sign in sign up
<<
Home , Cathy Come Home, Looking for Eric, Looks and Smiles, My Name Is Joe, Nell Dunn, Poor Cow

’S FAIR SHARE OF HOME AND FAMILY ISSUES

FROM AND THE ANGELS’ SHARE

TO SORRY, WE MISSED YOU

ANDREA VELICH

Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest

Abstract: 84-year old Ken Loach is known today as one of the best British social realist film directors. In this essay, I shall try to prove that there is some stubborn consistency in his oeuvre, in the representation of the disenfranchised and basic social issues (like health, home and family) and their emotional strain on families as well as in the criticism of the Establishment for unemployment, poverty, sickness or addictions, from Cathy Come Home (1966) to his last film, Sorry, we missed you (2019). In the past few years, Ken Loach seems to have lost the optimism still present in The Angels’ Share (2012). Keywords: family, home, hope, Ken Loach, representation, social realism

1. Introduction

Ken Loach was born in Nuneaton, England in 1936. After studying law at Oxford where he was president of the Dramatic Society, he worked in theatre and then in 1963 moved into television with the BBC (Shail 2002: 137). Loach, who is known today as one of the best British social realist film directors, has sustained a commitment to representing the disenfranchised and exploring controversial social, historical and political issues all through his career (Stollery 2001: 202). According to the IMDb (Internet Movie Database), Loach has never “succumbed to the siren call of Hollywood” and it is impossible to imagine his particular brand of British socialist realism translating well to that context. While studying law at St. Peter's College, Oxford, partly because of his working-class parents’ expectations, Loach was more interested in history, art and theatre, performing with a touring repertory company (Cooke 2005: 64). This led to television, where in alliance with producer he produced a series of docudramas, most notably Cathy Come Home (1966), whose impact was so massive that it led directly to a change in the homeless laws (Ryan – Porton 1998: 22). Loach is famous for location shooting and working with unknown, semi-, or nonprofessional actors. He uses various techniques to generate remarkably ‘authentic’ performances (Ryan, Porton 1998: 23). These include casting people with similar life experiences to their characters, working in a range of dialects and languages, and capturing genuine surprise by revealing only part of the script to actors as shooting progresses (Hayward 2004: 6). This realist project also involves experiments with different narrative forms in order to dramatise conflicting political discourses and examine the typical consequences for groups and individuals of complex social determinants (Stollery 2001: 202).

B.A.S. vol. XXVII, 2021 126 In his films, Loach focuses on the impact of the growing financial and social divide and its emotional strain on families. Ken Loach’s themes seemingly focus on very simple, every day issues like home and family, which he manages against social pressures from unemployment, low wages, poverty, , lack of health insurance or a social net, drug, alcohol or other addictions, crime and punishment. As, according to Samantha Lay (2002: 67), social problem films are more preoccupied with content issues than with the film style, more with the message than the medium, my essay focuses mostly on the message of the Loach films. It will discuss the representation of British working class home and family issues in Loach’s films and will examine how far the situation has (or has not) changed since the mid 1960s (since Cathy Come Home) to 2019 (Sorry, we missed you), when and how it affected Loach’s view and hope for a better future. Accordingly, this essay excludes highlighting or analysing films set outside Great Britain, addressing migration and racial issues, or foreign and international affairs, an equally important concern for Loach and his scriptwriters in Fatherland (1986), Hidden Agenda (1990), (1995), Carla’s Song (1996) Bread and Roses (2000), Ae Fond Kiss (2004), The Wind that Shakes the Barley (2006), A Free World (2009), Route Irish (2010) and Jimmy’s Hall (2014).

