Tuesday, 19 November 2019

Film: 'Sorry We Missed You"

Scourge of Conservative British government policies, Ken Loach, now in his 84th year, comes up with another cracker, one which may well turn out to be his final film. A laughter-free zone, it's as intense and heart-rending as anything he's given us, on a par with his previous, widely well-regarded film, 'I Daniel Blake' (2016). And like that one, this is also set in Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

It deals with a family struggling to survive in the era of the 'gig' economy. Where our current government regularly trumpets how it's bringing down unemployment, patting itself on the back with no mention as to how those 'in work' have to hold down two, sometimes three, jobs simultaneously because they are so poorly paid, with no job security at all, working on zero-hour 'contracts', and not knowing whether they'll be employed one hour to the next, never mind from day to day. And with millions countrywide, including some working, now having to rely on free hand-outs from food banks just to survive, that is the state we're now in.

In this film we see a family of four - parents (Kris Hitchin and Debbie Honeywood, both delivering most effecting performances) with their rebellious teenage son (Rhys Stone) and 11-year old daughter (Katie Proctor). The family is already heavily in debt to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds when the unemployed father takes on a job as parcel deliverer, having to buy a white van at his own expense, and any cases of deliveries not made on time (a schedule so tight that he has to wee into a plastic bottle so as not to lose one minute) and any damage or mishaps, even if not his own fault, to come out of his own modest pay. He has to work 14-hour days with no breaks, no days off - or he'll be sacked. Meanwhile, the mother is an itinerant social care worker, having had to surrender her necessary car so that her husband could buy the van, so she's reduced to having to use the bus to get from client to client, all of advanced age in various states of health deterioration. including dementia, some regularly soiling themselves - helping them eat, dress, wash, get to the toilet etc. 
While they're both trying to hold down their precarious jobs their son increases their worry load significantly - truancy from school, painting graffiti with pals, getting into fights, shoplifting.....But their little daughter, not yet at rebellious age, is sympathetic and supportive to her struggling parents.
It's the father, with the more risky employment, who is, perhaps understandably, the more volatile of the parents, while his wife is the solid, more reliable one, though she does 'lose it' at least once, and very publicly. 

It's a grim film with the family quartet at the centre hardly able to be bettered in acting terms. There's no resolution at the end, just fading from off the screen in an emotionally charged situation, which seems appropriate as we're in the thick of difficulties for many thousands, even millions, of families right now.  
I wish Ken Loach had yet a further 20 years or more in him. His films are always thought-provoking. However the legacy he is going to leave us with, especially in social commentary terms, will be hard to be rivalled. 
A very moving film, though maybe not one to be watched when you're feeling low and need your mood lifting!.............7.5.

(IMDb.............7.8 - Rott. Toms.......Not available ) 



20 comments:

  1. This sounds quite good. I hope it plays over here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do hope it gets shown in your area, Bob, though it's doubtful as it's getting only a limited release here - which is, I suppose due to the fact that it's not really a comfortable, 'escapist' story.

      Delete
  2. I really feel I should go and pay to see this at the Cinema to support Loach, but there are some films you can't 'unsee'. One that was amazing, but I wish I could 'unsee' was Tyrannosaur by Paddy Considine. That gave me nightmares for weeks after... Such depravity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't see 'Tyrannosaur' on purpose, D, although I like Paddy C. a lot. Being told that in or near the opening scene we see his character kick a dog to death was enough for me. That alone would have upset me for a very, very long time (impossible to forget) and I didn't bother to investigate what else the film was about. If there were further deeply unsettling scenes as you infer there were, then just as well I avoided it.
      There's nothing on that scale in 'Sorry.....' though it undoubtedly touches the heart. I strongly recommend it if you get the chance.

      Delete
  3. I saw this one at a film festival several months ago. I am sure that this type of story is not everybodies cup of tea, but it certainly is compelling viewing. For a lot of us out here it is the reality of everyday living, struggling from paycheck to paycheck without getting ahead.

    Julie Q

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As with nearly all of Loach's films this touched me deeply, Julie, and even more than most of his. It's salutary to see depictions of what life is really like for those struggling along at the lower ends of contemporary society, and helps those of us who aren't particularly well off to count the blessings that we DO have. I myself haven't been able to afford a holiday for no less than 28 years, have no car, never had a mobile phone, nor even a wide-screen telly - though I DO have a p.c (obviously!) so I'm still doing better than several millions of my compatriots such as this family.

      Delete
  4. jimmie t. murakami20 November 2019 at 13:08

    Ray, the BBC were making this kind of laughably outmoded and anachronistic garbage 50 years ago as a Thursday night 'Play For Today', so essentially people who go to see this rubbish are actually paying money to watch something that their parents used to watch on television free of charge before they were even born ! ! !. This is the kind of unimaginative hogwash thats turned the British film industry into such a worldwide laughing stock over the last 35 or 40 years. People want to see fantasy and magic up on the screen, they dont want to be reminded of the solemnity and despair of everyday life by embarrassing idiots from the past like Mr. Loach!. I`m trying to respect your opinion on this one Ray but 'Cathy Come Home' (1966) and 'Family Life' (1971) were unbearable enough 50 years ago and, like i said, for the 84 year-old Loach to still think its OK to be making this kind of unwatchable crap now is absolutely ludicrous and quite pathetic. The childrens film foundation used to make better movies than this circa 1968 ! ! !.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve Prefontaine21 November 2019 at 09:25

    Ray, you were right to avoid 'Tyrannosaur', its a pile of exploitative nauseating celluloid dung of the lowest order.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm now pleased to have avoided it, Steve, despite it having been the product of someone I like (Paddy C.) as well as the main character of an actor I truly admire, Pete Mullan - though I do note that it gets a very healthy average rating of 7.6 on IMDb. However, I've still not got over having seen 'Midsommer' which disturbed me no end, and continues to do so - and that alone was more than enough to cope with for this year or longer. So definitely no 'Tyrannosaur' for me, thank you!

      Delete
  6. Kitchen sink dramas have always been an acquired taste for me

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know how you feel, JayGee, but this film is more a depiction of reality (or so I believe it to be) than being preachy.

      Delete
  7. Ray, i noticed that Jimmie said some very interesting and true things about the ludicrous joke that is laughingly referred to as the British film industry, i just wondered why you didn't say anything about them, specifically with regards to agreeing or disagreeing, what's YOUR opinion ?.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thought about it, Eddie, but had nothing worthwhile to offer. ;-)

      Delete
  8. I will watch this when it comes to television. I store up all your films for a later date as we don't go to the cinema. I will probably find it moving as you did and my husband will probably ask where the action is. He calls everything slow if it's real life and not fast moving!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, you now know where the film is set, Carol, though it being real-life is the entire point of it. As for 'fast-moving', it's not intended to be a thriller, though if you're sympathetic to the plight of the central family then it ought to get your emotions chugging as it did with me. I suspect with a fair degree of certainty that you'll respond to it in positive fashion more than your hubby will.

    ReplyDelete
  10. sometimes I comment to assure you I read these although I don't go to the movies so I can not comment directly to them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've long been aware that you read my blog, Dr Spo, so no assurance necessary. Thanks for it anyway/

      Delete
  11. jimmie t. murakami28 November 2019 at 14:09

    Carol Caldwells husband is right, movies should be about imagination, innovativeness, astonishing spectacle and incredible special effects. It should not REPEAT NOT be about people doing their laundry and having beans on toast for breakfast ! ! !.

    ReplyDelete