I, Daniel Blake

This movie caught me by my heart, like every other piece by Laverty- Loach cooperation. It is not a thriller, there are no twists, no peaks of emotions. It shows the naked reality of our everyday lives with its great pains and humor at the same time. But, the "banality" of these great pains is the strength of the movie, it shows how every encounter with the system is the time we face the reality of the system and look for someone who will give a hand us to survive it. Of course, this is mostly valid for the working class. The film softly depicts that it is not a socialist propaganda, because when truly shown the reality itself unveils as a socialist propaganda.

But the film is not another documentaristic presentation of the everyday life of a worker, as it also shows how to cope with all these we experience. It is the formation of a solidarity with others like us, the woman in the queue, the Chinese in the factory, the black in the warehouse, the clerk at the office... We are already connected, even with those in other continents. Once we see someone shouting with his writing on the wall, we should shout with him with our voice. If one of them writes a letter, another should spread its word.

A shot in the head of the Britain's social security system, a great call for solidarity.

I left the cinema with a lot to think about after viewing this film. A gritty and realistic drama portraying the processes and outcomes of claimants caught up in today's benefit system, sometimes with dreadful outcomes.

Every public servant, politician and voluntary sector worker should be expected to watch this film. A lot of it is not easy viewing, and certainly not suitable for a fun night out, but the message it gives about today's society is compelling.

I think a message should be included on-screen but before the credits suggesting people contact the Citizens' Advice Bureau if they are experiencing any of the issues raised in the film.

After Ken Loach's latest film "I, Daniel Blake" (2016) took home the most prestigious film award of the year, Palme d'Or at Cannes earlier this summer, there has been a lot of discussion or at least anticipation of discussion on the film. The Guardian, for one, published a long article where people from all walks of life shared their differing opinions on the film. As a fierce story of social relevance, telling about an ailing carpenter whose life goes to pieces in the vast sea of bureaucracy, "I, Daniel Blake" is bound to be criticized for being didactic and demagogic as it hits the commercial screens. Some will fall in love with the film for its honest authenticity, while others will be put off by its unapologetic directness.

The film begins with the title character, Daniel Blake going through an assessment in the unemployment office after his doctor has deemed him unfit for work due to a heart condition. Unfortunately, Daniel ends up in a paradoxical position, the likes which Kafka could have devised, where he is not concerned unhealthy enough to apply for sickness benefit and has to therefore apply for job seeker's allowance, coercing him into a pointless cycle of searching for jobs he cannot really take. In the middle of this absurd jungle of gray offices and red tapes, Daniel befriends Katie, a single mother of two in a similar situation. Daniel's cardinal sin in the bureaucratic world is his refusal to play by its rules, to fake and to pull the strings where needed.

Loach is known for his simplicity in both style and narrative without ever coming close to minimalism. His simplicity is of a different kind, a simplicity of the heart on the level of the subject matter which is often social by nature. This simplicity gives room for the unfolding of story and character in their natural state which is of the utmost importance for Loach's intentions. At times warm and funny, at others raw and brutal, the story of "I, Daniel Blake" is hard to be dismissed for its authenticity. It will likely speak to most people as do the great realist novels of the 19th century. It is a simple voice with real thought and emotion behind it, saying something of relevance, straight out and loud. While the title of the film might pave way for quasi-libertarian interpretations of Loach's critique of the social benefits system, his intentions could not be clearer to those who have seen the film. The titular character is merely someone to carry the torch of solidarity; to Loach and others, he represents a mass of millions. Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian wrote that the film "intervenes in the messy, ugly world of poverty with the secular intention of making us see that it really is happening, and in a prosperous nation." This is the simplicity which gives Loach's cinema its moral aura.

Although many may feel put off by the film's direct social message and strong moral pathos, which can feel didactic or even demagogic at times, and it will not find its dearest fan in yours truly either, I think the film deserves acclaim for its integrity. The film does not hide its rhetoric or its message. After all, its "leftist agitation" may not be stranger than the ideology of upper middle class family life propagated by contemporary popular culture. The way I see it, "I, Daniel Blake" is more a personal expression of worry and concern rather than manufactured propaganda with an impersonal agenda. At worst the film might be preachy or sentimental, but at best it is the most authentic thing Ken Loach has done since "My Name Is Joe" (1998), a parallel work in the truest sense of the word. To put it bluntly, I am glad that "Jimmy's Hall" (2014) did not end up being the legacy Loach left for cinema; but "I, Daniel Blake" could very well be just that.

We all hate it when we are treated according to a standardised procedure, with no discretion shown for our particular circumstances. Perhaps it's inevitable that a benefits system is impersonal; but perhaps it's rather a feature by design, to strip applicants of their dignity, either to deter scroungers or simply to drive down the bill by making it humiliating, and difficult, to get what you really need. In the U.K., it has for a long time been widely suspected that some people claim invalidity benefits when actually fit to work; but attempts to prevent this have led to cries of outrage that the sick are sometimes basically left to fend for themselves, forced to seek jobs they are not fit to take. Ken Loach's film 'I, Daniel Blake', is fictional, but it's grounded in many credible accounts of how the system works.

The film itself is minimalistic, without any soundtrack; it's low key, showing us the everyday reality of Daniel's life. But it makes one angry watching it, because one can easily believe that for many people, this is exactly how the system presents itself. You couldn't call the film fun to watch, but it's important: every time you hear politicians lambast scroungers, you need to consider what the counter measures mean for those without a support network. Sadly, this is a must see movie.

I watched 'I Daniel Blake' a few hours ago in Prestatyn Scala with about twenty others. Others have covered the details so I'll just record my feelings. Anger, tears, laughter, more tears more anger. It is as though the half century between "Cathy Come Home" and this never happened. The acting removes any barrier between players and audience, we all felt in the scene, we all felt we were part of their background. Seeing actor's names against these characters on the end credits was almost a shock. The cast were experienced as people not actors playing people. Loach manages to multiply the grim Northern ethos by never filming on a sunny day, guaranteeing grey skies throughout the movie. The most colourful scene was almost an accident - near a brothel a brick wall has more colour in it than the rest of the film! A masterpiece: spontaneous applause at the end is such a rare thing in a cinema.