MancBee
VIP Member
I think I must have been alone in finding that film embarrassingly patronising about benefits claimants.I don’t know but she wrote this astonishingly narcissistic piece for the Guardian about the film, ostensibly about the effects of austerity but actually all about HER, HER, HER and her tired old tale of woe.
Note the horribly flowery purple prose. My favourite bit is when she “slopes out” of the cinema, “howling”, and “punches a wall”. (Whether she did this because the wall told her she should have kept her legs shut, is sadly not recorded.)
I am Daniel Blake – and there are millions more like me | Ken Loach | The Guardian
Writer and activist Jack Monroe knows from their own experience that Ken Loach’s portrayal of life on benefits is heart-wrenchingly accurateamp.theguardian.com
The portrayal of Daniel was particularly baffling. The representation of Northern men in their 50s as computer illiterate, inept and unable to adapt and change was really condescending.
The film showed Daniel as a man from a loving relationship whose partner died. But somehow all their belongings gathered throughout their life together seemingly disappeared.
It came across as if it was written and produced by someone whose last interaction with people on benefits was 20 years ago.
I could go on and on, the film was full of clichéd mawkish rubbish. An embarrassing portrayal of Northern men and single mothers.
What was particularly galling, was the film was directed by an 80 year old man, but depicts a man in his 50s that had a lifetime of work as incompetent.
It was typical of the media and middle class view, that sees them as the saviours of the poors. It was full of hyperbolic nonsense and this type of film, articles and books are poverty porn. The middle classes can tut and handwring and blame the government, whilst never going anywhere near a real person struggling to move on with their lives.
Sorry for the long post, but far from coming out of the cinema punching the wall and howling, I was angry that this film actually perpetuated disgusting stereotypes.
To bring it back to Jack...all of the above relates to every article she has written.
I'll get down off my high horse now.
Last edited:
so magically have time to read everything). I've followed Jack on Twitter for several years & have several of her books. I gave up on her recipes after making something diabolical from Good Food For Bad Days, but I'd been kindly disposed towards her despite thinking she was a bit dramatic and hyperbolic online. I read Hunger Hurts 2 and felt sorry for her, though also a bit baffled as to how she could be in such a poor financial situation after 10 years in the media. Two things changed my opinion quite suddenly; she started dating (on a dating app I guess) over the summer and began putting up screenshots of exchanges she'd had. And while I'm 100% ok with people being indiscreet about themselves, it seemed like a pretty vile thing to do to a random person who was trying to date her, without (I assume) their consent. So I started to think she might not be an especially kind individual, but then when she Tweeted about being offered "two TV shows, a documentary, three interviews (or whatever)" that day and turning them all down, I realised that Hunger Hurts 2 had to be nonsense, cos there's no way you'd turn all that paid work down if you were in that kind of financial need. And suddenly I felt ridiculous for having been sucked into pitying her for years, because there she was boasting about being massively in demand and turning everything down cos of her high standards/integrity/whatever.
NEXT THREAD TITLE NOMINATION 
