Family Life

Family Life I've seen this movie at the end of the seventies, in France, on TV. I registered it, but I lost the tape. Since, I remember a great film, the first of Ken Loach I think. Always in my memory is the last scene, Janice alone behind the students in the amphitheater's and doctor saying that the problem is in his mind and no in the relationship with her parents. I read in some reviews of this time that Ken Loach based his story on the "antipsychiatrics theories" of Dr. Ronald Laing and Cooper, that I studied in France when I was scholar, theories developed in the neighborhood of Jean Paul Sartre's existential psychoanalysis. Recently, a friend of mine, teacher of English literature in my college, initiate a curse on these problems with her students. She needs the original script of this film, but we don't know other that the French translation issued in the L'Avant-Scène french review.. Who could send me part of the script of this film (in English)? Thanks.

The opening credits for Ken Loach's 'Family Life' are accompanied by a montage of still shots of an industrial working class British town to establish the setting and backdrop of the narrative. During this montage we get an image of a straight line of houses in the neighbourhood. I think from a certain angle, that image is expressive of the struggles that the protagonist Janice goes through in the film. The houses stacking up one after the other in a rigid line is thematically similar to the what Janice's parents expect her to do, live her life in a specific and pre-ordained way within inflexible parameters and become the person that they want her to be instead of allowing herself to discover and realise what she wants to do with her life. They want her to become another addition to the rigid straight line of conformists. This is a tale of suffocation brought on by a rigid obligation to conform.

This was released in 1971, that is right after the swinging sixties and there is abundant reference to the counter-culture movements and the hippie revolution. Janice's parents are conservative Christian working class people who look down upon the new ways of the new times. They want their daughter to do 'what's good for her' as long as what she does conforms to their rigid idea of 'good'. After Janice gets forced to abort her unborn child by them, she slowly and gradually disintegrates and becomes a mere shadow of her former self. Her rights get taken away from her and she succumbs to the pressure of rigid traditionalism.

Loach doesn't do anything flashy with the camera. As a matter of fact I can't remember a single shot in the film that seeks attention. It's very understated. Loach uses the quintessential kitchen-sink drama approach and allows the scenes to progress with the help of strong dialogue instead of visual poetry. Although there is one distinct poetic scene where Janice goes on a sweet spray painting spree and we see a look of sheer joy on her face, for a change. This moment reminded me of the scene in Loach's 'Kes' where Billy explains his bird's habits to his classmates and for the first time, we can distinctly hear a new sense of passion in his voice.

The screenplay I think has some weaknesses. The timeline gets muddled up unnecessarily at the beginning which makes it a bit confusing to get a grasp of the timeline and the order of the events. Secondly, although there is an attempt made to explore and humanise the parents towards the beginning of the film with a scene involving the father somewhat opening up to the doctor about his marriage and family life, however those efforts get abandoned completely and the parents gradually become more and more hate- worthy due to their constant reprehensible actions and words. I feel Loach and his screenwriter could have tried to humanise the parents a bit more which thereby would have added more complexity to the film instead of making them completely antagonistic.

The tone set by Loach is naturalistic and the acting is likewise. The conversations and verbal exchanges are acted out and staged with an admirable air of authenticity. Sandy Ratcliff deserves a special mention. She convincing manages to portray a mentally troubled and depressed individual without the clichéd mannerisms that some actors resort to for selling a state of mental imbalance. She managed to make me really care for her character which is necessary for this role.

'Family Life' isn't a perfect film, but it is certainly worth watching.

..and however,she's leaving home,at least mentally.

"Family life" is the most difficult,the most austere of all Kenneth Loach's efforts.One should add it's also his most dated.The generation gap,with these "boys and daughters who are beyond your command",all this looks like hippie relics.As do the mother's wailings:the youth is not what it used to be,they don't show respect anymore,they make love all day when they're not taking drugs etc.The generation gap is not typically sixties or early seventies.It's an all-time problem:For instance,Elia Kazan's "East of Eden" was made in 1954,and the action takes place circa 1914.So a lot of stuff at the beginning of "Family life" deals with clichés.

Nevertheless,this movie is a must if you like the "European " style.Its form is absolutely unique,looking like a special report,a survey,with question/answer dialogues galore.At times,we wonder whether the actors are actually playing.We're close to "cinema verite" (see JL Godard's "masculin feminin" (1966))A viewer who would turn the TV on halfway through the movie,might think he's watching a documentary film.

Janice is a rather normal young woman,with normal problems.she had a hard time of it when she had an abortion .Her mother is a puritan,rigid,and probably frigid woman,her father is a "honor and duty" man.Both content themselves with a routine nine-to-five life,and they are convinced that they are good parents.The father is proud of the clock his bosses have given to him,after 25 years of hard work,the mother of her jelly.

Janice is some kind of misfit,and she's not unlike the main character from "la tête contre les murs"(George Franju,1958).But there's a huge difference:Franju tells a story,Loach does not.No dramatization at all in the English director's film.There is a similar scene in the two movies:both inmates escape ,take refuge in their girl/boyfriend's flat,then the police come:Franju's character is desperate,revolted,Janice is already a zombie,she cannot react anymore.

A lot of people said the shrinks were caricatures in "family life":completely true as far the last one is concerned.But the first one ,on the other hand ,sees well:three times,he asks the father if his sexual relations are satisfying ,and every time he tries to change the subject.

Kenneth Loach has come a long way from the documentary style of "poor cow"(1967) and "family life".It's interesting to note that the movie midway between ,"Kes" (1969),is more accessible,being more storybook.During the eighties and nineties,with such works as "hidden agenda" and the wonderful "carla's song",Kenneth Loach will prove he can be a story teller too.

Described by the late David Shipman as a "scream of rage against the suburbs", 'Kenneth' Loach (as he then called himself) and Tony Garnett took a advantage of the freak success enjoyed by their company Kestral's 'Kes' to make probably their bleakest and most nihilistic film, based on their 1967 Play for Today 'In Two Minds' by David Mercer.

The additional of colour if anything actually makes the film look drabber, perfectly complementing the heroine's downward slide into a listless & resigned zombie doped up to the eyeballs on tranquillisers. You only have to listen to the heroine's ghastly mother talking non-stop and never listening where the poor girl's problems really originated.

The famous Loach style was already well in evidence, with all that spontaneity achieved by shooting such a vast amount of footage that one day the Arriflex burned out. Seen after fifty years it's also poignant that Sandy Ratcliffe like Carol White eventually came to a sad end.

Family Life (1971) was directed by Ken Loach.

The film stars Sandy Ratcliff as Janice Baildon. Janice is a young woman who has some emotional problems. She's standing at the brink of a long slide downwards. Briefly, a caring physician intervenes, but after that she's on her own.

There are no real villains in this movie, in the sense of people who know what they're doing is wrong, and do it anyway. Everyone--her parents, her psychiatrists--are convinced that what they are doing is right.

That is the paradox of this film--well-meaning people are hurting Janice without recognizing what they are doing.

Sadly, almost 50 years later, psychiatry hasn't made that much progress. True, there are many new medications, and there are many new non-medication approaches, but there hasn't been a real breakthrough. People like Janice might find themselves in the same situation, with the same bad consequences.

We saw this film on the small screen, where it worked well. The movie has a very strong IMDb rating of7.7. I think it's even better than that.