I, Daniel Blake (2016) User Reviews

From Britain to China, workers' very own solidarity is their social security

[sakarkral · 9/10 · 8 October 2016]

This movie caught me by my heart, like every other piece by Laverty- Loach cooperation. It is not a thriller, there are no twists, no peaks of emotions. It shows the naked reality of our everyday lives with its great pains and humor at the same time. But, the "banality" of these great pains is the strength of the movie, it shows how every encounter with the system is the time we face the reality of the system and look for someone who will give a hand us to survive it. Of course, this is mostly valid for the working class. The film softly depicts that it is not a socialist propaganda, because when truly shown the reality itself unveils as a socialist propaganda.

But the film is not another documentaristic presentation of the everyday life of a worker, as it also shows how to cope with all these we experience. It is the formation of a solidarity with others like us, the woman in the queue, the Chinese in the factory, the black in the warehouse, the clerk at the office... We are already connected, even with those in other continents. Once we see someone shouting with his writing on the wall, we should shout with him with our voice. If one of them writes a letter, another should spread its word.

A shot in the head of the Britain's social security system, a great call for solidarity.

A wake up call for Tory Britain. Brilliantly satirises our hateful benefits system.

[markgorman · 9/10 · 22 October 2016]

Ken Loach does it again.

If you know Ken Loach (and importantly his writing partner Paul Laverty) you'll know I, Daniel Blake.

It's a nightmare.

A total nightmare.

Life on poverty line Britain that is.

And Loach hammers this home with gusto.

He chooses Newcastle as his latest political landscape, partly because "it's grim up North" but also because, in my experience, Geordies are the salt of the earth; kind, lovable folks. And this is the main emotional driver of this nightmare.

Daniel Blake is caught in a trap.

A bureaucratic hell populated by "computer says no" mini Hitlers occupying mainly minor roles in the Jobseeker hell that is Tory Britain. In a bid to out 'scroungers' the system has eaten itself and is spitting out vulnerable pitiful fodder like Daniel (played deeply sympathetically by comedian Dave Johns. He'll never win an Oscar but this part was made for him) and the lovable but deeply vulnerable Katie (played equally well by Hayley Squires - Call the Midwife).

He's had a heart attack and his doctors say he can't work but the Benefits Police say he has to go on jobseeker allowance and look for work or lose all entitlement to any money AT ALL.

It's farcical.

She's moved from a women's hostel in London because she can't afford a flat in London with her two children (one slightly miscast as a rather posh daughter, Daisy). She's having the same problems, only hers start from a tinpot Hitler chucking her out of the Job Centre for being late for her appointment.

They bond. He helps her. She helps him. It's grim but deeply affecting. We then follow their shared struggle.

In many ways this movie is like a Ken Loach Primer. It has all his usual trademarks and the 'working class people are good' message is laid on way too thickly.

But.

And it's a big but they are in a profoundly believable real-life drama and I found myself in tears (of collective shame?) three times during it.

It certainly makes the reality of food banks in Britain very, very meaningful. I won't pass a collection point again if my conscience holds up.

Everything that is good about Loach is in this film. In parts it's laugh out loud funny (but it's laughs of derision at our State). In parts it's deeply moving, even though some of the plot is verging on the ridiculous.

But who cares. Ken Loach holds a mirror up to our frankly DISGUSTING society and mocks it.

But he mocks it with the most vicious of venom.

It feels real. Really real.

It's a must see.

Sadly important

[paul2001sw-1 · 8/10 · 8 January 2019]

We all hate it when we are treated according to a standardised procedure, with no discretion shown for our particular circumstances. Perhaps it's inevitable that a benefits system is impersonal; but perhaps it's rather a feature by design, to strip applicants of their dignity, either to deter scroungers or simply to drive down the bill by making it humiliating, and difficult, to get what you really need. In the U.K., it has for a long time been widely suspected that some people claim invalidity benefits when actually fit to work; but attempts to prevent this have led to cries of outrage that the sick are sometimes basically left to fend for themselves, forced to seek jobs they are not fit to take. Ken Loach's film 'I, Daniel Blake', is fictional, but it's grounded in many credible accounts of how the system works.

The film itself is minimalistic, without any soundtrack; it's low key, showing us the everyday reality of Daniel's life. But it makes one angry watching it, because one can easily believe that for many people, this is exactly how the system presents itself. You couldn't call the film fun to watch, but it's important: every time you hear politicians lambast scroungers, you need to consider what the counter measures mean for those without a support network. Sadly, this is a must see movie.

Time out of Mind...

[NORDIC-2 · 10/10 · 24 June 2017]

Many other reviewers have already spoken eloquently and in detail, in praise of this deeply moving, superlative film. I'd just like to offer an observation from a somewhat different angle. What struck me about 'I, Daniel Blake' was an aspect of subaltern powerlessness that pundits often overlook, i.e., that the poor and marginalized are almost never in control of their own time. In the USA dentists, doctors, therapists, lawyers, and all sorts of professionals get to maximize and monetize their time to the nth degree. As for govt. agencies like the DMV or employment or benefits offices--they are often (under-)staffed by bureaucrats who are in no hurry to accommodate John Q. Public. Patients/clients/supplicants wait (and wait and wait) in their spot on the usually stalled conveyor belt to get their allotted modicum of perfunctory attention. After all, they're just cogs in the revenue stream and THEIR time is deemed unimportant. Same thing with phone access to govt. agencies, bureaucracies, insurance companies, you name it. These corporate entities have complex and often confusing "phone trees," long wait times on hold (during which horrendous music plays), and customers reps who are often either obtuse, indifferent, mean-spirited, or confused themselves. For the poor seeking any sort of public assistance these nuisances and indignities are multiplied tenfold because--as 'I, Daniel Blake' dramatizes--the System doesn't really want to serve the so-called "disadvantaged"; it wants poor folk in need to get discouraged and go away (and hopefully die and decrease the surplus population).

Tears, and laughter, but mainly tears - angry tears.

[kallanjames · 26 November 2016]

I watched 'I Daniel Blake' a few hours ago in Prestatyn Scala with about twenty others. Others have covered the details so I'll just record my feelings. Anger, tears, laughter, more tears more anger. It is as though the half century between "Cathy Come Home" and this never happened. The acting removes any barrier between players and audience, we all felt in the scene, we all felt we were part of their background. Seeing actor's names against these characters on the end credits was almost a shock. The cast were experienced as people not actors playing people. Loach manages to multiply the grim Northern ethos by never filming on a sunny day, guaranteeing grey skies throughout the movie. The most colourful scene was almost an accident - near a brothel a brick wall has more colour in it than the rest of the film! A masterpiece: spontaneous applause at the end is such a rare thing in a cinema.

Gritty but compulsive

[valhowells-55770 · 9/10 · 26 September 2016]

I left the cinema with a lot to think about after viewing this film. A gritty and realistic drama portraying the processes and outcomes of claimants caught up in today's benefit system, sometimes with dreadful outcomes.

Every public servant, politician and voluntary sector worker should be expected to watch this film. A lot of it is not easy viewing, and certainly not suitable for a fun night out, but the message it gives about today's society is compelling.

I think a message should be included on-screen but before the credits suggesting people contact the Citizens' Advice Bureau if they are experiencing any of the issues raised in the film.

Gripping and moving

[dazzanormc · 10/10 · 19 March 2017]

This is an excellent movie. Brilliantly written and directed, this is a no holds barred look at the British benefits system and how it dehumanises people who need State funded help.

The two lead characters have gripping back stories. Daniel and Kate help each other come to terms with how the State sees them as nothing but a number and an unwanted burden.

The movie is gritty, heart breaking and funny in parts. It is a social commentary that Ken Loach is so good at, showing what a great filmmaker he is. This is not a feel good movie but it is a rewarding and thought provoking watch.

A heartwrenching look at the British benefits system...

[ellscashncarry · 8/10 · 25 September 2016]

A heartwrenching look at the British benefits system which presents a real juxtaposition to the ubiquitous 'Benefits Street', 'Daily Mail 'scroungers' headlines-type culture that we've become so accustomed to.

'I, Daniel Blake' follows the lives of Daniel and Katie who, although from very different backgrounds both appear to be suffering similar fates at the hands of The State.

With believable, real characters, excellent acting and an engaging plot, the film really draws you in, and leaves you feeling grateful for what you have. Yes it clearly has a political message and no it won't be for everyone but it certainly can't be knocked. Better and more important than many of the so called 'blockbusters' we'll see this year.

Unapologetically Political, Openly Moral

[ilpohirvonen · 7/10 · 21 September 2016]

After Ken Loach's latest film "I, Daniel Blake" (2016) took home the most prestigious film award of the year, Palme d'Or at Cannes earlier this summer, there has been a lot of discussion or at least anticipation of discussion on the film. The Guardian, for one, published a long article where people from all walks of life shared their differing opinions on the film. As a fierce story of social relevance, telling about an ailing carpenter whose life goes to pieces in the vast sea of bureaucracy, "I, Daniel Blake" is bound to be criticized for being didactic and demagogic as it hits the commercial screens. Some will fall in love with the film for its honest authenticity, while others will be put off by its unapologetic directness.

