I, Daniel Blake
I, Daniel Blake
Number 4 - Detailed research on the social and political context
- ideologies (left wing etc..)
- How does the film offer comment on current political/social climate?
- How can you link the film to government policies?
- Social realism
Context:
Set in 2016:
- David Cameron is still in charge
- Pre-brexit
- Conservative power
- Month before the film was released, the work allowance was reduced again.
- Welfare system has been looked down upon for many years a s a loop hole for people not to work
- David Cameron critics and almost dismisses the benefit system
DAVID CAMERON
Throughout 2015 and 2016, Cameron spent most discussions on benefits wanting to cut budgets and 'capping' the amount someone can have. He described people who were on benefits as 'dependent' on the system itself and painted the entire benefit system as an excuse to not work. Conservatives in general, including the Prime Minister at the time of it's creation, don't consider benefits an issue as they believe it isn't worth fixing other then adding more restrictions in the way it's built.
JERMEY CORBYN
In the year the film was created, Jeremy Corbyn had just been elected as Labour leader after Ed Miliband resigned after the loss of the 2015 general election. This was descried as a new turn for the party after leaders such as Gordan Brown and more famously Tony Blair held more conservative leanings and debatably ruined the entire party's reputation.
POLITICAL RESPONSE
Former work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith referred to the film as unfair, aiming particular criticism at its portrayal of Jobcentre staff, saying: "This idea that everybody is out to crunch you, I think it has really hurt Jobcentre staff who don’t see themselves as that. Producer Rebecca O'Brien responded by stating that Duncan Smith "is living in cloud cuckoo land."
IAN DUNCAN SMITH
He is the former work and pensions secretary who belongs to the conservative party. He is most famously known for being nationally hated as he cuts £1.2 billion from the PIP which meant people who struggled to use the toilet or get dressed were severely effected. Over 370,000 people lost £3,000 as a result. He also sanctioned thousands and claimed it helped people "get on" as well as making disabled people go through humiliating "assessments" to "prove" they are too sick to work. This is a clear violation of people's privacy and was condemned for assuming someone would lie about something that stops them from working. basically everyone rejoiced when he finally resigned.
CONNECTIONS TO POST-FILM POLITICS
After the films release, welfare benefits have been continued to be cut. In 2017, future cuts will lead "Lower income families more exposed to future recessions" as they will receive 53p to the £1 after tax. As well as this, conservatives are continuing to insist that the only reason there are large amounts of people on benefits is because people are lazy and choose not to go out and find work. Since Brexit, national issues have been escorted to the side and since there is still conservative power, their policies imply they have no intention of improving the system or at least expressing remorse to the vulnerable people affected by the future cuts. The welfare system hasn't improved since the film's release and there is still a large stigma surrounding the entirety of benefits and the way people view those who are.
SOCIAL REALISM
The film gives a gritty reality of the unfair system, a family is forced to move from London to Newcastle and is then given no other choice but to begin prostitution. It's not an unrealistic thing for a woman desperate to feed her children before herself to turn to something like sex work because there are no options left. It doesn't take long for there to be hundreds of articles about people on benefits having to resort themselves to starvation and restriction on necessities such as electricity as a way of not being sanctioned or feeding their own children. Most articles however are notably negative, there is a mother of 8 who receives over £30,000 a year and claims she's "too beautiful to find work".
JERMEY CORBYN
In the year the film was created, Jeremy Corbyn had just been elected as Labour leader after Ed Miliband resigned after the loss of the 2015 general election. This was descried as a new turn for the party after leaders such as Gordan Brown and more famously Tony Blair held more conservative leanings and debatably ruined the entire party's reputation.
POLITICAL RESPONSE
Former work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith referred to the film as unfair, aiming particular criticism at its portrayal of Jobcentre staff, saying: "This idea that everybody is out to crunch you, I think it has really hurt Jobcentre staff who don’t see themselves as that. Producer Rebecca O'Brien responded by stating that Duncan Smith "is living in cloud cuckoo land."
IAN DUNCAN SMITH
He is the former work and pensions secretary who belongs to the conservative party. He is most famously known for being nationally hated as he cuts £1.2 billion from the PIP which meant people who struggled to use the toilet or get dressed were severely effected. Over 370,000 people lost £3,000 as a result. He also sanctioned thousands and claimed it helped people "get on" as well as making disabled people go through humiliating "assessments" to "prove" they are too sick to work. This is a clear violation of people's privacy and was condemned for assuming someone would lie about something that stops them from working. basically everyone rejoiced when he finally resigned.
CONNECTIONS TO POST-FILM POLITICS
After the films release, welfare benefits have been continued to be cut. In 2017, future cuts will lead "Lower income families more exposed to future recessions" as they will receive 53p to the £1 after tax. As well as this, conservatives are continuing to insist that the only reason there are large amounts of people on benefits is because people are lazy and choose not to go out and find work. Since Brexit, national issues have been escorted to the side and since there is still conservative power, their policies imply they have no intention of improving the system or at least expressing remorse to the vulnerable people affected by the future cuts. The welfare system hasn't improved since the film's release and there is still a large stigma surrounding the entirety of benefits and the way people view those who are.
SOCIAL REALISM
The film gives a gritty reality of the unfair system, a family is forced to move from London to Newcastle and is then given no other choice but to begin prostitution. It's not an unrealistic thing for a woman desperate to feed her children before herself to turn to something like sex work because there are no options left. It doesn't take long for there to be hundreds of articles about people on benefits having to resort themselves to starvation and restriction on necessities such as electricity as a way of not being sanctioned or feeding their own children. Most articles however are notably negative, there is a mother of 8 who receives over £30,000 a year and claims she's "too beautiful to find work".
Comments
Post a Comment