Hunger 2008

Much has been said lately about Michael Fassbender’s acting. Driven by his last work, about sex addiction on Shame (2011), some critics have even acclaimed him as the next Daniel Day Lewis. In order to acquire better knowledge on his capabilities I went on seeing his first big film, Hunger (2008), directed by the same Steve McQueen who’s responsible for Shame.

Hunger depicts the final moments of IRA’s (Irish Republican Army) activist Bobby Sands, who ultimately died on a hunger strike at the early eighties. It is well established that mainstream Hollywood presents every bit of film information already processed, so the viewer doesn’t have to think very much. But in Hungers case it can’t only be the opposite trend. Rather, it seems McQueen treated the subject almost as a scientific experiment, in a way that we are only allowed to observe the facts. He never really takes the viewer to whatever is going on inside the characters. It is known they are anxious, angry and scared, but we cannot accomplish their thoughts, what exactly are they afraid of and so on… Responsible for this is their lack of dialogues between themselves. Hunger has almost no dialogues, besides a very long one in its middle. This absence of conversations makes you wonder about those no-dialogs movies about cave man, and how, in some ways, we could then understand our ancient ancestors better than those unfortunate imprisoned Irish fellows.

The film is actually a three stage act. The first one being the imprisonment of an activist and his initiation on the prisons usual practices, such as releasing urine through underneath the door to the cells corridor, forced baths from time to time and other violent routines. Here we are presented the newbie approach, where the audience learns along with that novice what has to be known about the plot. Then comes the middle term of the movie, a long conversation between Fassbender’s character and an IRA priest, about his resolution to begin another hunger strike and its justifications. It is noticeable this was shot almost entirely on only one scene, as the director resorted to this powerful method in order to keep the audience focused, unwilling to allow any escape, even if momentary, from the unfolding drama.  Then comes the hunger strike and its sufferings, till the very end.  McQueen opted to depict the characters emaciation on a detailed level, and Fassbenders ability to lose weight adds to the final agony. 

convincing a priest is not an easy task

All this is shown in a sort of an aseptic way. Although we feel sorry for the characters fate and are stricken with his body’s degeneration, this is felt as if it was a horror movie, or a news video, as the desired intertwinement isn’t achieved for the audience to identify with his plight. The natural audience involvement accomplished on “In the Name of the Father” (1993) is the biggest difference setting these two movies apart, and the lack of it what makes “Hunger” rather like a great directing prep than a all out film.

@jpvbm