2. ”Home, Sweet Home” from Cathy Come Home (1966) to The Angels’ Share (2012)

Loach started his career with directing films for the BBC television Wednesday Play series in 1964 (Cooke 2005: 66). Acclaim for Wednesday Plays and Cathy Come Home (1966) opened the door for Loach to feature films (Mello 2009: 176). During his theatrical and television training, Loach understood the importance of writers, and this resulted in his collaboration with various writer talents including , and and most recently with (Shail 2002: 138). The British Kitchen Sink and New Wave were to be influential in television drama and film in the coming decades. They left a legacy which was kept alive by TV in the 1960s and 70s, re-emerging in some films produced by in the 1980s and 1990s (Hallam and Marshment 2000: 51). After the success of Cathy Come Home, watched by about 12 million people, roughly a quarter of the British population at the time, the feature debut of Loach was (1967) (Shail 2002: 138). Poor Cow followed a single mum’s housing and family struggles on the fringes of . portrays a young working-class woman in the world of the 1960s permissive attitudes and economic necessity. According to Jacob Leigh (2002: 48), it bristles with stylistic eclecticism and Brechtian playfulness, combining location shooting, intertitles, handheld camera for a bungled robbery, and protagonist Joy’s voice-over, revealed at the end as part of a documentary-style interview. Kes (1969), more stylistically consistent than Poor Cow, has proved to be one the finest films in Loach’s oeuvre over time. The central tension of Kes is between imagination and social constraint. Billy, the protagonist of Kes, a lonely working class boy, finds happiness and liberation through discovering and training a kestrel, Kes. According to Stollery (2001: 203), ’ cinematography in the semi-rural setting of Kes employs diffuse lighting rather than highlighting particular characters; slightly distanced camera placement and simple panning

127 THE BEAUTY OF MEDUSA – PARADOXES OF CULTURE movements allow actors relative freedom of movement, recalling François Truffaut’s films and Tony Richardson’s The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner (1962). Kes may be the finest, however Family Life (1971) may be the most challenging film of Loach’s early period. It extends aspects of Kes’ observational style into a dissection of power and authority (Leigh 2002: 118). Family Life, influenced by countercultural psychiatrist R. D. Laing’s theories, tells the story of Janice, an unemployed nineteen-year-old, living at home with her parents. While her younger sister, Barbara is married and upwardly mobile, the protagonist Janice is a disappointment to her parents, and their well-intentioned criticisms are a feature of her family life. When she falls pregnant, the subsequent ‘voluntary’ abortion precipitates her mental decline, and, instead of finding a job and financial and social independence, she is stuck with her family and, with their help, enters the orbit of institutional psychiatry (Leigh 2002: 119). The drama of Family Life arises from competing discourses: the legacy of 1960s permissiveness, consequent tensions within a respectable, sexually conservative working-class family, and debates between liberals and conservative psychiatrists (Stollery 2001: 203). The film develops a systematic critical analysis of the formation and possible treatment of the illness. Creswell and Karimova (2017: 20) state that Loach presents what Erving Goffman (1961) called “the moral career of the mental patient” in both positive and negative ways. The message of Family Life, according to Papadopoulos (1999: 27), is basically that, since life in our society is repressive and exploiting, mental illness is one more form of protest which deserves our sympathy and solidarity. The psychiatric treatment of mental illnesses is also seen as a part of the brainwashing and mind-dulling apparatus of modern capitalism Family Life was the least commercially successful and the most controversial of Loach’s early films (Creswell, Karimova 2017: 20). These films and the depressed state of 1970s British film production prevented Loach from making another feature for nearly a decade. He therefore returned to television drama with the four part series, symbolically titled (1975), exploring the years leading to the 1926 General Strike (Hayward 2004: 133). Loach attempted to intervene directly into the ongoing political struggles through television documentaries on trade unions and the 1984-85 miners’ strike, but nervous broadcasters blocked or delayed their transmission (Leigh 2004: 122). In the 1970s and 1980s, Loach’s films were poorly distributed and his TV work in some cases were never broadcast (Leigh 2004: 122). The fourteen years of Tory rule had been disastrous for the British film industry, which no longer existed as something separate from television. Still, according to Robert Murphy (1992), a number of remarkable films emerged “out of the debris”. Rather than looking back with nostalgia to the golden age before Mrs Thatcher came to power, Loach “mellowed” into a humanist solidarity with the victims of what they saw as an increasingly unjust society (Murphy 1992). Loach made two low-budget feature films in the eighties – (1981) and Fatherland (1986) – but spent more of his time and energy directing television documentaries, not all of which (his series on leadership, for example) were actually shown (Hayward 2004: 158). In Looks and Smiles, young adult Mick is on the dole, but has a supportive family, unlike his girlfriend Caren, whose parents have split up. Caren relies on Mick’s love alone, who should thus choose between poverty with Caren or an army career on his best friend’s recommendation.

