Ken Loach's Bullying Ghastliness

John Lea

The EIFF have acted pathetically in giving way to Loach. Art should transcend race, religion and nationality.

On the same grounds, I assume Loach will oppose films entered by Zimbabwean or Iranian film-makers? I doubt it.

Forlornehope

Loach is an unreconstructed Stalinist. He scrapes up every fault in the history of the British Empire, and there were quite a few, but lauds a system that in many of our lifetimes killed millions and required barbed wire and machine guns to keep its citizens at home.

Alf Tupper

Loach himself produces work which plods from one turgid homily to another. He would be no loss to any self-respecting festival.

Why though, do organisations invariably give way to such actions?

burma toad

Never been able to take Loach seriously as a principled leftie since he took his son out of the far-from-rough comprehensive I attended and packed him off to one of Bath's many mediocre private schools. The man is an arse.

Tim H

"After all, as the Scotsman points out in its editorial today, he's quite happy for his latest film to be entered into competition at Cannes - alongside several Israeli movies."

How is that inconsistent? Loach has not objected to or tried to stop the EIFF screening films from Israelis, and the film in question is still being shown. Loach and others objected to the EIFF accepting PR money from the government of Israel.

ndm

The obvious and traditional solution to a case like this is for Ken Loach to pony up the cash. He appears, after all, to be complaining not about the film or its director but the source of funds used to transport the director to Edinburgh.

Efrafan Days

I have to admit that I am still hanging fire before endorsing the sequence of events here (if Massie has anything concrete, I'm happy to commit).

The SPSC site has the text of an e-mail purportedly received from the MD of the EIFF, on 14 May, in which she, rightly, states that "choosing not to accept support from one particular country would set a dangerous precedent by politicising what is a wholly cultural and artistic mission". The only confirmation of this being reversed I have found comes from the Socialist Unity blog, which SPSC member John Wight contributes to, and makes unverified reference to a statement from the EIFF MD.

I have spoken to the switchboard of the EIFF, which appears to believe sponsorship still exists (I am awaiting a reply to an e-mail I sent). I also spoke to a slightly defensive member (sign of the times, alas) of the Cultural Affairs Department at the Israeli Embassy who stated that they were continuing to sponsor the EIFF.

None of this changes, of course, Loach's admission that he both understands and finds antisemitism entirely understandable.

Gil

Tim H, the piece explicitly says that the £300 goes towards the director's expenses, not PR.

tomasz

"Loach, naturally, is talking through his hat."

i love your total failure to qualify this with any reasoning whatever. Brilliant.

Also, Loach didn't "[declare] that he somehow "speaks for" the "film community"". That's just your over-eager misinterpretation of the EIFF's statement in which they said THEY accept his view as representative of the community. "Comprehension FAIL", as they say on the internets.

Harold Tobin

No suprises from the left wing luvvies. You never hear any criticism`s from them when other countries comit unspeakle crimes.As for the scotish pro palestian group they deny being anti semetic,however anyone who dosn`t the Jewish Nation a homeland is by defination anti jewish. Words cannot describe the cowardice of the EIFF

Primo

The SPSC response is clearly disproportionate and they seem to be willfully misinterpreting the facts. I wonder if Loach knew exactly what was really being objected to here when he signed up to attack it or if he was being fed a line by the SPSC? Equally though, the EIFF reaction is understandable. They are, after all, there to show films, not defend or attack any politics.

Vanesa

Again confusing the issue! and it is very simple. You say ‘he's quite happy for his latest film to be entered into competition at Cannes - alongside several Israeli movies’ and as a result ‘Not that Loach is any kind of model of consistency’. Ken Loach asked for the money taken by the EIFF from the Israeli Embassy to be returned. That money gave the Israeli Embassy the right to be cited in the EIFF brochure as programme supported. That is the issue. I don’t know were the inconsistency comes from. You tell me.

Israel is a state that kills over 1,300 people in Gaza; is in breach of countless UN resolutions; the Hague Regulations; the IV Geneva Convention; the International Court of Justice ruling; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights… Amongst others
The Israeli state wants to do ‘business as usual’, it wants to promote itself. Well, no, it wasn’t business as usual for Apartheid South Africa; it should not be business as usual for the Israeli Embassy, until they respect human rights for all and international law.

Well done Ken Loach. Let’s not forget what the issue is about… The UN General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann puts it very well; http://www.un.org/ga/president/63/statements/agendaitem16241108.shtml

Matt Simmonds

I'm sure Mr Loach's film making will be coloured by recent events in the ME and SEA and he will be making defining statements about Dafur and Lanka. 100s1000s killed, civilains targetted etc. But somehow I doubt it. Like many others, he displays the Nelson touch...

K Mackay

I see my post regarding this issue yesterday wasn't printed, yet you did manage to pick up on the point I made early yesterday in it of the very bad journalism you showed in it of not then knowing the sex of the filmaker you wrote about. I am sure she would be happy to know she has such a champion, since you obviously know nothing about her or where she stands on any issues.

You are like many other apologists and quite happy to jump on the bandwagon and put in your two cents to an issue which you think endorses one view and which will further one particular stance.

As someone else said, your interpretation is 'over-eager misrepresentation'. And I still ask the same question - You call yourself a journalist?

George

It is outrageous.
A very interesting discussion on the matter:

http://www.pandalous.com/node/ken_loach_is_demanding

Al Terego

Congratulations EIFF for making the decision to return Israeli Embassy money. This was the right decision. As was the case during the apartheid years in South Africa there were those who wished to maintain apartheid and not challenge the establishment. Politics permeate every aspect of our lives - especially at this point in history to align yourself with the state of Israel is to be complicit in the occupation and Israeli policies of ethnic cleansing and apartheid against the Palestinian people. EIFF will be an honourable example of those of us who refuse to be used by the state of Israel to cover up crimes. Well done!