strike of Bobby Sands, an Irish Republican Army prisoner. While I don’t think it’s as important to know about the Troubles, a name used in describing the constitutional status of Northern Ireland that last almost 40 years, highlighted by this film’s subject. I mean, it is an important historical event, but the film is concerned with the act, the motivation behind doing such a deed. Six weeks prior to the hungry strike and years of imprisonment, we get introduced to the prison lifestyle through the arrival of Davey, a non-conforming prisoner. Through his arrival, McQueen details their life behind bars as well, and perhaps more importantly, the brutality they suffer.

We see them beaten, force washed, hair violently cut off, anally searched, each filmed with a stoic approach, leaving us as exposed as they are. Aiding to this is the lack of dialogue and music, both occasionally there, and used sporadically in key areas. The film feels distilled, but through these images, especially the prisoners retaliation scenes like them smearing feces on the walls of their cells, or collectively cupping their urine to have it spill out into the hallways, leave us with a feeling so strong, you’ll jut sit there and stare. What else can you do? The images of violence and degradation, are so vivid, you can almost smell the fear, sweat and excrement.

We don’t get elaborate back stories, but a few bits and pieces for Bobby Sands, so these images, and the lack of dialogue at times, are leading up to two big things for the film. One is pivotal scene that is the much-talked about 22 minute single take between Bobby Sands and a priest. This scene sets up the motivation for Sands decision to do a hungry strike. The camera just sits there, in a medium shot, allowing the two actors to talk. Leading up to this scene, the film really hasn’t used a lot of dialogue, just here and there sparingly. This huge talking scene feels so uncomfortable and odd, because the prisoners have already, through certain gestures, made their stances clear. This makes the words feels cold, distant, or even foreign much like their dreams of being free. After this key scene, we are set up for the staging of the hungry strike.

Once the strike hits, the film squarely focuses on Bobby and the eventually, sickening descent the body goes through without food. McQueen doesn’t shy away from the nastier elements. I think it’s important for us to visually see the effects of his lack of eating, because it only makes his actions all that more harrowing. Hunger is possibly devoid of a political stance, although it’s easy to point at Margaret Thatcher as a villain, our protagonists as heroes, but if anything it more of a statement on the actual action of going as extreme as one can for a belief. Hunger is also a film that will force any critic to bust out the Thesaurus, as we’ll run out of positive things to say about Steve McQueen’s (insert adjective) debut. See Hunger now, but be prepare to receive a powerful punch to your senses.

Rating: