Loach 0 McGovern 1

I'm a fan of Jimmy McGovern's The Street, and watched the first of the latest series with interest.

Curiously, it included actor Steve Evets who has recently featured in Ken Loach's film "Looking For Eric" where Evets plays a put upon individual attempting to face a local gangster.

This episode of The Street followed similar territory with Bob Hoskins' character coping with the same dilemma.

I found McGovern's conclusion to be much more recognisable than Loach's.

Loach, the posh, idealistic socialist, puts his faith (as always) in the notion that the working classes will always seek to surmount their problems through collective action.

I found this uncomfortable, because in my world, the characters portrayed in the film would be putting distance between themselves and the plight of the victim. There is a cruelty amongst pub centric men that would actually exploit the tragedy of the victim for their own amusement even.

Interesting therefore that McGovern's character is abandoned to his fate by the community, and receives a savage kicking as a result. This is because McGovern grew up within a community where that would be all too common, and therefore he must retain some verisimiltude to the tale. The story actually ends with a small victory for the victim, as McGovern still believes in hope, but he's not into miracles.

Unlike Loach, McGovern is unable to fantasise about working class values, because he is of the working classes, and lacks the ability to romanticise the culture. Loach has the luxury to sustain his beliefs, because he has never been (and will never be) amongst the communities he wishes to project his beliefs upon.

"Eric" is worth watching for the great John Henshaw alone, but has to be considered a fairy tale rather than social realism. The Street isn't social realism either, but it never pushes reality outside the bounds of feasibility.

But who are we to pop Ken Loach's revolutionary dream? Bless his little cotton socks.