The Old Oak

According to himself "The old oak" is his last film. Not very strange if you consider that Ken Loach is already 87 years of age. He already made films when I was hardly born and in the meantime I am nearly sixty now.

"The old oak" (2023) is the last episode of the "austerity trilogy" (all films situated in or around Newcastle upon Tyne). In the first episode "I, Daniel Blake" (2016) a poor man struggles against government bureaucracy. In the second episode "Sorry we missed you" (2019) the main character is misled to become a fake entrepeneur but in reality is a worker without the usual rights.

"The old oak" is about poor people (workers in a region that economically has never recovered from the closing of coal mines) that are obliged to live together with other poor people (Syrian refugees).

Loach treats this theme with much more idealism (and sentimentality) than the raw reality and unhappy endings of the previous two episodes of the "austerity trilogy". The main character, pub owner T. J. Ballantyne (Dave Turner), is almost too good to be true and to a great extent he succeeds in bringing the local and Syrian communities together. Of course there are a few old men in the cast that turn out to be incurable racists, but they seem to have lost their feeling with society.

Keeping hope is important, but nevertheless is "The old oak" in my opinion the weakest film of the austerity trilogy". Not only contrasts the idealism of the film with the raw reality of the two other episodes, it also contrasts with the political reality of the moment. I am not only thinking of the results of the recent elections in the Netherlands (victory for a populist party that is fiercly anti immagration) but also about the immagration policy in the Netherlands (and Europe wide) in which immigrants are treated as dangerous people that ought to be minimized instead of as people in need that ought to be helped.

The four racists in the film have unfortunately not lost their feeling with society but are perfectly in sync with it. The "Oppressed people of all nations unite" of "The old oak" sounds very much like the Socialist slogan "Workers of all countries unite" from before the First World War. It didn't work then, and I am afraid it won't work now.

The film reminded me very much of "Le Havre" (2011, Aki Kaurismâki). Did the excess of idealism of this film irritate me also? I don't remember exactly, it is a long time ago, but I don't think so. The films of Aki Kaurisämik have more of a fairy-tale nature than those of Ken Loach.

Set in a rapidly fading Northern English mining town, this tells the tale of an attempt to integrate some Syrian refugees fleeing the terror in their own country into a community that it still reeling from the systematic closure of their own livelihoods. Much of the story is based around the run-down "Old Oak" boozer which is run by the relatively open-minded "TJ" (Trevor Fox) who is pretty much a lone voice when it comes to welcoming these strangers to a place that's been devoid of investment - and hope - for many a year. Most of the locals see them fed and housed and, frankly, they resent it. Homes that they bought many years ago are now worth 20% of their former value, people and their families are trapped and their traditions and culture is dying. It's keen photographer "Tania" (Debbie Honeywood) who tries to bridge the cultural gap between the two peoples and eventually finds some like-minded folk who start to resurrect some of the practical solutions to the problems that this area faced during the turbulence of the miners' strikes of the 1980s. Unlike many of Ken Loach's other films, this is not an overtly political (anti-Thatcherite) statement. It's about the decline of a way of life, but set against a context of disaster and devastation faced by people fleeing something far more lethal and brutal. Indeed there is a positively celebratory scene where the Syrians are delighted to learn that their absent father/husband is not actually dead - he's just in a slum prison! The fact that these families are escaping something akin to the blitz doesn't lessen the resentment from some, though, and "TJ" is constantly trying to balance the needs of his customers/lifelong friends with his heartfelt desire to help these piteous homeless and stateless individuals. Despite the hostility on display at times, there is a pervading decency throughout this film and by the conclusion - which is not, in self, particularly conclusive - there is maybe just a little scope for optimism. If you enjoyed this film, check out "R. M. N" (2022) - a Romanian film doing the rounds just now that looks at this scenario from a different yet similar perspective and reminds us all, a little, of there but for the grace of god!

STAR RATING: ***** Brilliant **** Very Good *** Okay ** Poor * Awful

T. J. Ballantyne (Dave Turner) is the owner and proprietor of The Old Oak, a rundown, last surviving pub in a former mining town in the North East. Separated from his son, and with only local community activist Tania (Debbie Honeywood) and a few regulars for company, T. J.'s life was saved a few years ago by a small pet dog, who he now enjoys taking for walks. But when a group of Syrian refugees arrive in the town, whilst a housing crisis beckons, it causes a divide among T. J. and his former mining friends. When refugee Mara (Elha Mari) suggests they use the power of cooking to form a bond, it forces everyone to show their true colours.