B.A.S. vol. XXVII, 2021 128 It is interesting to see that, while earlier the problem the protagonist faces is the near certainty of a working life down the pit, in Thatcher’s Britain the question is whether he will find a job at all. In the 1990s, Loach made a spectacular comeback with a series of award- winning films firmly establishing him in the pantheon of great European directors. His films have always been more popular in mainland Europe than in his native country or the US (Leigh 2004: 32). Hidden Agenda (1990) won the Special Jury Prize at the 1990 Cannes Film Festival, Riff-Raff (1991) won the Felix award for Best European Film of 1992, while (1993) won the Cannes Special Jury Prize for 1993 (IMDb). While in the 1990s the British film industry produced a number of blockbuster heritage films (like Elizabeth, 1998, dir. Shekhar Kapur) and urban fairy tales (Murphy 1990: 357-358), like Four weddings and a Funeral (1994, director Mike Newell) to provide audiences with escapism through cultural heritage and romance, Loach kept directing films including Riff-Raff, Raining Stones, Ladybird, Ladybird and highlighting basic social problems, like the right for a decent home, family and living, a fresh start, and the growing social gap as the legacy of Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative rule (1979- 1990). In the 1990s, Loach was lucky to find sympathetic producers and Rebecca O’Brien, and consolidated a regular production team including designer Martin Johnson, cinematographer , and editor Jonathon Morris (Stollery 2001: 203). The appeal of these films by Loach in the 1990s partly derives from blending social and political concerns with comic and romantic plotlines and using established actors, like . Riff-Raff (1991), originally with the working title The Estate, the story of Stevie, a construction worker, and his girlfriend, an unemployed pop singer, serves to show the living conditions of the British working class, though, as the title implies, these are not the strongly unionised, articulate, organised workers like in (1969) and (1971). (IMDb) Hayward (2004: 215) argues that Riff Raff shows the underclass, casual labourers working in unsafe conditions, hired and fired, and Loach addresses here the theme of the need to fight back, not to be destroyed by the system. David Harvey (1989: 230) emphasizes the role of the environment in constructing forms of consciousness that facilitate the reproduction of social relations produced by capitalism. In Ricardo Andrés Guzmán’s (2012: 107) interpretation, the built environment is itself a cultural product into which are inscribed the various social and economic relations constitutive of it. Loach’s next film, Raining Stones (1993), explores the effect of poverty on the family in comic mode. Unemployed Mancunian protagonist Bob’s intention to buy his daughter a Communion dress propels him through poorly paid casual work, petty crime, and indebtedness to a brutal loan shark (Hayward 2004: 216). The observational style locates these experiences as everyday social processes, but humour and narrative surprises arise from individual, spontaneous reactions rather than collective, organised acts of resistance (IMDb). Loach’s next film, Ladybird, Ladybird (1994) is based upon the true story of Maggie, whose children are repeatedly taken into care by social services. The film is about Maggie’s fight to keep her family together despite social pressures. Hayward (2004: 216) claims that Crissy Rock’s compelling performance in close and medium shots brings us nearer to the action than in most of Loach’s films. According to Stollery (2001: 204), extensive flashbacks outline Maggie’s personal history of abuse, institutional regulation, and incredible endurance.

129 THE BEAUTY OF MEDUSA – PARADOXES OF CULTURE Loach returns to working-class Glasgow in My Name is Joe (1998) bringing together unemployed, recovering alcoholic Joe, and health visitor Sarah. According to George McKnight (1997: 84), the focus on Sarah’s work enables a more nuanced representation of social services than in Ladybird, Ladybird. The predetermined deterioration of their relationship arises from Joe’s lack of options in an environment governed by a black economy of drugs and debts. Joe’s loyalty to two young drug users undermines his attempts to improve his own life (IMDb). We might claim that the common denominator in the above films and one of the strongest mission statements of Loach is that everyone has the right for a home and a family. These are preconditions of life (mental and physical health) and love. Consequently, this essay focuses on the continuity and consistency with which Loach fights for these basic human rights. One of the key concerns in his films is to highlight the unkept promise of the post-war British Establishment to provide affordable homes for the working class, where working young people might move away from their parents, children could be decently raised, so as not to be taken into custody by the social services either in the 1960s (Cathy Come Home), or 30 years later, in the 1990s (Ladybird, Ladybird). The decline of the heavy industries, therefore job losses, poverty and debt coupled with the lack of adequate welfare measures resulted in the gradual post war decline of the working class and it had a deep impact on working class families. Rising property prices made the majority of British town accomodations unaffordable even for families where both men and women were at work; when children were born, the family met a number of difficulties – from losing the mother as a breadwinner for several years, to being directly evicted from lodgings by hostile owners, like in Cathy Come Home. In 1991, in Riff Raff, Loach addresses the issue of building homes and finding a home and love, while in 1992, in Raining Stone, the focus is on poverty’s effect on children in a family. In 1998, in My Name is Joe, both the protagonist Joe and his younger friends are unemployed and either alcohol or drugs ruin them and their families.

3. Shifts in Tone in Ken Loach’s Films: from The Angels’s Share (2012) to Sorry, We Missed You (2019)

55 years after the end of World War II, in the early 21st century Loach still needed to address family and housing problems. In Sweet Sixteen (2002) Liam tries but fails to get a real home for his imprisoned Mum, soon to be set free. Liam wants to get his mother back into the family by detaching her from her drug-addict and trafficking boyfriend, and also to reunite his Mum with his disillusioned, young, single-mum sister. The paradox is that Liam raises money for their new home by selling drugs (Hayward 2004: 255). Similarly to Robbie in The Angels’ Share (2012), Liam uses his only option, that of selling drugs illegally in order to achieve his goal, but while Liam fails, the story of Robbie has a fairly happy (but also open) ending. In (2009), the protagonist, Eric, the postman, who after his second wife’s death cares for his troublesome stepsons, is lonely and understood only by his friends and his football idol, Eric Cantona, with whom he starts an imagined dialogue to improve his life and get back his first wife. The Angels’ Share juvenile delinquent protagonist, Robbie, wants to get a chance, a fresh start and a new home for his new family with Leone and their newborn son, instead of going to prison or sofa-hopping at friends’ places. At the same time, in I, Daniel

B.A.S. vol. XXVII, 2021 130 Blake (2016), neither Daniel’s most basic health needs, nor the feeding of unemployed Katie and her child are met by society, while in the last film directed by Loach, Sorry, we missed you (2019), the protagist Ricky Turner and his wife work day and night to support themselves and their two children. Ricky finally enters the promising, but in reality highly exploitative gig economy, with idealistic expectations to save up for their own home, which they had lost in the 2008 crisis. We can clearly observe shifts in tone in the Loach films in the last decade. We can see some signs of hope in both Looking for Eric (2009), where Eric the postman receives some external help both from his friends and Cantona, and in The Angels’ Share (2012), where Robbie gets help from Harry and the “angels”. In 2013, ageing Loach shows some signs of hope by highlighting the value of friends and community. Hope is combined with retrospection and nostalgia in The Spirit of ’45 (2013), a documentary film, which sets an example of how the spirit of unity, which buoyed Britain during the war years, carried through to create a vision of a fairer, united society (IMDb). In the past five years, however, Loach shows more anger and disillusionment than hope in his films. In I, Daniel Blake (2016), the protagonist, Daniel, a 59-year- old carpenter, after having suffered a heart-attack, must fight the bureaucratic forces of the system in order to receive Employment and Support Allowance to survive. In his troubles, Daniel finds a new friend, Katie, a single mum, who literally fights poverty and humiliation in food banks to feed herself and her child (IMDB). In his last film, (2019), Loach seems to have lost hope completely: Ricky is trapped in the vicious circle of the modern-day gig economy form of labour exploitation, of debts and humiliations, and also fails as a husband and a father (IMDb). How does The Angels’ Share in 2012 represent then the last ray of hope? Mainly by portraying a new couple (Robbie and Leone) overcoming their social differences for the sake of their love and newborn son. To achieve this despite poverty (when their son is born they don’t have a place to stay until they get one from Leone’s relative) and Leone’s father’s hostility, they need to be supported by friends, find mentors like Harry to provide a social net and community, and to learn new skills, like whisky tasting. In addition, new institutions run by social workers and psychologists like Talk after serious crime might be useful to help both the victim’s family and Robbie and Leoni to turn a new leaf by sincere remorse, apology, and taking responsibility. The institution of community payback might also help to give Robbie a chance instead of imprisonment. It might look morally dubious that Robbie and his pals steal whisky from the rich, redistributing wealth as a post-modern Robin Hood, but again no legal alternative is left. This film raises the question whether there is a new chance for Robbie and Leone, despite the deep social divide reflected in the son’s namegiving: the father- in-law wants his own name, Vincent, to be inherited by his grandson, according to tradition, while Robbie wants his son’s name to be Luke (a Biblical name), to reflect a new beginning. Robbie, who has just avioded prison and sofa-hopping, finally gets a decent job and a home with his new family from “the angels”. While Joe in My name is Joe in 1998 cannot break out of his working class environment and vicious circle of alcohol and drugs and cannot have a peaceful relationship with Sarah, whom Joe cannot but fail, Robbie can turn over a new leaf, with external help and “with the angels’ share”. According to one of the best-known film critics, Roger Ebert (2012), Loach's realism always carries a distinct sense of humor, volatility and in this hyper-

131 THE BEAUTY OF MEDUSA – PARADOXES OF CULTURE capitalist new century, a socialist passion for The People. In his review on The Angels’ Share, Ebert praises Ken Loach, then aged 76 (in 2012), the most down- to-earth of kitchen-sink realists, for his playful, celebratory mood, offering an affectionate, grandfatherly view of jobless young people struggling to get by. Ebert (ibid.) claims that

it's a thrill watching 20-something Robbie operate smoothly among middle-aged, upper crust whisky connoisseurs as his planned heist morphs into a grand swindle. He's a quick study, poring over guidebooks when alone. This little guy, Robbie, whose potential father-in-law calls him a “waste of space”, is as much of a man as the burly, seasoned whiskey merchants he dupes and does business with.

4. Conclusion

Hill (1997: 165) quotes Loach stating in the documentary Carry on Ken that

politics determines how you photograph people. For example, if you put a wide- angle lens on and shine a light on somebody, right flat on their face and shoot them close up, you turn them into an object, which seems to me quite a right-wing thing to do. If you put on a tighter lens and sit further back, and light them in a friendly way, you identify with them. You share their feelings.

This is what we can see in The Angels’ Share. Peter Bradshaw in The Guardian (2012, May 31) also agrees that The Angels’ Share is a warm, funny and good-natured film, it is an unfashionably uncynical and unironic kind of comedy. Bradshaw calls The Angels’ Share a companion piece to Loach's Sweet Sixteen (2002) or even his early classic Kes (1969) and argues that it is Loach’s most relaxed and successful film. Loach is intrigued that some whisky evaporates in the cask: the so-called “angels’ share”. In The Angels’ Share, Loach also highlights class divide, among others things, by pointing out the difference between drinking and tasting. In the film, whisky works as a metaphor at several levels, as metaphors, according to Hill (2011: 128), represent the figurative means for conveying contradiction, “insofar as its modus operandi is the juxtaposition of logically incompatible elements into a newly constituted symbol or sign”. Whisky is not even known by the working class, it is beyond their reach, still the angels give them a two percent share, which is still enough for Robbie and his friends to start a new life and to thank Harry for his good will. Comparing The Angels’ Share with Kes (1969), Bradshaw (2012) argues that there seems to be some progress, according to the Ken Loach films. In 1969, in Kes, there seemed to be no way out for Billy. However, though The Angels’ Share is under no illusions about long-term youth unemployment in 2012, it still finds some light. Bradshaw (ibid.) also wonders if Loach may not be so optimistic but may only be experimenting with a lighter way of addressing the old age social issue. Robbie and his mates are no angels, still the film finds a way of giving them something that real life can’t or won’t: a chance. The lead song is “I’m Gonna Be (500 Miles)” by The Proclaimers’ duo from their 1988 album to symbolise “Live 8: The Long Walk to Justice”, when an estimated three billion people came together in the fight against extreme poverty on 2 July 2005. In his The New York Times film review (11 April 2013), film critic Stephen Holden is sceptical about the hope and escape offered in The Angels’ Share; he

