Skip to main content

Jimmy’s Hall: a blueprint for community resilience in these times?

It’s a cold night and we walk across the dark Bushwood flats to a building that’s a bright coffee shop and co-working space by day, mottled light spilling in from a community garden outside – and a somehow cosy two-screen cinema by night. I see a familiar form – is that Gareth Evans? – I wonder. It is – the screening is the brainchild of the Whitechapel Gallery’s film curator, who I last saw around Eelyn Lee‘s Barbican residency for her Monster film. It’s not just a screening of Ken Loach’s 2014 film (which I’d neither seen nor knew anything of), but a post-screening interview with star Barry Ward and legendary Sixteen Films producer Rebecca O’Brien, followed with a small ceilidh band, which baby-sitter demands we don’t get much of.

For host Gareth Evans the reason for this screening in this place, at this time seems obvious: Jimmy’s Hall is as much about the Hall – gathering space for a rural community struggling 10 years after the Irish Civil War against the church, state and boredom – as about Jimmy Gralton, the only Irishman to be exiled from the country (Irish President Michael Higgins apologised in 2016). It’s uncommon for a film to focus on a building – which is why it contrasts well for me with The Brutalist. By bringing this film to a community cinema in a community building, Evans as curator deftly remind us of cinema’s original power, like theatre and stories around campfire: the gathering of a group of strangers to share in a tale. It was such a welcome and needed reminder.

Jimmys Hall film still, a girl dances a jig surrounded by others.

The news has been grim, my phone a firehose of multiple reminders of a global escalation in suffering, conflict and uncertainty, coupled with a jock-ish frat-boy influencer response that delights in ‘woke tears’. Our phones host the tech barons in our pocket, feeding our metadata and audio into their AI training engines in a way beyond the wildest dreams of the GDR, alongside a stream of micro-targeted, often false content, designed to keep us scrolling. Yet still we carry them, stroking them in our empty moments to feel some connection, some sense of being less alone with this all. And even the smaller, less commercial spaces we turn to online for this – such as the less centralised and more idealist Mastodon or BlueSky – are still a constant reminder of what’s going wrong. There’s many rightly angry voices.

Against this, cinema – by which I mean a screen in front of some strangers in the darkness – has always offered both escape and sanctuary, a temporary refugee from our realities, be they smart-phone influenced or everyday. But when paired with discussion, music, the sale of middle Eastern food as we arrived, a glass of wine, the small talk with strangers, the salted chocolate brownie, being provoked by the Q&A – cinema grows into some kind of bigger communion; less escape from, and more coming towards.

As Jimmy’s story unfolds over 1933, we see a man determined to stand by his principles as he’s attacked by church and state. But his hall – which is built on screen (much like The Brutalist) – isn’t a place for him to lecture politics, but, inspired by his experience in America’s jazz clubs, is somewhere bored locals can learn Gaelic, recite poetry, dance – and most importantly, hang out. For so much of what we yearn for, we don’t need technology more sophisticated than this – physical space to gather and support each other. Paul Laverty’s plot and dialogue saunters along like most of the films in his long-running collaboration with Loach and O’Brien, that began with Carla’s Song.

The film walks us through the ways the Irish establishment fought this community gathering, and in seeing the resilience of Jimmy in the face of it, perfectly personified by Jim Norton as fanatical Father Sheridan, there’s something oddly reassuring. However bleak and pervasive phone doom-scrolling has become, a digital-panopticon device, slipped in everyone’s pocket, that can both spy and propagandise; we still have the freedom to not have one, to leave the house and gather together. No-one forces us to carry them or open them, let alone stop us (in much of the world) from meeting; indeed the British and Irish government film boards part-financed this biopic of Ireland’s most famous communist – while both countries were governed by austerity-leaning right-wing parties.

Film still: Jimmy Gralton and Oonagh with a band behind them in the hall.

Of course I wish I wasn’t dependent on devices run by people who don’t have our best interests, or the planet, at heart – but the phone also played a small part in helping me find and remember this event where I could meet, in person, and chat – with no algorithm in the middle deciding which bit of the conversation is monetisable or where to insert a promotion for something else. And once there I forget about the device, no need to check it. So here’s cinema’s final revolutionary act – two or more waking hours with a phone turned off, many more if it’s part of a social.

I’m sorry reader that this review risks being polemic, or at least a rambling paean to the redeeming power of public gathering. But in this community cinema offers a wonderful hybrid of a prepared narrative and fellow humans, each in our own way, trying to get through. Best evening out in a long time, more please.

Fediverse Reactions
Nicol Wistreich
Nicol Wistreich
18 posts
10 followers

The Brutalist: does the end justify the means?

