‘I, Daniel Blake’ is a thoroughly depressing experience of a film. I found it rage inducing, even. Daniel Blake and his friends are helpless against the tide of dehumanizing bureaucracy and capitalist drudgery that befalls them. I think the message of the movie is self explanatory – bureaucracy is dehumanizing, poverty is soul-crushing, inescapable, destructive.
I don’t mean to sound glib. In fact I would say I am quite the opposite when it comes to this film – its message sunk deep into the core of my philosophy and sat like a pit in my gut for days. It’s been a long time since I saw it, so some of that effect has worn off. Though my slightly dismissive tone shouldn’t be taken for dismissal of the film’s message. On the contrary I couldn’t agree with its positions more – I’m more interesting in talking about a different point, taking it for granted that the film’s message is true and good.
I raised after the film – perhaps more forcefully than intended, the question of whether or not we have the “right” to be angry. What I meant by this was that we, being at Cornell, are certainly of a certain non-trivial degree of privilege. We take advantage of one of the best academic institutions in the country, are well fed on a regular basis, live a life of study (to some, leisure) and so on. Some would argue (perhaps even correctly) that such privilege is indirectly the cause of the suffering and dehuminization experienced by the characters of “I, Daniel Blake”. So as much as we want to be angry watching it – as much as we ARE angry watching it – can we in good faith be so? Even if our privilege isn’t a cause, we still have no basis of relating.
My worry comes from the idea that we shouldn’t fetishize (for lack of a better word) poverty and such. This comes up in art – that somehow suffering or being “real” in the “element” and so on create great art. I loathe this idea, and I worry that “I, Daniel Blake” in being a depiction of poverty runs the risk of toeing this line. Daniel has his heroic stand with the graffiti and we cheer, the same way we cheer for other movie protagonists. But there’s something gut wrenchingly real about the experience of Daniel and his friends. This, however, is just a concern. I’m not sure to what extent it applies here – I’m not even sure if it does at all. But I raise it more as a caution.
In the end, this film made me feel and think things at a level deeper than any other this semester, and for that alone, perhaps I should give it a pass.
I don’t think this film fetishized poverty at all. Fetishizing poverty means the media is trying to depict poverty as something “romantic” or “desirable” like “I’m poor but I’m happier and more free than someone who’s wealthy” which is bs. There’s a difference between depicting someone’s reality and romanticizing someone’s situation, even if both can be intended to invoke empathy. I, Daniel Blake is depicting the reality of the lives of many low-income people. Instead of a cliche happy ending, Dan dies from a heart attack right before he’s about to receive the help that he desperately needed for so long. This ending represents the lives of many people who have suffered because of this broken system and could not receive the help they needed in time. This is the cycle of their reality that they cannot escape from. They have no happy ending.
Thank you for the reply! I think I see your point – I would disagree on one idea, though – that to romanticize poverty requires a happy ending. I think again, that you can still romanticize the “struggle” – My worry really is that, in creating a fictional character out of this very real struggle, as you emphasize (a point I was hoping we’d all agree with de facto), that you inevitably romanticize the idea. The gut wrenching scene of Katie at the food bank is elevated to an unreal level by the very fact that it is filmed – we are observers, and though many can empathize with the dark reality of her situation, perhaps someone who cannot directly empathize sees it differently, in that “romanticizing” light, even if that romanticizing light contains empathy. Certainly the movie compels us to empathize, deeply so, but what do we do with that empathy? In “fictionalizing” the stories of these allegories for very real people, does it inherently demean their reality, since making this movie is itself an act of distorting reality? It’s possible this concern is too abstract – that what at the end we need is empathy, which this movie provides in droves, but I remain uneasy. Especially in the context of who views this movie – hence my concern with privilege.
I think you’re overanalyzing the film and missing the whole point, but you asked an important question: “Certainly the movie compels us to empathize, deeply so, but what do we do with that empathy?”
What have YOU done with that empathy?
What are the real discussions of what we can do with that empathy?
After watching and analyzing this film in my Unemployment class with Dr. Ian Greer, it is interesting to me that unemployment has not been mentioned once in this commentary. Yes, the film does show, say poverty and living without substantial wages, yet the underlying message is about unemployment. The whole reason David Blake is suffering is because of the unemployment and welfare applications and policies that repeatedly set up unachievable goals and boundaries. David Blake had no ability to use computers, or own a computer nonetheless, and the office reprimanded workers that aided workers that assisted him. He was told he needed to search for work a specific amount of hours a week to be considered unemployed, yet the system would not accept his old fashioned method of seeking work. David Blake fell in-between able to work and unable to work, therefore unable to apply for unemployment benefits, yet unable to get employed. This is a common issue and obstacle for many people, leading to poverty. This film should have provoked emotions of frustration, yes. Now the discussion should be on welfare and unemployment benefits and policies.