The film begins with the title character, Daniel Blake going through an assessment in the unemployment office after his doctor has deemed him unfit for work due to a heart condition. Unfortunately, Daniel ends up in a paradoxical position, the likes which Kafka could have devised, where he is not concerned unhealthy enough to apply for sickness benefit and has to therefore apply for job seeker's allowance, coercing him into a pointless cycle of searching for jobs he cannot really take. In the middle of this absurd jungle of gray offices and red tapes, Daniel befriends Katie, a single mother of two in a similar situation. Daniel's cardinal sin in the bureaucratic world is his refusal to play by its rules, to fake and to pull the strings where needed.

Loach is known for his simplicity in both style and narrative without ever coming close to minimalism. His simplicity is of a different kind, a simplicity of the heart on the level of the subject matter which is often social by nature. This simplicity gives room for the unfolding of story and character in their natural state which is of the utmost importance for Loach's intentions. At times warm and funny, at others raw and brutal, the story of "I, Daniel Blake" is hard to be dismissed for its authenticity. It will likely speak to most people as do the great realist novels of the 19th century. It is a simple voice with real thought and emotion behind it, saying something of relevance, straight out and loud. While the title of the film might pave way for quasi-libertarian interpretations of Loach's critique of the social benefits system, his intentions could not be clearer to those who have seen the film. The titular character is merely someone to carry the torch of solidarity; to Loach and others, he represents a mass of millions. Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian wrote that the film "intervenes in the messy, ugly world of poverty with the secular intention of making us see that it really is happening, and in a prosperous nation." This is the simplicity which gives Loach's cinema its moral aura.

Although many may feel put off by the film's direct social message and strong moral pathos, which can feel didactic or even demagogic at times, and it will not find its dearest fan in yours truly either, I think the film deserves acclaim for its integrity. The film does not hide its rhetoric or its message. After all, its "leftist agitation" may not be stranger than the ideology of upper middle class family life propagated by contemporary popular culture. The way I see it, "I, Daniel Blake" is more a personal expression of worry and concern rather than manufactured propaganda with an impersonal agenda. At worst the film might be preachy or sentimental, but at best it is the most authentic thing Ken Loach has done since "My Name Is Joe" (1998), a parallel work in the truest sense of the word. To put it bluntly, I am glad that "Jimmy's Hall" (2014) did not end up being the legacy Loach left for cinema; but "I, Daniel Blake" could very well be just that.

Important Film

[Jerominator · 10/10 · 8 April 2017]

Honestly, I'm too upset and exhausted after watching that to write a substantial review. As someone who's been put through this system and is waiting under the sword of Damocles to go through it again, this was a hard bloody watch. But I knew it was important so I made myself watch it. I was actually surprised how well they captured the process. So much resonated. It's very hard to put into words when you're going through it but there's this ubiquitous enmity from start to finish, regardless of the legitimacy of your claim, regardless of your circumstances. It's nothing less than psychological warfare aimed squarely at the working classes and the disabled who cannot win in this situation. I particularly like how they captured the disgusting Catch 22 aspect of this rigged process. Whereby all legitimate claims are cynically refused by default. Then they automatically switch you to jobseeker's allowance from which point they set the rottweilers on you to bully you into paid or unpaid work by a process of harassment and public humiliation. It's easily the most sinister process I've ever experienced. I was shocked and horrified by it. There have been many stories in the press about people who are patently unfit for work who have been deemed fit for work by these criminals. And they inevitably end up killing themselves. The UK took a sinister run when Thatcher took power. The country has never been the same since. It is no less than warfare on the working classes, the poor, the disabled, and the sick. It's about time we drove these crooked traitors out of their comfortable leather chairs in Westminster and gave them a taste of their own medicine. It's gone too far. Anyway that's more than I wanted to say. I can't fault the film. It crammed a lot in there to illustrate the problem start to finish and I salute Ken Loach for this very important piece of work. Great acting and cinematography. A special nod to the people who played the bad guys. That is hard to pull off. It sent shivers down my spine they did such a good job. Thank you Ken Loach.

Good, if a little unbalanced.

[sforrester-3 · 7/10 · 16 January 2017]

I, Daniel Blake is a gritty drama which lets the viewer experience the frustrations of dealing with the British welfare system. Having had personal experience of the system in the past, the portrayal is very accurate and dealing with it can be a stressful, hair pulling out experience. I did, however, feel that there wasn't a great deal of balance to this film. Some people do take advantage of the system and not every working class person is a salt of the earth, do anything for you type. The ending also grated on me a bit - *****MAJOR SPOILER****** - for me, it would have been better if he had just won his appeal (as happens in the majority of cases) and the speech at the funeral just didn't feel realistic. Sometimes it just felt a bit too contrived, for example the food bank scene. You'd maybe tuck into a bit of fruit or a biscuit, not pour baked beans into your hand. There were other minor niggles like Katie's daughter being a bit posh or Daniel running the mouse up and down the computer screen. We already got that he wasn't internet savvy so making him out to be a complete idiot spoiled otherwise good scenes. I can't help feel that if they hadn't tried to over egg the pudding on a number of occasions, this would have been a much more powerful commentary on the welfare system. To me, it felt like when someone has a really valid point but spoils it by over dramatising. On the plus side, as I said, the actual portrayal of the system was accurate (I also grew to hate that music on the phone) and it was easy to be sympathetic to the character of Daniel. All in all, worth a watch.

The best film I have seen this year.

[MOscarbradley · 10/10 · 3 November 2016]

After seeing "I, Daniel Blake" there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Ken Loach isn't just the best director to have come out of Britain in the last 50 years but one of only a small handful of great directors still working today. Of course, his films are not merely 'entertainments'; he is the most unashamedly political director there is and "I, Daniel Blake" is his most unashamedly political film, certainly since "Cathy Come Home". It is also possibly his best.

Once again the writer is Paul Laverty who was worked with Loach numerous times in the past, (theirs is the among the greatest of all cinematic partnerships), and his superb script cuts to the bone. As someone who has sat on both sides of a Benefits Office counter I can honestly say that no-one strikes a false note here. Loach is famous for working with non-professionals or largely unknown actors, (Carol White, a fresh face when she made "Cathy Come Home", David Bradley in "Kes", Crissy Rock in "Ladybird Ladybird"), and "I, Daniel Blake" is no different.

The title character is played by stand-up comic Dave Johns and the young, single mother he befriends is Haley Squires. Add in an extraordinary cast of British character players and you have a film that oozes a documentary-like realism from every pore. Of course, at times it is virtually unwatchable. This is a film about victims and the appalling bureaucracy that sees them slip through the net. You could say it is a film about the failure of the Welfare State. Unlike "Cathy Come Home" however, I can't see it touching the hearts and minds of our present Tory Government which surely is shameful. Brexit, we have been told, is about taking back control but control of what; an appallingly defunct system where to care or show feeling is almost a sackable offence? The film was rightly applauded at the screening I attended and is the best I have seen this year.

Not one of Loach's best efforts

[howard.schumann · 7/10 · 9 October 2016]

Daniel Blake (Dave Johns), a 59-year old heart attack victim who is trying to collect welfare in the city of Newcastle, England comes up against a dehumanizing system that seems to be out to thwart him at every step of the process in I, Daniel Blake, British director Ken Loach and his long time scriptwriter Ken Laverty's latest collaboration. Winner of the Palme d'Or at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival, the film has a social conscience and does not hesitate to pull out all the emotional stops, but is unfortunately undercut by an excessive amount of speech making, contrived situations, and sentimentality. Performed by British stand-up comedian Dave Johns, the film is guaranteed to bring laughter, tears, and also anger at the system's coldhearted bureaucrats who know about rules and regulations but not so much about people's needs.

The film opens with a black screen. Slowly, we begin to hear a man being interviewed by a woman who identifies herself as a health-care professional. Having to answer lame questions about his cognitive abilities and motor skills but nothing about his heart, Dan tells the interviewer, "We're getting further and further away from my heart." He has been told by his doctor that he is not ready to go back to work and has applied for an Employment and Support Allowance, a stipend paid to those unable to work because of a disability. Unfortunately, the government concludes that he is fit for work, forcing him to appeal to the "decision maker" to change the ruling.

Forced to jump through a set of hoops just to earn the right to appeal, Dan must prove that he has spent 35 hours a week looking for work. Applying for Jobseeker's Allowance and not being computer savvy, he has to seek help just to learn how to use a mouse. When he meets Katie (Hayley Squires), a young single mother with two small children (Briana Shann and Dylan Phillip McKiernan) who has just come from London and is in need of assistance, the story becomes about people working together to provide mutual support in dealing with a faceless bureaucracy.

Dan and Katie become friends with Dan offering moral support and using his carpenter skills to make her flat more livable. Katie looks for work as a cleaner, sacrifices food to make sure her children are fed, and is even forced to work briefly as a call girl. One of the most heartbreaking scenes occurs at a visit to the local Food Bank when Katie has a breakdown after opening and eating a can of baked beans, but both are resilient and determined not to let the system crush them.

I, Daniel Blake, without question, comes from a good place and Blake captures our allegiance with his grumpy determination, kindness and concern for others, but there is little room here for nuance, balance, or objectivity. The film exists to make a point and everything else is subordinate to that. Though the performances are first-rate and Johns has perfect comic timing, I, Daniel Blake is not, in my view, one of Loach's better efforts.

Desperately in need of subtlety and depth

[steerpike_2002 · 4/10 · 2 November 2016]

I remember when Ken Loach used to make films rich in symbolism which featured characters capable of moral ambiguity living thoughtfully crafted stories on the screen. Those were the days.

Unfortunately, in the already gargantuanly over-rated "I, Daniel Blake" we are treated to none of these things. With this film, Loach's desire to beat his message into viewers' heads has trumped all other considerations relating to the quality of the viewing experience.

The story revolves around the struggles of 59 year old Daniel Blake, a skilled workman recovering from poor health, as he attempts to claim benefits from the state. Along the way he befriends and helps single mother of two Katie, who is barely holding her family together in a new city.

The message that the director seems to want so very much for us all to understand is that the benefits system in Britain is designed, quite purposefully it would appear, to grind down those unfortunate enough to come across it. There's little room here even to consider that the system may be well-meaning but intrinsically flawed, so extreme is the position taken.

This wouldn't be such a problem if the film possessed other cinematic qualities, but these are in short supply as well.

Just like in real life, characters in the film can all be very easily separated into good, honest folk or nasty, hate-filled jobsworths. Loach's view seems to be that people who work with their hands must be alright, but heaven help you if you hang a tie around your neck and work with paper, or (cross yourselves) a computer - then you're probably the sort that would push your own grandma into the gutter if there was a quid in it for you.

The plot is very hastily pasted together, with very little regard to allowing the story to unfold satisfyingly or intelligently. Key moments in the plot just follow flatly one after the other as if story-boarding was ignored altogether. The script shows a similar need for attention, characters delivering narration-like dialogue as if they were reading aloud the notes in the script margin rather than the lines themselves. It also falls into near-embarrassing clichés like the emotionally-mature child-philosopher part that also smacks of lazy writing.

There are redeeming features. The cast, particularly Dave Johns in the lead role, give satisfying performances. Johns's lighter moments in the film are particularly well-delivered and the film is genuinely funny at times. But these flourishes don't make up for a very lazy film, both conceptually and in execution.

a confronting portrait of an ordinary man struggling for his dignity in an Orwellian world

[CineMuseFilms · 8/10 · 22 November 2016]

If film is a mirror on society then the sheer volume of recent movies about the ugliness of the post- GFC world is a reflection of the scale of devastation it has caused. Most are essays in poverty that explore the loss of humanity for ordinary people. The film I, Daniel Blake (2016) is another in this genre. It is an intense portrait of an ordinary man who struggles to retain dignity in an Orwellian world. Far from entertaining, it is gritty, raw, and unrelenting. Daniel Blake (Dave Johns) is a rough-speaking but likable 59-year-old tradesman in Newcastle, England. He is recovering from a serious heart attack and lives alone. Unable to work, he does what thousands like him do in such circumstances: he applies for support allowance so he can pay his bills until health returns. What happens next is not the point, rather it is how it happens that will make you cringe. Form-filling becomes an obstacle course for preventing people like Daniel from getting help and the staff who process him absolve themselves of responsibility through constant referral to the "decision-maker" who is never there. Denied support allowance, he must apply for a job-seeker benefit that requires 35 hours a week of documented job hunting. His protestations are officially sanctioned and he loses all support. In the midst of his own inhuman treatment by a soul-less bureaucracy Daniel tries to help a single mother with two young children who is also crushed by the system. Katie (Hayley Squires) has moved from a homeless hostel and is living on food handouts because her benefits have been stopped. She finds 'affordable accommodation' that Daniel offers to repair and he becomes a father figure. Still unable to buy shoes for her children, Katie finds the kind of work that shocks Daniel but is the last resort for many abandoned by a social welfare system with gaping holes in its safety net. Desperate to help her, Daniel vents his frustration through graffiti on the welfare office wall and briefly becomes an urban hero. This is a disturbing film that many audiences will find confronting, particularly those who think they live in a caring society that supports people in need. The pace is slow and the dialogue often terse, but that's how life is at the bottom. The subdued cinematography and colour palette accentuates the drabness of life for the dispossessed. Perfectly cast, the two main actors fill their roles with an authentic voice for countless ordinary people who fall on hard times. There is no joy in this film and whatever humour you find is there to make the story bearable. But in a world that moves inexorably towards a hard-right social conscience, it is a film that cries out to be seen and heard.

Art reflects Life?

