I just thought this movie was alright on my first viewing. There were a few aspects I really liked about it such as the middle scene and the depiction of the hunger strike. However, I originally disliked how attention was taken away from most of the characters introduced in the first act. Overall, it feels like an odd choice to introduce multiple characters only to have them leave the film half an hour later, doesn't it? However, after I revisited this movie a couple more times, I loved it to such great of an extent that it's now one of my favorite films of all time.Northern Ireland, 1981. After the government withdraws the political status of all paramilitary prisoners, the inmates of the Maze Prison retaliate by forming a blanket and a no wash protest, ultimately leading to a hunger strike led by one of the inmates, Bobby Sands.This movie is clearly an unconventional film due to the lack of dialogue and the plot structure. One thing I've learned from watching unconventional movies is that while they may have glaring flaws on the surface, the director might have a good reason for making the film that way. For instance, Bela Tarr and Michael Snow had good reasons for drawing out Satantango and Wavelength as much as they did and Stan Brakhage had good reasons for including no sound in most of his films. Sometimes, if I think more about aspects which seem like glaring flaws in unconventional films, it starts to make sense that a director would make their film that way. That was how I warmed up to this film.What I love about this movie is its unique story structure. I initially thought it was a traditional three-act structure. However, I make the argument that the first and the third acts are bookends to the dialogue sequence in the middle. The first act showed the failed protests and the consequences they had on both the guards and the prisoners, the second act showed a prisoner revealing his plans of a more organized protest, and the third act showed that protest in action. By featuring only one prisoner in the third act, I think the statement McQueen is making here is that the hunger strike protest worked better as, since there were less people involved, it was more organized. I initially criticized the movie for taking attention away from several of the characters introduced in the first act, but I now think that this decision helped the film.Another point which McQueen appears to be making here is that both sides are tired of the protest but are unwilling to back down. This is conveyed in numerous places such as how Raymond Lohan can be seen cleaning his bloodied knuckles a couple times in the film. There's also a powerful moment where a prison guard can be seen crying while the rest of the guards beat numerous prisoners with batons. This implication also extends to different prisoners such as Gerry as his emotions convey fright and determination as he smears his faeces on the wall for the protest. These scenes add a layer of humanity to this film.It's also hard not to talk about the number of memorable moments found in the film such as the captivating and well-acted dialogue sequence in the middle which feels like the film's centerpiece. Besides that scene, however, dialogue feels unimportant to absorbing the rest of the film and its characters, so the mostly dialogue free film seems to thrive on this restriction. There's also other chilling moments outside of the dialogue such as when Lohan is killed by an IRA assassin in front of his catatonic mother who seems unaware of her surroundings. Another great scene is the long, stationary, and expressive shot of a prison attendant cleaning up multiple puddles of urine. Finally, it's hard not to mention the painfully realistic depiction of Sands' hunger strike. To film that sequence, Fassbender went on a diet of less than 900 calories for 10 weeks to give the illusion of starvation. This sequence was filled with clever moments such as a montage of Sands' food servings slowly getting smaller as he inched closer to death, images and sounds of flying birds as he convulsed in pain, and what I think was his hallucination near the end of his strike.In conclusion, I think this film is a masterpiece, and it's, currently, my favorite film of the 2000's. It's also one of the best debut films I've seen before. While this film can be hard to watch due to the brutal and disturbing content found throughout, it remains so compelling for a variety of reasons that you can't turn away from the picture. Not for the faint of heart, but a must-see for older viewers.

Hunger, Steve McQueen's full-length directorial debut, is an astounding and unflinching film. I'd been meaning to watch it for quite some time, but I finally got the chance a few days ago. I was not disappointed. What truly impresses me is how much McQueen can accomplish with so little dialogue. The opening shots show police officer Raymond in the midst of his daily routine. His brief check under his car for explosives perfectly brings us into the ghastly, yet clockwork reality of 1981 Northern Ireland without a word. We see real emotions -- tiredness, apathy, sadness -- on his face as he enters the prison. McQueen gives us a longshot of Raymond, standing outside in the cold, taking a drag from a cigarette as his bloodied knuckles soak in the falling snow. Already, we have so many questions, among them how he damaged his hand. Moreover, we're led to view Raymond in a sympathetic light -- perhaps as an altruistic police officer in the midst of an epidemic in human rights and incarceration. When we next see him bludgeoning main character and IRA leader Bobby Sands to the point of near death, the feeling of irony are almost palpable. We are robbed of the biased, pre-packaged perspective we crave. Every aspect of the events leading to the 1981 hunger strike is shown without censorship. My father remarked that he could almost taste the feces and bile in every cell shown. All of this is accomplished without a single word. When characters do speak in the film, it is complex and absolutely necessary. I'm sure many would agree that Hunger's focal point is the lengthiest bit of dialogue: a conversation between Sands and Father Dominic Moran on the upcoming hunger strike. It's a masterful scene, and one that requires the audience to hang on every single word. Actors Fassbender and Cunningham trade verbal blows for an astounding uninterrupted 17 minute shot. From that point on, the film is almost entirely Fassbender. One can only imagine the great care he took to become prepared for the character of Sands. The actual events are objective, yet he brings his own emotional and philosophical interpretation. The role is very physical in nature and Fassbender delivers unequivocally. When we look at Fassbender's emaciated face, we see a man who is ready to die, through and through. McQueen paces the plot unconventionally, yet every iota of time that passes feels perfectly placed. Nearly every scene is memorable and deserves an analytic essay. Music is used sparingly, and this is certainly a good thing. I find that certain moments create their own sort of soundtrack -- the "inspection" scene, complete with its percussive riot police, stands out in this regard. Any sort of score wouldn't fit this restrained film. However, when light strings appeared for the first time, I was taken aback by their effectiveness. Overall, Hunger is at once a minimalist piece and an uncompromising masterwork. It spares no gruesome detail from audience members, yet demands and ultimately holds their undivided attention. From nearly every stand point, Hunger is masterful.

There are some film titles that just draw you in and make you want to watch the film even if you don't know what it's about. And then sometimes these same films end up being really disappointing and are not worthy of such a great name. When I first heard about Hunger I was immediately interested in a film that had a title like that, but I assumed that I was going to be disappointed. Boy was I wrong.Hunger is the directorial debut of the now Oscar-winning British director Steve McQueen. Hunger is about the real-life story, of an IRA Hunger strike, that took place in the HM prison maze in Northern Ireland, lead by Bobby Sands. (played in the film by McQueens close collaborator Michael Fassbender) Since Steve McQueen was British, Hunger was a strange film for him to make. But whatever his reasons for doing so, I'm glad he did. Steve McQueen is now known for his trademark style of unconventionality, and that unconventionality is really evident in Hunger, like for example we don't meet the main character until about a third of the way through the film. Or how the film barely has a soundtrack. All of these strange techniques are used to give the film a sense of realism. Realism is something that McQueen strives for in his films and he has currently never came closer to reality than Hunger. Hunger seems to transcend the world of filmmaking and reach a state that few films have ever reached before. It's this sense of realism that gives Hunger real weight and allows it to make an impact on its audiences. Hunger is a very slow-moving film, but in a good way. It's a film that just moves along slowly letting you soak it all in. It's slow pace is actually also very helpful for the story because there is very little dialogue in the whole film, only a handful of scenes have any and for most of them you could take the dialogue out of these scenes and the audience could still follow what's going on. (There is also some voice-over that is supposed to be radio talk shows.) So for most the film we have to get our information from the visuals. And if the film moved quickly it'd be pretty hard to follow. The film's pace and atmosphere remind me a lot of No Country For Old Men. Both films slowly follows the characters, and we get all our information about what we're doing from the visuals, both are slow and quiet, and then suddenly erupt into moments of intense violence. Both films also have very somber tones, and similar endings. I mentioned how very few scenes actually require dialogue, there is one however that I think not only requires dialogue but is supremely enhanced by it. I am talking of course about the conversation between Bobby Sands and Father Dominic Moran This scene has become relatively famous because the majority of it was shot in one massive 17 minute long take. For which Michael Fassbender and Liam Cunningham (the actor who played the priest.) had to move in together and practice the scene 10 to 15 times a day. Michael Fassbender is great in this film, undeniably some of his best work. (Although most of his best work is collaborating with McQueen.) He portrays Bobby Sands in a way that doesn't idolize or demonize him. He also had to lose 42 pounds in order to play Bobby when he was on the hunger strike. Then as the hunger strike goes on for longer and longer Bobby just ends up looking worse and worse, and it is really hard to watch, but it's worth it. Few films have ever displayed the horrors of starvation as well as Hunger. Hunger introduced the world to Steve McQueen. A director that would soon take the cinematic world by storm. Hunger was nominated for the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival, and won McQueen the BAFTA award for best newcomer. Not to mention that Sight & Sound named it the best film of 2008. Hunger is undoubtedly one of the best directorial debuts of all-time.8.8

Although Hunger was Steve McQueen's debut feature film, I watched Shame which was his 2nd film before Hunger. His style looked unique and brutally explicit, but at the same time delicately artistic with the right amount of reticence to challenge the viewer. I was so glad to find the same positive attributes about his directorial work in Hunger too. He is one of the most recent directors whom I can easily call an auteur due to his signature style.Like Shame, Hunger is also at times a very tough film to watch. McQueen leaves absolutely no stone unturned to depict the brutal realism connected with the subject matter. The film on the surface is about the well known IRA member Bobby Sand's revolt and the hunger strike that he declared to force the British Government to grant the demands of the IRA. But to be honest, the film has very little to do with the politics of the matter. McQueen is more concerned with the people caught in the midst of this traumatic stalemate situation. He is concerned with the psychological and of course the physical effect this situation has on these characters. I liked the fact that McQueen effectively remains unbiased and neutral throughout the whole film. This neutrality is accentuated by the fact that he uses the perspective of different people belonging to either side of the tussle in the screenplay. So not only do we get to live these traumatic days from the point of view of Bobby Sands and his fellow prisoners, but also from the point of view of prison guards and riot officers. It is shown that the ones executing the strikes might have had to endure physical pain and torture, but the ones on the other side had to endure psychological torture too as well as the lack of security in public. One of the most admirable features of Hunger is the use of silence in the film. Almost 75% of the scenes are silent or with very little dialogue. McQueen allows the visuals and facial gestures of the actors to convey a lot in many scenes in the film. The makeup of the actors and production design are also meticulous with a lot attention to detail. The prison cells look as realistic and as dirty and grim as possible. The prisoners look equally worn out due to the harsh treatments handed out to them. The makeup is so detailed that even the teeth of the prisoners look worn out and decayed.There is a famous one take conversation scene in the film that goes on for about 15 minutes. The conversation in this scene is almost as serene as a Symphony. It starts out on a light note, then becomes heavy and heated and then ends almost poetically. When a single take scene which continues for such a long while works so well, all you can do is appreciate the acting and the writing that has gone into it. Talking about acting, Michael Fassbender sets the stage on fire with a jaw dropping performance. The film's subject matter and the content being too bold for the consideration of the Academy is the only reason I can think of which can explain why Fassbender didn't get an Oscar nomination for this role. He becomes the character of Bobby Sands through absolutely brutal method acting. He is unbelievably good.Overall I loved the film. The only sort of gripe that I have is with the ending. Although I liked the ending, but I wanted it to be a bit more effective and memorable. But having said that, it is a minor gripe. Hunger is not for everyone, it is disturbing, it is visually explicit and Mcqueen demands patience and attention from the viewer. But if you are prepared for all this, then you are surely going to have a rewarding experience.