I inevitably thought of King Vidor’s Fountainhead, which I’d loved when I saw it in my late teens before better understanding what Ayn Rand was saying (tldr: pesky society and democracy standing in the way of individualists / wannabe dictators). I maybe should rewatch it, the lone uncompromising ‘genius’ is an entire political project in the US now, taking a chainsaw to a civil sector collectively crafted over decades. There’s of course parallels between Howard Rourke and Tóth – the uncompromising triumph of the self – but the difference in the Brutalist strikes me that the relationship with the wife is everything. It’s not a marriage of equals, it is ‘woman supports man’s drive to manifest an absolutely singular vision’. Yet she’s also his saviour and better half, who unlocks him from himself, and here Rourke seems the closer analog to Musk than Tóth.

Still from the Fountainhead - Howard Rourke, stands proud, hands on hip, on his construciton, the camera looks up at him.
Still from the Fountainhead. Dominique Francon, riding crop in hand, looks down at a sweating Rourke who has been working with stone in the sun.

László and Erzsébet’s stressed but concrete love reinforces the rest of the story and is enough to suggest this could be a Great Film. It’s not about buildings or architects or post-WWII America or Jewishness – but a love that survives multiple challenges. There’s still, however, a few flourishes – some monologues that linger like late Tarantino, and could benefit from a trim, a few flourishes in the final scenes that seem more than is needed. Still, it is immensely confident – you can see how director Brady Corbet as an actor got to watch Haneke and von Trier at work, carrying some of that absolute self belief as an artist. This is obviously reflected in Tóth architect, and perhaps drives part of Corbet’s interest in the story.

The Brutalist still - László embrace Erzsébet from behind, in front of some drawings.

Where I was left somewhat alienated, but also deep in thought, was towards the end (so stop reading this next three paragraphs if you’ve not seen the film but plan to). The 80s-hewed epilogue message is ‘it’s the destination not the journey’ and I found this counter-point to conventional wisdowm challenging. It makes sense in the context of architecture – perhaps even filmmaking: the construction is messy and maybe unpleasant, but the artwork endures intact forever after. However, there’s a parallel story in this film about Israel, and doing Aliyah (the process of a Jewish person moving to Israel).

The film’s conclusion seems to be presented as “we’re not welcome in America, we must go to Israel, even though we’re not very religious”. I can see why at a time when otherwise liberal voices call for the destruction of Israel over its war crimes (but not America, UK, Turkey – or a similarly aged Pakistan), we are reminded of the backdrop of race-hate that accompanied Israel’s creation. Many holocaust survivors concluded the same as Erzsébet; but many didn’t. My distant cousin Hugo Wistreich describes in his memoirs returning to to Poland as a teenager after surviving a Siberian Soviet prison camp, only to be met with pogroms from Poles trying to ‘finish the job’; his friend watches her father shot in front of her after he’d survived the war. I can completely understand how a journey to Israel was so compelling. Hugo describes how on his first visit there being stunned to discover Jews aren’t lesser beings, but capable of being anyone from the policeman to the Prime Minister – something he’d not believed before. He makes the most moving case for the existence of Israel I’ve ever read. But Hugo settled in America like millions, and thrived there.

The conclusion of this film, and this message of ‘destination not the journey’ excludes this experience, and assimilationists like the rest of my Jewish family (who were Bundists, not Zionists). If Corbet was Jewish I’d not question this, but he isn’t. A message of ‘we’ll never be welcome, that’s why we need our own country’ feels incomplete at a time when both antisemitism is escalating and American Jews are challenging their relationship to Israel. None of this negates the film as a whole, which is obviously a major accomplishment. Furthermore, accompanying this ‘end justifies the means’ message with Tóth reinforcing the myth-of-the-lone-genius – which could be argued by any who justify brutality in pursuit of peace. It’s a worldview relevant to auteurs and ‘move fast break things’ Silicon Valley tech barons, but seems dated and impractical in the every-day world where taking a chainsaw to something broken, Musk-style, is a sign of madness, not genius. Most film auteurs will confess their strength is only as good as their team of artists and actors, and how well they work together. Still, Corbet is smart enough to show the solitude of this path – we aren’t shown Tóth happy at the end, just vindicated. [spoilers end]

Promo for VistaVision. It says "The reason for the superior quality is the size of the negative" and compares the large VistaVision negative against a 35mm release print.

All that said, I want to watch the film again in a year or two to see if it shrinks or grows. There’s a counter-intuitive quality to László and Attila’s relationship I don’t often see on film – so much is wrong, yet it endures somehow; it’s also thrilling to watching someone carry a vision through with such passion and perfectionism. The building gets built! Art about artists can be a bit intoxicating, especially when shot so magnificently. I’m just still not sure how strong the foundations on which it stands are, which will take time to measure.

Nicol Wistreich
Nicol Wistreich
18 posts
10 followers