B.A.S. vol. XXVII, 2021 132 writes that the movie, with a screenplay by Loach’s longtime collaborator Paul Laverty, “imagines (italics mine) that possession of a talented nose for those scents could be a key to escaping Glasgow’s violent underclass”. The word “imagine” might reflect Holden’s skepticism and be closer to reality. Papadopoulos (1999: 27) called Loach a radical film-maker whose themes express his uncompromising political stand against the capitalist system and the reformist ‘Left’. It is beyond doubt that Loach has been a clear, unflinching voice in British cinema. His films address concerns of ordinary people struggling within an iniquitous economic system in a manner which is engaging and full of empathy. Naturalistic observation adds a raw power to his political cinema drawing the viewer in. In Loach’s filmmaking the personal truly is the political (Shail 2002: 139).

References

Bradshaw, Peter. 2012. “The Angels’ Share Review” in The Guardian, May 31. [Online]. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2012/may/31/the-angels-share-review. [Accessed 2020, July 21]. Cresswell, Mark, Zulfia Karimova. 2017. “Ken Loach, Family Life and Socialist Realism: Some Historical and Theoretical Aspects” in Journal of British Cinema and Television 14(1), pp. 19-38. Edinburgh: Edinborough University Press [Online]. Available: www.euppublishing.com/loi/jbctv. [Accessed 2020, July 22]. Cooke, Lez. 2005. British Television Drama: A history. London: . Ebert, Roger. The Angels’ Share. 2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.rogerebert.com/ reviews/the-angels-share-2012. [Accessed 2020, July 25]. Guzmán, Ricardo Andrés. 2012. “From Highways to High-Rises: The Urbanization of Capital, Consciousness and Labor Struggle in Ken Loach’s Bread and Roses” in Arizona Journal of Hispanic Cultural Studies 16, pp. 101-118. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265767670. [Accessed 2020, July 22]. Hallam, Julia, Margaret Marshment. 2000. Realism and Popular Cinema. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Harvey, David. 1989. The Urban Experience. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hayward, Anthony. 2004. Which Side Are You on? Ken Loach and his Films. London: Bloomsbury. Hill, John. 1997. “Interview with Ken Loach” in George McKnight (ed.). Agent of Challenge and Defiance: The Films of Ken Loach. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 160-176. Hill, John. 2011. Ken Loach: The Politics of Film and Television. London: British Film Institute. Holden, Stephen 2013. “A Temperament for Trouble and a Nose for Fine Whisky” in The New York Times, April 11. [Online]. Available: https://www.nytimes.com/ 2013/04/12/movies/the-angels-share-a-comedy-by-ken-loach.html. [Accessed 2020, August 25]. Lay, Samantha. 2002. British Social Realism: From Documentary to Brit Grit. London, New Yok: Wallflower Press. Leigh, Jacob. 2002. The Cinema of Ken Loach: Art in the Service of the People. London: Wallflower Press. Loach, Ken. IMDb. [Online]. Available: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0516360/. [Accessed 2020, June 17]. McKnight, George. 1997. “Ken Loach’s Domestic Morality Tales” in George McKnight (ed.). Agent of Challenge and Defiance (Contributions to the Study of Popular Culture): The Films of Ken Loach. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press, pp. 82-98.

