chorleyhere wrote:Rowls - you lose all credibility when you sink to this level !
"His unwavering support of Jeremy Corbyn is as touching as Gary Glitter's fingers."
It was a vulgar expression but I picked it without much thought. But the simple truth behind it - that Loach IS an unwavering supporter of Jeremy Corbyn - in undeniable.
Ken Loach himself has come out and said it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... new-labour" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It's easy to make a fictitious film about how awful the welfare system is butit's far trickier to fix the damned thing. Ken can pose as many questions as he likes using the medium of film.
I gather (and believe) it's a well made film but so is Triumph of the Will. That piece of Nazi propaganda has stunning cinematography and editing. I do not think that good cinema equates to political judiciousness. That's why I'm not too bothered about Loach's latest piece. I'm sure it IS an excellent film. For the record, my admiration for Ken Loach should not be taken for an endorsement of Hitler.
Longside4evr wrote:Rowls its a film and a question was asked of you have you took it in because what you have took in is out of context and a left wing load of tripe
If you have seen the film then you have got totally got lost in your mind set, as posters have said its full of humor yet bends you into solace, you have brought out your inner demons i afraid I made it into a political debate where in fact if you had put most of your effort into taking something out then your views would be some what of gladness instead of a sordid vision of mass destruction.
and in saying that your inability on the take leaves your input i must say a lot be desired.
If I have correctly understood the gist of what you're attempting to say, I shall politely acknowledge your advice but take no notice. Thank you.
You really ought to put more effort into posting coherently Longside4evr.
JohnMcGreal wrote:Back to the original topic. It's an excellent film which I think needed to be made, despite it being a difficult and upsetting view for the audience. It's easy for certain people to dismiss it as 'propaganda' but that sort of thing is happening, and has been happening for several years now to a lot of unfortunate people.
I'm not dismissing it as "propaganda" it IS propaganda. Regardless of it's filmic merits.
And here's another thing:
Unlike the vast majority of people on this board and beyond
I have years of experience of working in the reception areas of benefit claims offices.
I'm aware of the basic plot of the film. It does NOT ring true.
I've seen plenty of people harshly passed as "fit to work" in medicals - but I know that close to 100% won their appeals. I saw many multiples of that number get away with not turning up for medicals or passing them when they looked perfectly fit for work.
Just off the top of my head I remember a man who was signed off work for three -Yes, THREE- years with a broken foot. Hundreds of people with "bad backs" who limped into the office and skipped out once their excuse for not attending their medical had been accepted.
I've worked in the system and, for most of the people reading this board,
you haven't. I don't claim the benefits system is perfect but I do re-state that it is very, very generous.
There *might* be one or two very unfortunate cases similar to the eponymous character's tale (I mean perhaps one or two out of the millions of claims, which is a very, very low figure) but if these are properly investigated they should be overturned. Does the film acknowledge this fact?
However, as for the female character in the film - her entire plot line is complete bull. Given that I saw 90% of the prostitutes working Nottingham's streets in order to get them to sign for their girocheques (and knew them all by their first names - ahahhahah) I can tell you for a fact that nobody but nobody ever fell into prostitution because they couldn't afford a sanitary towel or clothes for their children.
That is categorically NOT what drives women to sell their bodies on the streets.
There's an article here which describes it perfectly:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... YOUNG.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It may well be a brilliant bit of theatre but it categorically is NOT anywhere near the reality of benefit claimants or the benefit system.
And what of all the "real-life" Daniel Blakes?
Well, if anyone out there can find them it will surely be the Guardian but they've uncovered nothing at all similar. Perhaps this might be because the film does NOT accurately portray the real benefit system. They haven't found any real-life Daniel Blakes because there AREN'T any "real life Daniel Blakes".
Here's a challenge to all you who imagine the film is anywhere near the real benefit system - find me a "Real Daniel Blake" story and I'll tell you the main differences between that and the film.
Here's one to start with:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... e-benefits" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
