Forum Home → Discussion → Access to justice and advice sector issues → Thread
I, Daniel Blake
Poverty experts defend I Daniel Blake for its realism after film is described by critics as “laughably inaccurate”
https://www.buzzfeed.com/rossalynwarren/poverty-experts-defend-i-daniel-blake-for-its-realistic-port
and this in the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/26/welfare-sanctions-ken-loach-uk-benefit-system
Blog from JRF asking whether I Daniel Blake is a good way to frame discussions about the reality of people lving on benefits. Suggests that it may not be and that some forthcoming report from a partner they’ve been working with might offer a counter-poverty message that is more compelling (although it doesn’t actually say what that might be).
Is I, Daniel Blake the best way to argue for tackling UK poverty?
mmm interesting; particularly as we’ve all seen other research etc suggesting that even people on benefits (or some of them) think that others on benefits don’t “deserve” to be.
i posted something on my facebook page yesterday suggesting that we are surely beyond the old victorian attitudes that lead to this type of “deserving” thinking. we all know really that in the vast vast majority of cases it is not the “fault” of any individual that they’ve developed an illness/disability, been made redundant, whatever, and can’t get work because they’re not fit for it/there aren’t any jobs/the poverty trap traps them. and even those for whom it is “their own fault” (e.g. the person who voluntarily drinks and drives and has an awful accident disabling him/her self, for instance) didn’t have the insight to see that that would happen….. does that really mean they have to starve in a ditch? surely not…
i think probably the only way to change the overall perception would be if the press, particularly the red tops but really all of them start changing their language, start reading the actual statistics and publishing them, etc. We all know, however, that that isn’t going to happen, as most of the press has a political agenda, and most of them are on the right…..
Or we start an argument about the “undeserving” rich, who take billions out of the economy through tax-avoidance, and whose insistence on ridiculous salaries means there is nothing left to pay for a decent social security/national health/pension service.
Who are the REAL parasites?
mmm interesting; particularly as we’ve all seen other research etc suggesting that even people on benefits (or some of them) think that others on benefits don’t “deserve” to be.
i posted something on my facebook page yesterday suggesting that we are surely beyond the old victorian attitudes that lead to this type of “deserving” thinking. we all know really that in the vast vast majority of cases it is not the “fault” of any individual that they’ve developed an illness/disability, been made redundant, whatever, and can’t get work because they’re not fit for it/there aren’t any jobs/the poverty trap traps them. and even those for whom it is “their own fault” (e.g. the person who voluntarily drinks and drives and has an awful accident disabling him/her self, for instance) didn’t have the insight to see that that would happen….. does that really mean they have to starve in a ditch? surely not…
i think probably the only way to change the overall perception would be if the press, particularly the red tops but really all of them start changing their language, start reading the actual statistics and publishing them, etc. We all know, however, that that isn’t going to happen, as most of the press has a political agenda, and most of them are on the right…..
you can be there all day with the deserving argument.
should we award benefits to those who over eat/dont exercise and develop related conditions? people with sexually transmitted infections like hiv? smokers and cancer etc?
I find child benefit is a good argument for those heading down that road in judging others. they take offence very quickly when i ask them to justify why the tax payer should contribute towards their choice to have children…obviously cant be used in all cases but its a good one for turning the tables slightly in a judgemental argument.
Or we start an argument about the “undeserving” rich, who take billions out of the economy through tax-avoidance, and whose insistence on ridiculous salaries means there is nothing left to pay for a decent social security/national health/pension service.
Who are the REAL parasites?
#Canofworms #politicsofenvy
The human condition is ultimately very disappointing as are the choices they make, whatever income bracket.
Or we elect a government which has the courage to raise income tax and enforce its collection?
Or we elect a government which has the courage to raise income tax and enforce its collection?
I very much doubt the **low rate** of Income Tax is the problem.
Interesting conversation with an actor in the film in the past couple of weeks.
Notable discussion amongst some very uncomfortable participants was that the film script is no more true to the realities of benefits than something like the poverty porn people absorb off C4 and 5. The argument being that it does no more than preach to the converted and could never do anything else because it’s a purist left wing perspective that declines to accept other realities. Taking that approach effectively means it becomes a cause celebre amongst those who know this stuff happens and who finally see their voice on the big screen having been otherwise condemned to the sidelines. It gets put up for all sorts of awards because of its “truth” and “compassion” but really it’s neither of those things. It’s just a counter to the relentless narrative of government, media, and media companies producing stuff like Benefits Street. So, we all get to feel a bit smug and comfy and righteous and perhaps exhibit a little bit of the shrillness of the left which is so offputting that a Trump, Cameron, Farage et al look a relatively attractive option whilst we all look on utterly bewildered about how the wider world doesn’t share our obviously correct views.
The fact that a counter is needed does not necessarily make it any closer to the truth in the same way that the Labour party are not the opposition to the Tories. They are merely competing to replace them.
The real truth is that places and people like those in Benefits Street exist and we need to explore the social, political, statistical, historical and geographical reasons for that as much if not more than the story of a fictional Daniel Blake. The real story is that the characters of BS should have a place alongside the characters of IDB and real truth and compassion is about encompassing that in one story not just going to the opposite extreme.
“Ducks” :)
Bear in mind this was a conversation amongst some people making the thing. Some concern that Mr. Loach was just as brutal in excluding alternative possibilities or realities than the right wing media.
No need to duck Mike.
It’s like I say when (as invariably happens) I am ‘challenged’ when delivering community talks/admit to what I do at weddings/funerals/social gatherings by the ‘if it’s in the Daily Mail it must be true’ contingent- everyone has a story to tell. Some people make good choices, some people make poor choices but there’s always a back story and always a reason (and there is no such thing as the ‘deserving’ or the ‘undeserving’ poor).
Anything we can do to broaden understanding and break down the ‘divide and rule’ culture that (worryingly) continues to develop has got to be a Good Thing.
*likes* Mike’s post.
I thought it was dreadful.
As a drama I found much of the acting stilted and wooden. I thought that was a consequence of Loach’s style of directing - I know that he is fond of the improvisation approach where actors don’t get a script, just an outline of what they’re supposed to cover. That worked in things like the scene in Land and Freedom when they’re sitting in the ccafe after capturing the village from the priest and the Falanage - the sense of people not being exactly sure what to say was precisely what was needed for a situation where people had dreamt of making a new world and suddenly felt their real power to do it. It also worked in Riff Raff in the scene where the the young lad is trying to get up the stairs in the flats and the local low lifes try to stop him (once heard Ricky tomlinson tell how Loach had told the actors trying to block the stairs ‘don’t let him up the stairs whatever you do’ and the lad trying to get up ‘they’ll just stand in your way for a minute or two, but don’t hang about, we’re on our last roll of film’ - with the result that he actually clumped them).
Think also the single mum ending up on the game just came across a cheap emotional trick because Loach didn’t think it worth portraying any of the emotional/moral turmoil and doubt that would have been the inevitable precursor to such a decision.
And the business about the rep at the tribunal - ‘I’m certain you’re going to win this!’ without ever having met his client before. Is there any WR organisation that operates such a duty scheme at tribunals?
I could go on…..
It’s a drama, it’s fictional, it’s making some loaded points and the two spoliers you’ve posted were the two bits of the movie that jarred with me, but they were simply plot narratives to move things along in the end and try to rather bluntly make a point. Apart from them, I thought it was both pretty realistic and refreshing that it didn’t wallow in stereotypical “poor” people.
The fact that its actually managed to prompt some wider discussion about benefits and sanctions that seems to have some legs is also encouraging, imvho.
So the result when we have fiction from both sides?
What we have ended up with - all as a result of partial truths from and told to “intellectual’s” relying on loaded ‘research’ and ‘weighted’ outcome data.
[ Edited: 11 Nov 2016 at 04:06 pm by John Birks ]I think that’s it exactly. It’s fiction from both sides. It didn’t make any points that would surprise someone of a left wing bent and it’s such a pathetically easy target for the right wing precisely because it doesn’t encompass the other stuff and that’s exactly the problem with it. It panders to its demographic no less than Benefits Street and yet it purports to be somehow more true.
The defence that it’s a fiction that makes some good points doesn’t wash. It’s a cop out. It had to be a fiction because to embrace the truth would chance doing research that would turn up all manner of Benefits Street type stereotypes and uncomfortable truths and would require the telling of a much more sophisticated and complex picture. Instead it wallowed (sorry Paul) in stereotypes of its own choosing. No less cynical than poverty porn. Until someone without an axe to grind tells that more complex story then the discussion doesn’t really gets started. Entrenched positions simply remain as they are.
and is if by magic Boom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle
When serious things are games and games are serious things.
