By Jake Howell jake.howell@utoronto.ca

Countdown To Cannes: Ken Loach

The eighth in a series of snapshots outlining the nineteen directors in the 67th Palme d’Or Competition.

Background: English; born in Nuneaton, Warwickshire, England 1936.

STILL-2Known for / style: My Name Is Joe (1998), Sweet Sixteen (2002), The Wind That Shakes the Barley (2006), The Angels’ Share (2012); a narrative filmography that also includes television miniseries, documentaries, and docudramas; works that sympathize with leftist ideals; collaborating largely with Scottish lawyer-turned-scriptwriter Paul Laverty; stories featuring controversial figures and/or political activists; a naturalist approach to filmmaking that includes a tendency towards kitchen sink or social realism; improvisation; a noted rejection of institutions like the British monarchy and the patronage they represent.

Notable accolades: Winner of the Palme d’Or for The Wind the Shakes the Barley (2006), Loach is one of nine directors from the United Kingdom to have done so. He’s long been a favorite at Cannes, having won three Jury Prizes (Hidden Agenda, 1990; Raining Stones, 1993; The Angels’ Share, 2012), a lifetime achievement award from the 2004 Cannes Ecumenical Jury, and three other special mentions from Ecumenical Juries (Looks and Smiles, 1981; Hidden Agenda, 1990; Land and Freedom, 1995). Loach is also the winner of seven FIPRESCI prizes, and he has an honorary Golden Bear from Berlin (2014), as well as being a two-time BAFTA winner.

Previous Cannes appearances: Loach has a storied past with the Festival, debuting a total of eleven films in Competition: Looks and Smiles (1981), Hidden Agenda (1993), Raining Stones (1993), Land and Freedom (1995), My Name is Joe (1998), Bread & Roses (2000), Sweet Sixteen (2002), The Wind That Shakes the Barley (2006), Looking for Eric (2009), Route Irish (2010), and The Angels’ Share (2012). Loach has also played Un Certain Regard (1980’s The Gamekeeper), Out of Competition (2007’s Chacun son Cinéma), and other parallel selections (Kes, 1970; Family Life, 1972; Black Jack, 1979; Riff-Raff, 1991).

jimmys-hall-1

Film he’s bringing to Cannes: Jimmy’s Hall, marking the tenth feature-length collaboration between Loach and  Laverty. Based on a true story, Loach once again highlights a figure of political activism in Jimmy Gralton, an Irish communist. In the 1930s, Gralton opened a center for free thought and expression against the church and local authorities, later persecuted for his practices. Lesser-known British actor Barry Ward plays the title role, while Simone Kirby, Andrwe Scott, Jim Norton, and Brían F. O’Byrne join him.

Could it win the Palme? We have here a period drama that features the director’s signature righteous indignation (perhaps conspicuously so), and the trailer for Jimmy’s Hall does showcase what looks like some strong performances. At this point, however, Loach’s films play at Cannes regardless of their quality. Admittedly, initial Palme prospects seemed very low for Loach’s 2012 comedy The Angels’ Share (the film nevertheless went on to win a Jury Prize). It’s a tough call. We’ll see if the Jury wants to bestow a second Palme to the veteran filmmaker, but gut impressions—and a survey of the other heavyweight films in Competition—make this an unlikely winner.

Why you should care: When it was rumored that Jimmy’s Hall was going to be Ken Loach’s fiction film swansong, bets on a lifetime achievement Palme d’Or could easily have been made. That’s no longer the case, however, and we’re now looking forward to an entry that’s released days after the Festival ends (May 30), with more Loach/Laverty joints to come, if on a less sweeping scale. Gralton is an interesting character in history, and Loach is certainly the man to tell his story.

Follow Jake Howell on Twitter: @Jake_Howell
Previous Entries:
Tommy Lee Jones
Atom Egoyan
Bennett Miller
Xavier Dolan
David Cronenberg
Nuri Bilge Ceylan
Naomi Kawase

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon