Ken Loach Can’t Get No
By Memo Salazar
Many years ago, when I was a wee lad working in a video store, amongst all the films that opened my mind in many directions, there existed six filmmakers that captured my heart as well. One of them was Ken Loach- a somewhat obscure Brit who’s strong, clear politics and ethics helped him transcend the world of BBC television into that of feature films. Though he remains one of the greatest filmmakers of the past 3 decades, his name- and body of work- remains largely unknown. You’d think that winning the 2006 Palme d’Or at Cannes would have changed all that, and perhaps it did in Europe, but not here in the good ol’ US of A, around which, as we all know, the universe revolves.
I live in New York City- arguably the “cultural capital” of this country, where one can watch obscure art films all week without running out of options… yet even here, Loach’s latest masterpiece (and I do mean masterpiece) is playing on just one screen- one small screen. The show I attended, in fact, found the theater merely half full. Half full? Where the hell are my fellow art-loving New Yorkers? And where the hell is the rest of the country?
Ken Loach’s The Wind That Shakes the Barley is certainly deserving of Cannes’ top award- moreso than Pulp Fiction, and undoubtedly moreso than Fahrenheit 9-11, both of which have received this award in past years and went on to become huge hits with critics and crowds all over the world. The Wind… is a powerful, moving, universal story of two brothers and the ideological clashes they encounter. It’s a historical film, shedding light on the rarely-discussed Irish Revolution and how the IRA was born; yes, Loach is unapologetically left-wing, but he’s so good at showing why his politics lie where they do that his compassion for humanity is impossible to resist. You’d have to be incredibly dense or closed-minded to watch one of his thoughtful, well-argued films (especially this thoughtful, well-argued film) and not understand where the man and the people he speaks for are coming from. Loach is especially adept at putting himself in the shoes of the everyman and helping us understand the small details of human existence that feed into the greater political context being discussed. He makes you feel quite deeply, and then he makes you think just as critically, in the hopes that such a combination will bring forth the truth of the matter at hand.
Perhaps, if American audiences had been given such a chance, their minds might have expanded just a tad more while watching this film… but, whether it was poor marketing or a glut of other releases or who knows what, The Wind That Shakes the Barley has arrived on our shores with barely whisper. Usually “Winner - Palme D’Or 2006″ is all you need to garner an overwhelming amount of art-film media buzz, so where was the art-film media buzz? Where was the hype machine that usually inflates mediocre films into can’t-live-without successes? Why does our culture go nuts over shit like Napoleon Dynamite instead? I know, I know, the answer’s pretty obvious. But still, if you have any desire left to learn, grow, and feel something more than a cheap thrill, watch any of Ken Loach’s amazing films and gain a greater understanding of your fellow man. Sweet Sixteen, Land and Freedom, Hidden Agenda, Ladybird, Ladybird… netflix any of these brilliant films by Ken Loach, and give this septuagenarian artist a little satisfaction in his twilight years. He’s struggled long enough.

April 12, 2007 at 6:24 am
Memo, I will just say two things here…
(1) I am not that familiar with Ken Loach and his work, but I did see HIDDEN AGENDA, and thought it was fantastic. After your blog, I am inspired to now seek out some of his other films.
(2) NAPOLEON DYNAMITE was brilliant.
April 12, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Ken Loach is my favorite living filmmaker. “The Wind that Shakes the Barley” is one of the most ambitious movies of his career, and a damn great one at that. Even his minor works, like 2004’s (or was it 2003?) “Ae Fond Kiss,” are better than 98% of what’s out there. Another excellent, politically-charged British director is the late Alan Clarke.
I saw “Napoleon Dynamite” in a theater packed with 20-something hipsters and was perhaps the only person not laughing. I left the movie shaking my head, wondering when exactly I had lost touch with the “kids.” Never before had I felt so much like my father.
April 13, 2007 at 6:34 am
I am not sure why NAPOLEON DYNAMITE is considered a movie that is for “the kids”. I think it is brilliant satire for all ages. But I am pretty immature.
I guess it is 2 against 1 on the DYNAMITE issue.
It should be interesting when I write my next blog. It will be a TOP TEN LIST of 10 films that I consider to be perfect, even though hardly anyone ever mentions them as “classics”. There is a movie on my list that is sure to start fireworks with this crowd. I can’t wait. And no, it is not NAPOLEON DYNAMITE. For whatever it is worth, that movie certainly has attained some acclaim. These will be movies that don’t, for some reason. But should.
April 13, 2007 at 9:39 pm
There’s definitely a lot of those movies around- maybe we should all do one- great but ignored films (CONDORMAN is obviously on that list.) Hey, isn’t this great, that the comments are all composed of the same guys that write this blog? We’re kicking ass now!
For the record: for me, NAPOLEON DYNAMITE = what you get when an unoriginal, uncreative person (i.e. hipster wannabe or some MTV exec) watches some genuinely dry and original films (i.e. films by Wes Anderson, Jim Jarmusch, Aki Kaurismaki) and tries to repeat that by creating “quirky” characters that have nothing to say. The difference is that Wes & Jim truly love their characters, so we’re not laughing at them, but with them, appreciating the absurdity that is life. Napoleon, on the other hand, is just a big generic geek and the movie shits on him over and over and over with obvious loser jokes. “How many cool catch phrases can we invent in this one movie?” seemed to be the running goal. Heartless, heartless, heartless. There- I said it. And I’m not taking it back.