Instead it wallowed (sorry Paul) in stereotypes of its own choosing. No less cynical than poverty porn. Until someone without an axe to grind tells that more complex story then the discussion doesn’t really gets started. Entrenched positions simply remain as they are.
What stereotypes are they then Mike? A normal working bloke who needs to claim benefits? Haven’t really come across that one before to be honest with you, in discussions around social security. Single parent who has had to move to another city and finds that life is hard?
I await the stunning screenplay, from all you iconclasts, that truly represents the situation as it is…..
Except he wasn’t a normal working bloke was he? Anyone come across someone working in his profession recently? The friendship with the younger woman? Bonding over common ground. The universal “decent” man. Not a stereotype at all then!!!
The female stereotype of poverty equals prostitution. Really? At the margins, yes. At the extremes, in very particular circumstances, absolutely. However, those characters were stereotypes and were very carefully chosen so as to make specific points and to push particular buttons. The everyday story we’re seeing is of some people driven to the black economy; increasing numbers driven to food banks and so on. It’s not of friendships forged in adversity but more of envy; anger and frustration. My caseload doesn’t generally consist of any of the characters or personalities in that film. It is often far, far closer to Benefits Street. It’s an uncomfortable truth but a truth nevertheless. Until we deal with that we deal with nothing and Loachs’ film is as useless a contribution as Benefits Street.
The fact is any one of us could write something far more rounded and realistic and truly uncomfortable but films only get made when those edges get rounded off or wholly removed.
and is if by magic Boom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle
When serious things are games and games are serious things.
The Cathars were right!
Trouble is, as I think we probably all agree the right wing agenda has been so powerful, so successful at tapping into people’s underlying prejudices, that no matter what you say the average Joe Public believes all benefit claimants are scumbag layabouts. Not only that but the average benefit claimant thinks all other benefit claimants (not to mention anyone from anywhere vaguely foreign) are scumbag layabouts. You only need to consider Brexit and Trump to se how easy it is to whip people up into a white heat of hate, scapegoating and (ultimately) legitimised violence.
I don’t know what the answer is but whilst I agree that the film has its weaknesses if it influences even a handful of people that wouldn’t otherwise have had an alternative perspective to Benefits Street and similar it surely has to be worth something doesn’t it? And what else do we have?
(Oh dear… so bleak… especially on a Friday… not been the best of weeks has it?)
Yes, couldn’t agree more. The confirmation bias that says the only people I see aren’t like these is pretty self-evident. We’re benefit advisers so we tend to see the people who struggle but what about your average Joe Public who comes along expecting it all to make sense? It doesn’t make sense and that’s at the heart of this.
Yes, couldn’t agree more. The confirmation bias that says the only people I see aren’t like these is pretty self-evident. We’re benefit advisers so we tend to see the people who struggle but what about your average Joe Public who comes along expecting it all to make sense? It doesn’t make sense and that’s at the heart of this.
You’re right - it doesn’t make any sense to the average disinterested person.
I doubt they’re going to become any more interested as a result of said film other than to support the usual platitudes.
As for an alternative ‘screenplay’ - it would more likely be an epic - it goes on and on for ages and no one really knows what’s going on and I would call it ‘Lost.’
seen it last night. interesting thread and been a lot of insightful comments so far. especially the discussion around how we start to convince people on the value of welfare rather than echo chambers where opinions don’t shift.
in terms of the film i would agree that certain elements are obviously in there for effect and have elements of cliches but then its difficult to avoid that in what still has to be an entertaining film and has a limited running time so i wouldn’t be too critical of it on that side.
it would be interesting to hear the opinions of people who didnt hold strong opinions either way prior to viewing.
I would say the main character is fairly typical of many clients i have had. ordinary working people who end up in a situation/poor health then get passed around by the system. ok, we didnt get to see any negative sides to the character (and thats not realistic) but then the film wasnt really about him. its about the way the system treats people and in that respect it was spot on.
the conversations about the call back and how he should have got that before the letter…we have all been there….the waiting times….the experience of getting the down right unhelpful dwp staff member but then the times we get someone who does genuinely appear to care.
the only thing i would take issue with would be the reps part as no way would we ever say that to a client (i hope!) pre appeal.
it would also have been good if they had shown him accessing help, just purely from a selfish point of view to point out to viewers there are sources of help out there.
it would be interesting to hear the opinions of people who didnt hold strong opinions either way prior to viewing.
