Illegal Mexican immigrant Maya (Pilar Padilla) arrives at her big sister's house looking to work with her as an office cleaner. She dodges potential abduction and rape on her hazardous quest to make a better life for herself. However, union organiser Sam (Adrien Brody) convinces her that betterment lies not in slaving for below minimum wage, but in joining his Justice for Janitors campaign.
Watching Bread and Roses I realised that, for many years, my wish to support Ken Loach and Paul Laverty has over-ruled my actual dislike for their films. Bread and Roses references an inspiring story, but the actual relaying of it cinematically by Loach, and in narrative terms by Laverty, is flat and under-realized. The rhythm of the scenes is stuttering, like poor improv or early rehearsals. Sam shows up at big sister Rosa's house, and immediately launches into a pro-union speech like he has known these people for a while. The cleaning company boss is a pantomime villain. There is some kind of spurious romance triangle that never really develops, and a few so-called comedy scenes to ease the intended sense of tragedy, except the whole thing is so uninvolving that it hardly matters.
As much as Laverty cannot characterise beyond two-note archetypes, Loach appears unable to manage shot flow. The camera seems merely plonked down in front of the actors - there is not one frame where the composition seems planned, never mind memorable.
Kes is a masterpiece. But since then, I have sat through Riff Raff, Land and Freedom, Sweet Sixteen, My Name is Joe, Carla's Song, Ae Fond Kiss... and come away underwhelmed each and every time. The themes are oh-so earnest, the politics very correct, the focus on the under-represented, marginalised and disenfranchised laudable in the extreme. It just never seems cinematic. Does Loach ask himself "Why is this topic better as a fiction feature than a documentary?" If he does, I cannot imagine what the answer is.
My father was a car factory shop steward, so I grew up with these issues in my living room. I come from a Glasgow working-class background, so I am empathetic to many of Laverty's chosen arenas. But the bottom line is, I just don't find myself entertained or edified by any of these films. Watching Bread and Roses, I didn't laugh, and I didn't cry. And it was clearly going after both reactions.
Loach does get some great performances at times (e.g. Peter Mullen in My Name is Joe), and here Pilar Padilla as the lead, and Elpidia Carrillo as her long-suffering elder sister Rosa, bring a touch of authentic rawness to the subject. But in a key revelatory scene between the two, the camera is placed at an in-between distance, the cutting arbitrary, and the words seem scripted rather than spontaneous.
Loach and Laverty now have a substantial body of work to their collaboration. Quite simply, I do not understand why.
Watching Bread and Roses I realised that, for many years, my wish to support Ken Loach and Paul Laverty has over-ruled my actual dislike for their films. Bread and Roses references an inspiring story, but the actual relaying of it cinematically by Loach, and in narrative terms by Laverty, is flat and under-realized. The rhythm of the scenes is stuttering, like poor improv or early rehearsals. Sam shows up at big sister Rosa's house, and immediately launches into a pro-union speech like he has known these people for a while. The cleaning company boss is a pantomime villain. There is some kind of spurious romance triangle that never really develops, and a few so-called comedy scenes to ease the intended sense of tragedy, except the whole thing is so uninvolving that it hardly matters.
As much as Laverty cannot characterise beyond two-note archetypes, Loach appears unable to manage shot flow. The camera seems merely plonked down in front of the actors - there is not one frame where the composition seems planned, never mind memorable.
Kes is a masterpiece. But since then, I have sat through Riff Raff, Land and Freedom, Sweet Sixteen, My Name is Joe, Carla's Song, Ae Fond Kiss... and come away underwhelmed each and every time. The themes are oh-so earnest, the politics very correct, the focus on the under-represented, marginalised and disenfranchised laudable in the extreme. It just never seems cinematic. Does Loach ask himself "Why is this topic better as a fiction feature than a documentary?" If he does, I cannot imagine what the answer is.
My father was a car factory shop steward, so I grew up with these issues in my living room. I come from a Glasgow working-class background, so I am empathetic to many of Laverty's chosen arenas. But the bottom line is, I just don't find myself entertained or edified by any of these films. Watching Bread and Roses, I didn't laugh, and I didn't cry. And it was clearly going after both reactions.
Loach does get some great performances at times (e.g. Peter Mullen in My Name is Joe), and here Pilar Padilla as the lead, and Elpidia Carrillo as her long-suffering elder sister Rosa, bring a touch of authentic rawness to the subject. But in a key revelatory scene between the two, the camera is placed at an in-between distance, the cutting arbitrary, and the words seem scripted rather than spontaneous.
Loach and Laverty now have a substantial body of work to their collaboration. Quite simply, I do not understand why.