[JayDee5151 · 10/10 · 1 November 2016]

I have just watched this film and felt I had to add my voice to others who have rated it.

Ken Loach has nailed it again.

While many came in to see it with the usual cinema food that can be a noisy distraction as the film progressed you could have heard a pin drop.

As the credits started to roll I started to applaud, others joined in. I have never been to see a film where I felt this was necessary.

Sadly the film showed how dysfunctional the systems meant to support are failing.

This film should mandatory for all in authority and all M.P.s and members of the House of Lords to view.

Hard Hitting Real Acting

[SinghNo1 · 10/10 · 28 September 2016]

This film is hard hitting and heart wrenching, tears through and came out crying.

A try to replicate how the authorities are treating the venerable in the face of devastation. It is heart wrenching. It might have been based what has happened to a few in the recent past. I think Paul Laverty took a leaf out of the records and wrote the strip and Ken Loach put it on screen in the best possible way.

Agree with other reviewer A must see film by not just the general public but the Authorities to waken them up and hit them hard.

At the end at least in our screening there were applause of appreciation to Ken to show how well he has done to make this look so real.

Remarkable and essential.

[david-meldrum · 9/10 · 31 January 2019]

British director Ken Loach isn't known for politically subtle films; his stories are ones which grounded in one political worldview, promoting and expounding it from a variety of angels. That's not to say he's necessarily heavy-handed; but he runs that risk on occasions. Approaching this film, aware that it was his state of the (British) nation address from the point of view of people lost in a labyrinthine benefits system, I was expecting something I would be naturally sympathetic to but possibly alienated from due to what I expected to be broad-brush strokes. I was wrong; it's Loach's most nuanced and delicate film, telling a simple story with slowly simmering rage. A widowed man is signed off sick from work due to a heart condition; as he attempts to claim the benefits he needs he befriends a single mother and her children as they too seek the support the state should be giving them. Though the script is compelling, the real strength of the film is in its silences and counterpoints; the personal care of the food bank volunteers against the largely dispassionate, impersonal government employees. This results in the films most moving scene - a visit to a food bank where a combination of hunger and receiving compassion tip a desperate, nearly crushed woman in to an act of quiet desperation that's heartbreaking to watch. It's to the film's immense credit that it doesn't drift into anti-climax afterwards; yet neither is there a cheap, easy victory or moment of false hope. Hope is there, but it walks a vulnerable line of being extinguished by the system designed to serve the very people lost under the weight rules and regulations. It's a story of the people who fall through the cracks; it reminded me of Dickens' urgent, prophetic tales of urban poverty and never ending legal wranglings - and the film does not suffer from such lofty comparison. We're left asking: do we contribute to such systems' oppression and suffering, or do we seek out those who are lost, sit with them, listen to them, walk with them? It's a film of difficult questions and few answers; but that is moving, satisfying, funny and eloquent for all that.

In search of the villain

[harry_tk_yung · 16 February 2017]

A decade after his "The wind that shakes the barley", Ken Loach collected his second Palme d'Or award with "I, Daniel Blake". The general entertainment-seeking audience (who are used to rain-of-bullets, jaw-cracking-punches and explosion every three minutes), if they are ever enticed for whatever insane reason to buy a ticket to see this movie, may have a common question: who is the villain? An answer is actually provided near the end of the movie: the state. This movie is a bitter accusation against the heartless bureaucratic system.

The titular protagonist is 59, recently widowed, a carpenter by profession. His vicissitudes are only just beginning. While not noticeable on the surface, he is a patient recovering from heart attack. With the British social security system as a safety net, you would have thought that Blake is spared the agony of being driven to abject poverty, and even the threat of starvation looming in the not-too-distant future. Unfortunately, while there are several social security systems that might help him, he hits one road block after another, banging his head against the rigidity innate in these systems and officials that appear to relate more closely to robots than human beings. As the future looks bleak (he is selling one possession after another to stave off going to food banks that will rob him of his last scrap of dignity), a ray of hope appears. There is a good very chance that he can win an appeal against one of the "sanctions" that blocks relief money to which he is entitled. But, trying to freshen himself up in the washroom before the hearing, he dies of a sudden heart attack.

A subplot running parallel with Blake's fight against the bureaucracy is his friendship with a young woman, entirely Platonic. Katie has two young children, a girl and a boy, from two failed liaisons (not sure if they were marriages). Without a professional skill as Blake's (albeit working-class skill), she is financially even worse off, to the extent of going hungry because the provision from the food back is only enough to feed the children. Motivated by sympathy for a kindred human spirit, he becomes sort of a surrogate father figure of the family. Meanwhile Katie, with the meaning of "dignity" taking up more of a monetary bias, resorts to prostitution. When Blake discovers this, the relationship between them understandably suffers. When it is eventually mended, he is close to his last days.