My son who is 21 and has never dealt with the benefits system (though he may have heard the occasional rant from me about it!) is going to see it this week - I’ll let you know what he thinks of it… I’m thinking of taking my mum too…
*likes* Mike’s post.
And the business about the rep at the tribunal - ‘I’m certain you’re going to win this!’ without ever having met his client before. Is there any WR organisation that operates such a duty scheme at tribunals?
I’ve advised people in the waiting room whilst sitting with a client waiting for a decision a few times. It’s surprising what you can do in 15-20 minutes. I’ve probably expressed an opinion as to the general strength of their case (and what the tribunal will probably focus on) based on my quick flick of the bundle (though obviously I’ve never said I was certain they would win…)
it would be interesting to hear the opinions of people who didnt hold strong opinions either way prior to viewing.
My son who is 21 and has never dealt with the benefits system (though he may have heard the occasional rant from me about it!) is going to see it this week - I’ll let you know what he thinks of it… I’m thinking of taking my mum too…
i still think you will have influenced him :)
I’ve spent several years helping ESA claimants in Byker and Walker, Newcastle’s east end where Daniel Blake hails from. Had a client about 6 months ago in very similar circs having had a heart attack and op about 4 weeks before date of ESA decision failing him completely. It certainly wasn’t easy getting a result at his tribunal although thankfully we did. At the same time, I have many clients who aren’t like him (more like the Scottish bloke who gives him moral support whilst he’s being lifted for requesting an appeal date).
Re the film (spoiler alert), I felt the scenes in the Jobcentre and the opening WCA were realistic, the scene in the food bank much less so. I did worry at one stage watching Daniel working away producing what one reviewer perhaps unkindly called the kind of tat you see in posh craft shops in Islington, and how it might affect his appeal chances. Would have liked to see him walk through the tribunal room door and see how the tribunal was portrayed.
I’ve spent several years helping ESA claimants in Byker and Walker, Newcastle’s east end where Daniel Blake hails from. Had a client about 6 months ago in very similar circs having had a heart attack and op about 4 weeks before date of ESA decision failing him completely. It certainly wasn’t easy getting a result at his tribunal although thankfully we did. At the same time, I have many clients who aren’t like him (more like the Scottish bloke who gives him moral support whilst he’s being lifted for requesting an appeal date).
Re the film (spoiler alert), I felt the scenes in the Jobcentre and the opening WCA were realistic, the scene in the food bank much less so. I did worry at one stage watching Daniel working away producing what one reviewer perhaps unkindly called the kind of tat you see in posh craft shops in Islington, and how it might affect his appeal chances. Would have liked to see him walk through the tribunal room door and see how the tribunal was portrayed.
he had to be scottish eh…..to be fair we are good at producing lads like that in glasgow especially.
in many ways his case was typical of the issues you see with the wca. a client who has pretty much always worked in a particular type of job then has an extremely serious health problem which stops them doing their current job but in theory doesn’t stop them doing others.
you then have a system which doesnt really cope with the realities of that type of situation where its not really realistic for a guy whos been on building sites for all his days to move into an office or other similar enviroment…..certainly not without support but rather than support what they get is an administrative and emotional kicking along the way.
that being said i would have been asking for 29(2)(b).
all preaching to the converted on here though.
Best British film in the BAFTA’s
Ken Loach’s passion and the La La Land wobble: the Baftas 2017 verdict
A senior manager of Jobcentre Plus in Newcastle, whose office was depicted so damningly in Ken Loach’s indictment of the social security assessment system I, Daniel Blake, has hit out at the veteran film-maker’s treatment of his agency.
Steve McCall, employer relationship manager at Jobcentre Plus in Tyne & Wear and Northumberland, who is based at the branch featured in the film, said: “I, Daniel Blake is a representation … I hope people don’t think the film is a documentary, because it’s a story that doesn’t represent the reality we work in.”
I, Daniel Blake ‘doesn’t represent reality’, says jobcentre manager
I suspect many people do think it’s a documentary. Whilst it’s closer to the truth than the Jobcentre guys take the fact remains that the real truth is somewhere well betweeen the two. Indeed, watching IDB again made me realise how wooden and embarrasingly polemic much of it is. Whole set pieces that simply wouldn’t happen. The clip shown of Davey Johns at the BAFTAs was a fine example of that.