April 14, 2007 at 6:39 am
Well, my list isn’t necessarily for movies like CONDORMAN, although that would be a wonderful addition.
It is more a collection of movies that really are great (at least in my opinion) but aren’t discussed when a discussion of “Great Films” ever arises in mixed company.
If you guys want to write one of your own, let me know, and we can combine it, like the good old days. More than one opinion is always more interesting…although I know I will have one on my list that both of you will never have on yours. And no, Warren, it isn’t DIRTY WORK either.
April 16, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Yup, it’s great to know we at least read each others’ blogs!
Memo, I agree 100% with your assesment of ND. In my opinion, Wes Anderson has also fallen into that same category. He’s an unworthy disciple of himself…if that makes any sense. “Rushmore” is fantastic; a film that actually still gets better with every repeat viewing. But since, I don’t think he’s had much to offer. I lump him in the same category of filmmmaker as John Singleton, who it seems only had one intriguing story to tell.
April 17, 2007 at 6:44 am
Okay, the NAPOLEON DYNAMITE debate rages on. I guess some people think some movies are funny, and some don’t…or apparantly from these exchanges, they just can’t.
I made myself one promise when I began writing for the internet…if I am ever talking about a dumb comedy that hits on all cylinders, and someone counters it’s legitimacy with references to Wes Anderson, Jim Jarmusch, and Aki Kaurismaki, then I will just lay down the sword. It just doesn’t much matter at that point. To be honest, I don’t much enjoy being made to feel like Woody Allen did while standing in line to see THE SORROW AND THE PITY in ANNIE HALL. But alas, I don’t have Marshall McCluhan off-camera to help me out. Boy, if life were only like this.
“ND” made me laugh, hysterically mostly. That is what movies are all about at some point. Some kind of aesthetic response that makes you happy.
And if you chaps aren’t aware that most movies nowadays are derivative, then I would simply suggest you lower your bar a bit. Or just avoid the American Cinema completely. At this point in my life, if I actually find an American film that I enjoy as much as NAPOLEON DYNAMITE, I will cheer its success.
Then, I will see a foreign film, or independent film, and then again remember the import and potential of filmic expression. And then I will watch NAPOLEON DYNAMITE again, just because I want to laugh myself silly.
April 27, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Hi Memo! Thanks for inviting me to read yr reviews. I just want to say that Ken Loach’s Bread and Roses is one of my favorite movies. It’s the reason I love Adrien Brody. I had heard of The Wind… but didn’t realize he was the director. I’ll definitely make an effort to find it.
I’ll just say I did enjoy Napoleon, because that’s clearly the most controversial part of yr review.
April 28, 2007 at 1:43 am
I didn’t realize all the controversy! There’s a distinction to be made between what someone finds funny and whether something is a good movie or not. I’m not arguing the former- clearly, it made you laugh, and it made Warren and I cringe. There’s nothing to discuss there, and I think it’s great that it made you laugh, because laughing is a great thing to do.
To me, though, the value of criticism (whether it’s some grandiose Jean Renoir film (to drop a big name) or some goofy American hit is simply to try and objectively examine what’s going on beneath the hood. All movies are derivitive to a point, but each person has to determine their threshold. I think derivation is a bad thing in general, so the more something is ripping something else off, the less I’m going to like it; besides, there’s a difference between an unconscious influence that has shaped a filmmaker’s own point of view and an outright lazy theft of one movie’s ideas into another- to me, ND suffers from the latter. Wes Anderson is clearly influenced by a ton of shit, and his movies are all composed of elements found in other filmmakers… but he has a delightfully original fusion of all these elements, with a touch of melancholy, that he is able to overcome his influences and give us something new.
But again, I’m not arguing over whether it made you laugh. I actually really liked “Idiocracy”, and you weren’t such a big fan. What can I say- it was a stupid comedy that hit more than it missed and made a great point in a really blunt way. It didn’t lose steam, as most of those comedies do; it was just funny in a lowbrow way from beginning to end, and I laughed a LOT… but I still got what you were saying in your blog.
And Warren, forgive me, but I actually think Wes has improved with age, even though he is, as you say, making the same movie over and over. It just happens to get better every time. LIFE AQUATIC is, by far, his best! Richer characters, a more subtle and complete world, multiple levels of complexity that he explored… it’s the only movie of his I am driven to watch over and over. I agree he’s bound to hit a wall at some point, but so far, he’s like a sculptor that keeps whittling away at the same one piece until it comes out perfect. That’s my humble take on Wes Anderson, at any rate (and I will admit LIFE AQUATIC owes a HUGE debt to the great BUCKAROO BANZAI, even!)
John Singleton, though… he sucks!
so what else can we bash? and how does this tie into ken loach, exactly..?
April 29, 2007 at 7:08 am
May 1, 2007 at 1:02 pm
It’s about time somebody gave Buckaroo Banzai some props. My love for it probably explains why I also loved The Life Aquatic.
May 2, 2007 at 2:39 pm
The spirit was prevalent throughout, but then when they did that end credits sequence, it was obvious they knew who they were referencing. Call it a ripoff or an homage… Jeff Goldblum was great in both…