Criticism of Poor Cow
To progress further in my exploration of the film ‘Poor Cow’ as I want to re populate it in today’s society, it is essential to first examine how it was received when it was first aired.
Critic Roger Ebert reviewed it negatively in 1968. He states that the piece ‘In the end, the few good moments (as when the girl tends bar, cares for her child and shares confidences with Terence Stamp).’ But essentially, they ‘are lost in the mess of everything else.’ He furthers this by commenting that ‘Loach apparently doesn't have an attitude, however, and seems unable to decide what his story of Poor Cow means.’
To consider this criticism properly it is essential to confront the context of the time when it was made, despite it being the late 1960’s the sexual views of people were still very constrained and limited, I feel this is what Ebert means by the ‘mess of everything else.’ The narrative of Poor Cow is by no means straight-forward, it is morally complex by offering various points of view on traditionally taboo subjects. If we take the view that Loach ‘seems unable to decide what his story’ means then maybe Ebert is correct, but it is ignorant not to note that it is a story, written by Nell Dunn who then later worked with Loach on various films such as Poor Cow and Up the Junction, where there is a reoccurring theme not only cinematically but within in the narrative too.
Despite the success of the previous more traditional kitchen sink films such as Look Back in Anger and Room at the Top which gathered many five star reviews, the public seem to be unable to accept Loach’s take on the taboo social issues of the 60’s.
Perhaps Joy’s love and want for various sexual partners was too controversial for it to be considered a ‘good’ film. But apart from that Ebert seems to dismiss Loach’s inspiration from Jean- Luc Godard as there are ‘lots of playing with the focus while shooting into the sun, lots of lyrical passages in which Donovan sings while the screen runs over with pretty pictures and even chapter titles (borrowed from Godard) which are flashed on the screen to begin each episode.’ It could be perceived that this strengthened the typical narrative of the traditional kitchen sink films, it has married together the aestheticism of French new wave along with the documentation of a working-class woman but apparently this has fallen short of being made popular with the public of the 1960’s.
However, a review from 2016 of ‘Poor Cow’ is more positive ‘Taking his cues from the French New Wave but adding an intimate, non-judgmental empathy all his own, Loach immerses us in the character of Joy – her loves, fears and failings. But ‘Poor Cow’ also offers a microcosm of working-class life, with Chris Menges’s restless camera winding through bustling streets and bombsites, smoky pubs and poky flats.’ Huddleston provides are more understanding and sympathetic viewing of the film, which could be perceived as the designed outcome intended from Loach and Nell Dunn.
I feel that Poor Cow is one of the most significant films that I have ever watched, Loach’s marrying of French inspired filmmaking along with the traditional social realist context makes the film enjoyable to watch visually as well as the political and socially strong narrative. From researching these reviews, I feel that the audience I am aiming for (working-class people) will hopefully appreciate it as the 2016 review has done, rather than Ebert’s in 1968.
Comments
Post a Comment