The third film set in the North East from director Ken Loach and writer Paul Laverty, and reportedly the last film from eighty-seven year old Loach, effectively forms something of a trilogy, after 2019's Sorry We Missed You and 2016's I, Daniel Blake. Curiously, Loach has chosen to set this film in 2016, the year the latter of those two films was released, and more notably the year of 'the Brexit vote.' A few of the characters espouse the attitudes of many that people would have associated with a Brexit voter, but perhaps in a film centred around immigration, Loach wanted to show the average voter on the matter might have had more nuanced outlook on the matter than many might have thought.

Loach has crafted his trademark sense of realism once again, but the sense of urgency generated from scenes in previous films is missing here, in spite of the tensions that the central protagonists in the film are facing, instead meandering along, with drama flaring here and there, but at more of a leisurely, undramatic pace. That's not to say there aren't some powerful, wrenching moments that strike at the heart, there just feels less to lose. You do really get the impression of a place that was once prosperous that has been left to rot, a place full of desperate individuals who find themselves joined by some similarly desperate people. As T. J. notes at one point, why do we blame those at the bottom instead of those at the top.

Even the ending nods to a sense of hope in spite of despair, unlike Loach's other more recent output. If this is his last film, it won't be remembered as his best, but certainly a memorable swansong. ***

There's a strong argument to be made that Ken Loach is getting sentimental in his old age. 'The Old Oak (2023)' is reportedly the 87-year-old filmmaker's swan song and it's arguably one of his most hopeful films to date - especially when compared to his other recent (and superior) pictures, 'I, Daniel Blake (2016)' and 'Sorry We Missed You (2019)'. That's not to imply that this social realist call to action shies away from breaking your heart (lovers of a certain animal may just explode into a shower of tears thanks to a certain shocking scene), nor does it present itself as an overly idealised version of modern Britain. Loach still loathes the state of things and puts the blame solely on those in power (the only place it can sensibly lie), and he often uses his characters to espouse the ideals he so clearly holds close to his own heart. At the same time, though, there's an undercurrent of community and solidarity that is never fully stomped out by the racism, xenophobia and general bigotry on display by the story's least sympathetic characters. In some ways, that's almost a bigger middle finger to the system that breeds such views by scapegoating very real socio-economic issues on those who are least responsible for them (and are the most vulnerable, to boot). The narrative explores the events that unfold when a group of Syrian refugees are placed in a poverty-stricken village in the North of England that has essentially been left to rot, showcasing the disgusting resistance (i.e. Bigotry) they're met with after they've escaped a warzone and have been brought to one of the richest countries in the world only to find that people are having to choose between heating their homes and feeding their kids. It posits that the refugees and the unwelcoming community they're integrated with have more similarities than differences, and that it's only the worst members of the community that can't come to accept that. In fact, their ignorant attitudes actually hurt everyone in the village. The racism and xenophobia that is brought out of the protagonist's once friends is always extremely uncomfortable to sit through, and the film does a good job in making sure that it never even comes close to excusing - or, worse, sharing - these harmful attitudes. After a certain point, you've constantly got your guard up and anticipate some form of racially-motivated conflict at every turn, which - in some small way - puts you in the same position as its Syrian characters and further increases your empathy for them. Mainly thanks to a couple of surprisingly good performances from its non-professional lead actors, the movie is often as emotionally affecting as it is bleakly realistic. Its highs hit as hard as its lows and its important messaging is always resonant. It does have a few narrative issues that seem to mainly arise from its desire to subvert expectation in an effort to be more 'real' than a satisfyingly structured screenplay could - in their view - ever be. Certain plot elements are introduced yet never revisited, and the central concept doesn't come into play until far later than you may expect or, indeed, want. Still, it's an engaging and effective affair throughout. It isn't as good as some of Loach's other work, and it won't change the minds of those that need their minds changing simply due to the fact that they won't see it, but it's a solid and surprisingly hopeful note on which to end an impressively consistent career.

I thought that Yara and TJ were very good characters. In fact, I'm disappointed to have seen an interview with the actor who played TJ who said that's going to be his one and only film. I'd really like to see him again in more movies. I am sure we will see the actress who played Yara again. I like films that are naturalistic. There are so many films in which conversations are so slick and word perfect and that simply does not reflect real life for most people. Both Yara and TJ were like people that I have met in real life and so I could relate to them very easily in the film..

I've seen criticism of this work based on some characters in the film being "wooden ". But again, people can be pretty wooden in real life and so it is not unreasonable to have that depicted in films here and there. We can't all be as smooth as George Clooney or Meryl Streep.

The character, Charlie put me in mind of Mark Kermode (due to his looks, not his conduct). To me, he was very much like Mark Kermode with a grey rinse.

I thought that the actor who played the electrician was very good and very reminiscent of contractors I have met.

I found the film moving and engaging.