Before watching the movie, upon learning that a stand-up comedian has been cast for the title role, I was a little surprised as most people would be. I am now fully convinced that Dave Johns is an excellent choice. If the posters have you believe that Blake is simply a manifestation of anger, it is misleading, intentional or not. The underdog that Johns portrays is indeed frustrated sometimes even exasperated. But he is patient, sometimes almost to the extent of stoic resignation. That is what makes him so endearing to the audience, plus of course his kindness to Katie and her children.

"I, Daniel Blake" stays well clear of sentimentality and is only a tad melodramatic at one or two places (such as the discovery of Katie getting into prostitution and the Blake's final death). Nor is this movie judgmental on a personal sense. An array of people paraded on the screen are depicted realistically. For example, when Katie is caught at shoplifting, the tough looking security in-charge turns out to be surprisingly humane and lenient, while the mild-looking store clerk has ultra-motives in the kindness he shows her. Likewise, the good and the bad equally populate the individuals Blake runs into, with none of them depicts with any exaggeration.

Dave Johns is a lovingly understated Daniel Blake that will have you weeping silent tears rather that breaking down in an emotional outburst. Hayley Squires, portraying Katie in stubbornly self-contained agony and muted defiance, matches Johns scene for scene in excellence. Briana Shann as the little daughter Daisy shines.

A sympathetic criticism of Britain's benefits system

[kayfret · 6/10 · 19 October 2016]

A sympathetic criticism of Britain's benefits system that proudly sticks two fingers up at the Tory government (and bureaucracy in general). I appreciated the sentiment but at times I felt as if I was watching a naive and preachy student film rather than the work of an experienced, award-winning (80 year old!) director. The stark contrast between the innocent protagonists and the malicious civil servants was often overplayed and unrealistic. The plot just sort of trudges through the painful everyday lives of its main characters in a poignant yet predictable manner, though with two stand-out scenes (a distressing moment inside a food bank and a cathartic scene outside the job centre). I did shed a few tears and it was definitely worth watching, but probably not a film I will remember in years to come.

Floods of tears

[michael-kerrigan-526-124974 · 10/10 · 20 October 2018]

I Daniel Blake. Wow. I spent 1/3 of the film laughing, 1/3 of the film angry and 1/3 of the film in floods of tears. Can't believe I'm saying this but Ken Loach's best. The scene in the food bank will stay with me forever. After the film, I'm angry. I'm sad. I'm happy. Corbyn would approve (not of the system, but the film let it be noted). Ten out of ten. In the words of Ken Loach, if this film doesn't affect you or anger you, what sort of person are you?

Demanding Dignity

[sol- · 7/10 · 17 January 2017]

Right from the opening credits in which the title character argues with a "health care professional" against a pitch black screen, Ken Loach fuses wry humour with bleak drama to present a potent look at bureaucracy gone mad here. The plot focuses on a carpenter who finds himself unable to obtain welfare when his doctor declares him unfit for work since the state's medical examiners disagree. This plunges the ageing man into a near Kafkaesque nightmare, told that the only way he can retain welfare is through jobseekers allowance, which means applying for jobs that he knows he cannot take just to show that he deserves welfare. Modern technology also proves a challenge as forms are only available online and he has never used a computer. The humour regarding Blake's unfamiliarity with computers is arguably a misstep as it mocks him as opposed to bureaucratic red tape, however, it also offers a timely reminder that not everyone is computer literate - and that the most disadvantaged in most desperate need may not even be able to afford a computer. A subplot in which Blake helps a single mother in similarly dire straits adds further dimension to his character. At first, this almost seems a character flaw, helping others yet unwilling to accept help himself (his neighbour offers on multiple occasions) but the emotionally charged final scene suggests that there is something greatly amiss with a system that forces one into such a corner. With the humour gradually declining as the film spirals towards its climax, 'I, Daniel Blake' concludes feeling like a very angry film without answers. This is may not be the inspirational movie one might expect given the premise, but there is something certainly refreshing about how down-to-earth the film feels due to this.

A raw and honest look at ow the British system fails it's people

[SpoilerAlertReviews · 8/10 · 23 October 2016]

Ken Loach is a name I always recognise but then struggle to remember any of his work. I think, "ah good, it's by Ken Loach" and then "what's he done again? Oh Kes!" But Kes was 47 years ago and shamefully, I'm not familiar with any of his films since then. One conclusion from this realisation is that Loach has a strong reputation as a filmmaker and this was my long awaited reunion.

