Ken Loach

Ken Loach is another British director (see Mike Leigh) who stimulates ambivalent feelings in me. Why? He's a national treasure, a living legend etc.etc., but I've sometimes found myself hating his films, for their schematic politics, predictability and unsympathetic characters. No doubt he would argue that this is because he sets out to challenge preconceptions and that this is uncomfortable for people, but the problem is that I don't find his films challenging, but predictable.
But we're talking about ambivalence, and there's a lot to appreciate in Loach's films. His methods - using untried actors, some of whom have gone on to greater things, as well as household names, and his resolute independence are admirable. And this is the trouble - one admires Loach's films, but finds it hard to love them. I'm sure he would say he doesn't want to be loved, that's not what he does, but I'm thinking of films you want to see over and over again, because they're just so damn good, endlessly stimulating, leaving you wanting more. Loach's films, however, interesting and politically challenging, don't do this. Again, I'm sure that's not his intention, but it means I don't automatically rush out to go and see his films at the cinema, as I would, say, a Scorsese film.
I did go and see The Wind That Shakes the Barley; that was good, and certainly Loach's films have become more nuanced in recent years. There's always an overriding theme, though, that ordinary people are endlessly betrayed by those in power and always will be. I find there's a deep pessimism at the heart of Loach's films, even when there's an ostensible message of hope. Betrayal is inevitable.
This was most strongly expressed in Land and Freedom. It was my most recent rental from Amazon - I'd never seen it, and had always wanted to, so decided that it was about time I caught up with it. It was the first (I think) of Loach's ventures into history, as he decided to address the Spanish Civil War. This is pretty much virgin territory for filmmakers, scandalously, really, as it's a fascinating subject, full of possibilities. Perhaps it's because it's not a straightforwardly simple situation, the various factions, and, of course, there are large helpings of betrayal.
George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia is the only book I can think of by someone who was actually there, and, Loach's film has prompted me to revisit it, so I'll be catching up on it soon, digging out my old, faded, Penguin copy. Orwell joined the POUM, the anarchist grouping who were shafted by the Communists, and Land and Freedom focuses on a band of POUM members. They're a feisty bunch, and there's an American fighting with them, and guess what? He's the one who argues that they need to join up with the Communists, that they're finished, and he does just that. You can see it all coming, and it's inevitable that it's an American who does it, not the noble working-class Liverpudlian, played by Ian Harte, whose story is at the heart of the film. The POUM members are passionate, and are a mixed bag of firebrands and more sober souls, but their hearts are in the right place. Of course, the Communist s, funded by Stalinist Russia, overwhelmed any outbursts of individuality in the Civil War, and they're a doomed little band of brothers. All is lost, but they go down nobly. I enjoyed it, but a Loach film is essentially a cerebral experience.
It's left me feeling that I must revisit his earlier stuff, but what I really want to see is his famous Days of Hope TV serial, firat broadcast in the late 1970s. I missed it when it was on, and, although it was celebrated at the time, it was extremely controversial, and has since sunk without trace. A DVD special edition is long overdue - come on BFI!