Hungry for More

Hunger – a film recreation of the hunger strike by I.R.A. leader, British M.P., and inmate of the Maze Prison in Belfast Bobby Sands – is mostly very good. It is a gritty recreation of the “Troubles” between the United Kingdom and Irish Republicans. The cast successfully portrays the intense emotions of Irish prisoners on a “blanket and no-wash” protest because they are seeking political status. When Sands and other inmates seek to up the ante with a hunger strike, the actors give the audience a real sense of the determination required to sacrifice oneself for a cause.

However, major flaws abound.

Firstly, the lead character is not sympathetic at all. As the audience watches Sands deteriorate and suffer extraordinarily painful symptoms, he merits no compassion. He is reprehensible and completely disregards the lives of others and their families. There is no reason that anyone but one of his compatriots would wish for him to survive or hope that he proves his point.

The protagonist orders the murder of prison guards and encourages other inmates to end their lives by joining his strike. Sands is not a tragic hero who recognizes his mistakes and regrets the path he has chosen. He is simply a callous and self-centered ideologue who is so consumed by the righteousness of his cause that he is hyperopic to those around him, like Pádraic Delaney in The Wind that Shakes the Barley as he executes his own brother for the sake of the new Irish Free State.

Secondly, the symbolism of the film is inconsistent. Early in the film, the director Steve McQueen focuses on the hands: the bloodied and bruised hands of a guard, the feces encrusted hands of a protesting prisoner, and the gloved hands of the cleaning staff. This is meaningful because the hands are the tools of the characters, like the characters are the tools of the British and Irish sides. That is, until the idea is abandoned midway through the film.

The film begins by profiling the daily minutiae of a guard’s life. I’m not sure what to make of him; he doesn’t seem to enjoy his job and has become desensitized by all the violence required. Sands is shown with his family members and discussing his ideals with the prison pastor and this helps clarify his character. There is a half-hearted attempt to show parallels between the good and the evil (although this is from an entirely relative point of view) but it is not coherent throughout the film.

I’m not sure what the message is of the film. Considering the mindless violence of the Troubles and the two thousand civilians killed, nobody is sympathetic. Perhaps, as Andy Dufresne said in another prison drama, The Shawshank Redemption, it’s “Get busy living or get busy dying.” **