Issue 224 of SOCIALIST REVIEW Published November 1998 Copyright © Socialist Review

REVIEWS

FILMS

A lot of bottle

My Name is Joe Dir: Ken Loach

Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic. Or so goes the prevailing wisdom. Alcoholics are often portrayed as two dimensional, either as victims or, more often than not, as problems who have no one but themselves to blame. This whole film demolishes that idea. The film opens with Joe addressing an Alcoholics Anonymous group about his alcoholism, after which he's off, careering around a Glasgow estate in a battered van picking up his 'family', the lads who make up the local football team he manages--a team which is worse than useless. You take to Joe immediately. He's 37, unemployed and not long off the bottle.
Joe is funny, generous, fiery and unpredictable. His interaction with other people reveals a complex character. Through Skanks, his best mate, we see two working class men talking openly about their emotions and problems. Joe's problems include keeping social security snoopers and drink at bay.
Then there is Sarah--a health visitor devoted to her work and not looking for any disruption to her comfy routine. She has a job, a house and her own car. What's Joe got to offer her? He can't even afford to take her out on a proper date. All he has is himself--Joe Kavanagh.
Sarah is exhilarated by Joe. The intensity and impulsiveness which attract her are the very things which also scare her. 'He's a bit wild,' she says at first. As for Joe, he fails for Sarah in a big way. But as he questions whether he can stay off the booze and hold on to a relationship, he skips from optimism to self doubt.
They meet as a result of their involvement in the turbulent lives of Liam and Sabine, a young couple whose poverty means drugs, prostitution and worse. Joe and Sarah have inner conflicts to deal with but it is the conflict emerging between them over their different ways of helping Liam and Sabine which threatens to explode more than just their relationship. If his back is against the wall and he's robbed of hope, what will Joe be driven to?
The acting is superb. Peter Mullan, who won the Best Actor Award at the Cannes Film Festival, brings the charismatic Joe to life. Ken Loach is renowned for using unknowns and non-actors in his films and the cast for the football teams was drawn wholly from unemployed centres which, along with the camera shots, lighting and informality of the dialogue, brings honesty and realism to the film. The emotions and challenges are real. What counts, according to Loach, is 'the lives and emotions of ordinary people coping with an impossible situation, who, when given a voice, show unsuspected talents, spiritual energy and superhuman strength.'
The worries, dreams, principles and shifting ideas about the world are woven together seamlessly to produce a beautifully rich portrait of the human spirit. As in previous films directed by Loach, such as Riff Raff and Land and Freedom, we see that the decisions people are forced to take are rooted firmly in their material conditions and how these conditions limit their options. People are not easily pigeonholed and, despite, tremendous pressures, not only survive but surpass expectations and break out of the narrow constraints imposed upon them.
This is an immensely funny film which conveys a broad sweep of emotions, leaving you moved and uplifted. An extremely powerful addition to Loach's canon.
Lindi González

---

Royal performance

Elizabeth Dir: Shekhar Kapur

Kapur is best known outside India for his film Bandit Queen. Here he takes on the story of a very different sort of queen, the monarch perhaps most associated with England's ascendancy as a major European power. The life of Elizabeth I has been filmed, televised and taught to successive generations of children as one of the high points of English history, an age remembered both for the Spanish Armada and the writings of William Shakespeare.
Those expecting a traditional view of Elizabeth's reign will find this film quite different. Kapur has the advantage of coming to the story without many of the preconceptions and therefore it is without the trappings of much period drama.
From the dramatic opening which shows Protestant martyrs burnt at the stake by Elizabeth's sister, the Catholic Queen Mary, intrigue and danger is very much a theme of the film. Elizabeth's succession is by no means assured and her life is under threat for alleged treason before Mary's death. The 16th century in England was a time of transition. The old feudal order was dying--most spectacularly Elizabeth's father, Henry VIII, had ordered the dissolution of the monasteries which hit at the very heart of the wealth and power of the Catholic Church.
England's Protestantism made it a target not only of the pope, but of the great Catholic powers of France and Spain. England was still relatively weak compared to these. its state religion by no means assured, its monarchy unstable. Elizabeth's lengthy reign (until 1603) has to be seen in this context. The more traditional ruling class aristocrats harked back openly to Catholicism and a consolidation of their power (as did the Duke of Norfolk) or to at the very least marital alliances with one of the Catholic powers (as did Sir William Cecil). Other forces, represented by Elizabeth's adviser Walsingham, saw the future of England lying with the expansion of maritime trade and influence and with adherence to the Protestant religion.
The film has many strengths but unfortunately its grasp of politics is not one of them. Its makers have compared it with the various Godfather films and there are similarities. The court is a dark and sinister place and scenes such as the one where the pope puts a price on Elizabeth's head clearly draw such parallels. But there is a difference between the clash of power involving whole states and the struggle between Mafia families. Most importantly there are social forces behind the state clashes which are about much more than personalities or power struggles. At stake is the whole way in which society is organised.
It is claimed in the closing credits that England was the richest country in Europe by the end of Elizabeth's reign. This is not true, although it was growing in wealth, and the contradictions of who owned wealth and held power, so papered over in Elizabeth's reign, were only finally resolved in the civil war and revolution which took place 40 years later.
Not a great deal of this comes across from the film. Its lack of historical perspective also gives it a slightly ludicrous feminist veneer. The producer, Alison Owen, says of Elizabeth I, 'Her story seemed to have a lot of parallels with modern 20th century women who are often faced with that choice between career and personal life.' This is to extract the politics and social forces from the period and turn the point of the film into a costume drama This Life.
There is much to like about Elizabeth. It is brilliantly filmed, the acting is of a very high standard, and the locations (mainly in Northumberland castles) are stunning. The comparisons some critics have made with the directors Eisenstein or Orson Welles are probably exaggerated, but it is involving, fast moving and not what you would expect from costume drama. Just don't take it too seriously as history.
Lindsey German

---