133 THE BEAUTY OF MEDUSA – PARADOXES OF CULTURE Mello, Cecilia. 2009. “Up the Junction: Ken Loach and TV Realism” in Lucia Nagib, Cecilia Mello (eds.). Realism and the Audiovisual Media. London, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp.175-189. Murphy, Robert. 1990. The British Cinema Book. London: British Film Institute. Murphy, Robert. 1992. The Enemy Within: Anti-Thatcherite British Cinema [Online]. Available: https://www.academia.edu/6239213/The_Enemy_Within_Anti_Thatcherite_ British_Cinema. [Accessed 2020, July 24]. Papadopoulos, Theodoros. 1999. “On Media, Culture and the Prospects for a New Liberatory Project: An Interview with Ken Loach” in Democracy & Nature, The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy 5(1), pp. 27-32 [Online]. Available: https://www.academia.edu/1153330/Papadopoulos_T_1999. [Accessed 2020, July 31]. Ryan, Susan, Richard Porton. 1998. “The Politics of Everyday Life: An Interview with Ken Loach” in Cineaste 24(1), pp. 22-27 [Online]. Available: www.jstor.org/stable/41689103. [Accessed 2020, Sept 5]. Shail, Robert. 2002. British Film Directors. London: British Film Institute. Stollery, Martin. 2001. “Ken Loach” in Yoram Allon, Del Cullen, Hannah Patterson (eds.). Contemporary British and Irish Film Directors: A Wallflower Critical Guide. London: Wallflower, pp. 204-207.

Filmography

Cathy Come Home (1966), dir. Ken Loach [Online]. Available: https:// www.imdb.com/ title/tt0059020/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1. [Accessed 2020, August 15]. Poor Cow (1967), dir. Ken Loach [Online]. Availavle: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt00621 41/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0. [Accessed 2020, August 15]. Up the Junction (1968), dir. Ken Loach [Online]. Available: https:// www.imdb.com/ title/tt0062426/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1. [Accessed 2020, August 15]. Kes (1969), dir. Ken Loach. Chris Menges, Cinematographer [Online]. Available: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064541/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0. [Accessed 2020, August 15]. Family Life (1971), dir. Ken Loach [Online]. Available: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068569/. [Accessed 2020, July 15]. Days of Hope (1975), dir. Ken Loach [Online]. Available: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0150282. [Accessed 2020, July 15]. Looks and Smiles (1981), dir. Ken Loach [Online]. Available: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082678/. [Accessed 2020, August 15]. Fatherland (1986), dir. Ken Loach [Online]. Available: https://www.imdb.com/title /tt0091035/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1. [Accessed 2020, August 15]. Hidden Agenda (1990), dir. Ken Loach [Online]. Available: https:// www.imdb.com/title/tt0099768/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0. [Accessed 2020, August 15]. Riff Raff (1991), dir. Ken Loach [Online]. Available: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt 0100491/ ?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_8. [Accessed 2020, August 15]. Raining Stones (1992), dir. Ken Loach [Online]. Available: https://www.imdb.com/ title/tt0107920/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0. [Accessed 2020, July 15]. Ladybird, Ladybird (1994), dir. Ken Loach [Online]. Available: https://www.imdb.com/ title/tt0110296/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0. [Accessed 2020, August 15]. My Name is Joe (1998), dir. Ken Loach [Online]. Available: https://www.imdb.com/ title/tt0151691/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0. [Accessed 2020, August 15]. Sweet Sixteen (2002), dir. Ken Loach [Online]. Available: https://www.imdb.com/ title/tt0313670/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0. [Accessed 2020, August 15]. Looking for Eric (2009), dir. Ken Loach [Online]. Available: https://www.imdb.com/ title/tt1242545/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0. [Accessed 2020, June 15].

B.A.S. vol. XXVII, 2021 134 The Angels’ Share (2012), dir. Ken Loach [Online]. Available: https://www.imdb.com/ title/tt1924394/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0. [Accessed 2020, May 15] The Spirit of ’45 (2013), dir. Ken Loach [Online]. Available: https://www.imdb.com/ title/tt2332801/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1. [Accessed 2020, August 15] I, Daniel Blake (2016), dir. Ken Loach [Online]. Available: https://www.imdb.com/ title/tt5168192/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0. [Accessed 2020, July 15]. The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner (1962), dir. Tony Richardson [Online]. Available: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056194/. [Accessed 2020, September 23]. Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994), dir. Mike Newell [Online]. Available: https:// www.imdb.com/title/tt0109831. [Accessed 2020, July 10]. Elizabeth (1998), dir. Shekhar Kapur [Online]. Available: https://www.imdb.com/ title/tt0127536/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0. [Accessed 2020, May 10].