My Name Is Joe

As far removed from Hollywood's glamour as can come is Ken Loach's take on working-class life in Glasgow, in this film centered around a recovering alcoholic named Joe. Or rather non-working class, because the poverty and despair of the struggling late 1990s characters in My Name Is Joe feel as palpable as real unemployment. Loach describes the hopelessness of post-Thatcher peripheral Britain, much like Danny Boyle did in Trainspotting or Peter Cattaneo did with The Full Monty during the same period, only without the flashiness of the former or the bubbling positivism of the latter. Loach's characters are utterly and fundamentally sad - even when they are trying to have some fun. And since they have been in this rot for a long time, their destructiveness and, to be honest, often lack of redeemable qualities almost makes you feel they deserve their bad luck. Loach certainly gives them nothing for free.

Still, and as you may have learned by now, love has its way, and the romance between Joe and a well-doing health visitor named Sarah comes with a rare filmatic bareness and honesty. The lack of any kind of classical romanticism between them brings out another aspect: how much these two need each other; theirs feels like a romance borne out of necessity and circumstance, not plot-convenience. Like he has become known for doing over the years, Ken Loach strips his characters and environments down and presents them to us as they are. My Name Is Joe does tests the audience's zeal and goodness, but ultimately even Ken Loach rewards his most patient viewers.

The awesome realism of "Once Were Warriors" (New Zealand, 1994), successfully transposed to Glasgow, Scotland.

Solid, decent human beings use alcohol and drugs to "cope" with life. But, life only gets worse, loyalties are brutally tested, and one poor unfortunate will not survive. But, don't think this to be another flaccid piece of cliched, anti-drug drivel. No, this film speaks powerfully to the perverse, and often vicious, arbitrariness of life. Darwinians, of course, will be unmoved. The rest of us, however, will be chilled by the scale of our impotence in making this world a better place. Prepare yourself to feel humbled.

Ken Loach is a truly exceptional film-maker. Like Bunuel, he has seemingly risen from the dead (during Thatcher's reign) and re-emerged as an international force. I found his latest film "My name is Joe" to be a hugely enjoyable affair, perhaps a little less abrasive and direct than his earlier efforts, like "Poor cow" and "Family life". Even so, he depicts "working class"- people with the same warmth and insight as before.

The main character is Joe, a jobless reformed alcoholic in Glasgow with a heart of gold. In the attempt to better the lot of those around him, (and forget his self-loathing) Joe organizes a football team and makes house-calls on those in need of support, especially Liam and Sabine, a young couple in dire straits. Liam owes 500 pounds to the local drug-dealer, and Sabine has likewise racked up a debt. Joe tries his best to offer help, but when he is forced to perform a criminal act, he runs the risk of losing his law-abiding girl-friend into the bargain.

Joe is a character whom you instantly like. Even his transgressions won't make you think the worse of him, as he quite obviously suffers from what he's done. Joe wants to lead a "normal" life, stay on the right side of the law, get a girlfriend and what have you. But he just can't juggle off his past as a drunkard, he can't get off the dole and so hasn't the means to move away from his run-down apartment, his rotten little suburb. His only hope is to get someone to love him, someone to lift him out of the rut, to boost his self-esteem.

It is, for sure, a touching, humane story, beautifully scripted, shot in a simple style, and with a wonderful central performance by Peter Mullan. My question is, is it more? Is MNIJ a valid comment on deprived communities in Britain today? Do there still exist working class ethics like the ones Loach depicts in this movie? And are they still as relevant as when Britain was poor back in the 60' ies, the decade of Loach's first movies?

Granted, there are still poor, neglected people aplenty, but do they behave like this? This movie seems a little on the soft side compared to say Gillian MacKinnon's "Small faces", and even "Trainspotting". "MNIJ, I feel, is more of a self-contained Chekhovian drama than an attack on our bourgeois sensibilities.

(The soundtrack, by the way, consists mostly of dangerously out-dated glam-rock material from the 70' ies. Painful stuff!) Call me flippant, but I didn't feel like hitting a drug dealer, or tearing the social fabric after watching this movie. Perhaps it should have hurt more. Even so, it's a fabulous film by a unique director.

A review of this film in the Telegraph asks, "Why do people go to see Ken Loach films?" I would suggest that people go to see Ken Loach films because they're interested in society, interested in how people live, and keen to see films about REAL people i.e. people who aren't rich and beautiful and don't live in charming pieds a terre in Chelsea ... My Name is Joe is at the same time heartwarming and heartbreaking, making you feel good about the characters whilst thanking your lucky stars that you don't live the lives they do. Go and see it with an open mind and a thirst for realism.

First this movie seems to be much lighter than previous Loach realisations (remember LadyBird, LadyBird ?). Joe is a hell of a good guy and the other characters are as true as possible. And it is truly funny (the football matches of the "German" team are hilarious). But then, like in many of the best Loach movies, the social reality, with all its dramatic aspects, turns the end of the movie into a real tragedy. A must, in my opinion.