We follow Daniel Blake, a middle-aged carpenter who's taken a few recent knocks, one of which is suffering a heart-attack and deemed not able to return to work. It's a position no one would want to be in, forced to sacrifice your own health or lose everything you have worked so hard for.

We witness the hurdles that seem purposely put there to hinder payments, speaking from personal experience I can relate to this situation to a degree. How are people such as Daniel Blake suppose to survive, or better still, have a good life they are suppose to be able to live.

It's a harsh reality on how parts of the British system fails it's people and proof that there's no real incentive to do things by the book. Having been in a similar situation myself, skirting the unemployment line getting advise from people who have no ambitious or understanding of what I wanted to do.

Taking this on a more personal level, I quit a stressful position last year in the hopes of pursuing my own dream of being an artist and writer. Having to sign agreement that I would spend a number of hours trying to find work and having to provide evidence of doing so each fortnight would grant me the universal credit that I never actually received. I actually had a good case worker, as everyplace of work has good people, but equally there are those that can't see beyond, much like what is portrayed in this story. Though, instead of supporting me in trying to be something I both enjoy and apparently good at, they attempted to find me similar stressful jobs that I left for my own sanity, wanting to place me back amongst the wolves.

Dave Johns is exceptional as Daniel Blake, emitting the boiling frustrations of the soul- destroying turn of events, right to the very end. Hayley Squires' Katie is short of brilliant too, displaying the tremendous pressure when faced with these kind of tribulations. Though, the acting from the rest of the supporting cast is less desirable, it's forgivable.

It's a raw, honest and emotional look at the suffering and poor way of life some unfortunate people have to contend with in Great Britain. It's compelling, invoking and upsetting, showing the great lengths and risks people go through in order to maintain their self dignity. It's certainly a film that boasts Loach's credibility.

Running Time: 8 The Cast: 7 Performance: 7 Direction: 7 Story: 8 Script: 8 Creativity: 8 Soundtrack: 6 Job Description: 10 The Extra Bonus Points: 10 for the difficult subject matter and perfect portrayal. Would I buy the Bluray?: yes

79% 8/10

Daniel Blake gives up paid work for voluntary work...

[johnrbroomfield · 6/10 · 11 January 2019]

...he's a skilled carpenter who suffers a heart attack and is recovering while taking drugs to prevent a further attack. Instead of asking for light duties he leaves paid employment to help a neighbor by working as a handyman doing up their council house.

Gradually he grapples with computers and the digital world that was passing him by and puts together his CV that is good enough to earn him a job interview but he turns it down!

Meanwhile the neighbor he is helping is starving herself to share the family's food with Daniel. She is leafleting her neighborhood for cleaning work but Dan is not selling his handyman or carpentry skills to earn some much needed cash.

Meanwhile the DWP's digital bureaucracy grinds exceedingly fine with rules that must be obeyed for claimants fulfilling their personal commitments to receive welfare benefits and to avoid sanction.

Unused to such discipline and computers Dan is sucked down into a spiral of despair.

The film had me screaming at the TV for Dan to sell his handyman services while continuing to help his neighbor. At no time did he stop work but he simply didn't take control of his life.

I guess that I was meant to feel sorry for him but I couldn't.

Not enough subtlety, too much melodrama

[rubenm · 5/10 · 31 October 2016]

One thing I like in films, is subtlety. And the one thing that's missing in 'I, Daniel Blake', is subtlety. Ken Loach has made wonderful, deeply moving films about ordinary people, but in this case his personal anger prevails.

The film shows the uphill struggle of Daniel Blake, a carpenter with heart problems, to get the health benefit he's entitled to, but doesn't receive. He gets lost in a bureaucratic maze of incomprehensible regulations and hostile staff members. What makes it even worse, is his inability to work with computers. Now that in large organizations human contact is being replaced by online procedures, that turns out to be a major problem.

These kinds of difficulties are real and very troubling for many people. And Loach is right in bringing them up. I myself have experienced similarly maddening procedures. The tendency to move interactions with government institutions almost entirely to the internet, is causing huge problems for thousands of people.

But in his urge to show how disrespectful government institutions treat ordinary citizens, Loach is overdoing it. Daniel Blake and his neighbour, unemployed single mother Katie, are so miserable that it is no longer believable. Every imaginable misfortune is happening to them. In the end it becomes pathetic.

And that is a pity, because it is undermining the power of the film. It is a bit like a James Bond movie: Bond can narrowly escape death once or twice, but when this happens fifteen times it's not serious anymore. The same goes for the misfortunes of Daniel Blake. The point is that a James Bond film is not meant to be serious. But I'm afraid a Ken Loach film is.