LOACH THE ROACH

Socialist film maker Ken Loach
I see that that Ken Loach was been prominent across the BBC media estate this morning. This is in regard to a government review of the film industry that is expected to recommend that public funding be directed towards projects which are likely to be commercial successes. I heard Loach referring to “Cameron” during a TV interview this morning. I wonder what it is about the Jew-hating anti-American anti-capitalist Loach that appeals to the BBC? Thoughts on a postcard…
Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to LOACH THE ROACH

  1. Barry says:

    “People don’t go into films to be entrepreneurs, they go into – like people who write books or make radio programmes – to be creative, to be original, to have wit.”

    … and to promote a political viewpoint at somebody else’s expense.

    David Lean he isn’t.

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      I take it he’s never been to Hollywood.

         0 likes

      • Dazed-and-Confused says:

        Never heard of the film “Kes”?…..You can watch it on YouTube…..

        Very working class British orientated. Loach never changed his Socialist roots, that’s why the BBC continue to love him

           0 likes

  2. Geyza says:

    I object to my taxes being used to subsidise some talentless pratt’s indulgence in making “post-modernist” crap that no sane person would ever pay good money to see.  My taxes should be used to help the genuinely needy, to promote liberty at home and create lawful, safe streets and strong defences.  They should not be used so that some “arty” prick can play at making films!

       0 likes

  3. Tommo says:

    Typical to hear the execrable Loach described on “Breakfast” this morning as “award-winning”, just as other individuals or organisations who share the BBC world view are “leading” or “respected”.

       0 likes

    • cjhartnett says:

      Just like Vanessa Redgrave was too!
      Pray, do tell…when and what for?
      Did the Libyans have a “Gadhaffi boot-lickers convention then involving these two alongide Scargill and Galloway?
      Soew chariot that one!

         0 likes

  4. George R says:

    Does BBC-NUJ ever politically challenge anything Marxist Loach says or does?

       0 likes

  5. Umbongo says:

    This item conflates 2 of Today‘s most egregious features
    1.  news/comment in the future: no-one knows for certain what this report is going to say (although I suspect its contents have been showered all over luvviedom).  Nothing would be lost – and a great deal gained – if comment could commence after the report enters into the public domain.  Then we’d all be able to read it/make up our minds and the outpourings of the carefully selected commentariat could be exposed for the junk they (mostly) are.  Of course such an obvious course of events defeats the whole object of being a medium (and this applies to the rest of the MSM).  If information is freely available to the punters what is the point of the journalistic parasites who infest the BBC?
    2. The restriction of debate:  it is taken as a given that taxpayers’ money taken from them by compulsion should continue to be distributed by the political class on its favourite sons and daughters.  The failure of governments to pick economic winners is notorious and of long standing.  The “debate” this morning didn’t get this far: all that was discussed was over who your and my money should be hosed: the “whether” was (and is) never mentioned.

       0 likes

  6. Geyza says:

    There was some daft bint on the Jeremy Vine show who had “studied film making to undergraduate level” (HAS NO DEGREE) who claimed that these publicly funded “art house” films are necessary to give directors and film makers a start in the industry. 

    (industry? notice how they call it an “industry”.  In that case they should make a profit from it, otherwise it is a very expensive hobby, which I do not want to subsidise!)

    Well here’s an idea, if we must subsidise films at all, then only subsidise the films which are aimed at being commercially successful, and then IF the film maker can make a success of that, then they can use their own profits to make any crappy, unintelligable, nonsense arty-farty art-house film they wish.

    All these “lefty luvvies” in the film “industry” who are crying out in horror that the subsidies are being rationalised should shove their hands into their own deep pockets and fund all the new directors and new arty farty films themselves.

    STOP demanding that tax-payers have to pay for it!

       0 likes

  7. London Calling says:

    Award winning? Loach is feted every year at the Cannes Film Festival, where his anti-British Marxist crap goes down very well with French “intellectual” cineastes, so much so the French Wiki has a special section for les Trotskiste Britannique  
    http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%C3%A9gorie:Trotskiste_britannique  
    along with Tariq Ali and Gerry Healy and similar. bBC showing itself up again with its list of favourite anti-British heros.

       0 likes

  8. George R says:

    Left-Islamic ‘diversity’?-

    “Ken Loach’s hypocritical victimisation of a young Israeli director” (2009).  
     
    Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/22881/ken-loachs-hypocritical-victimisation-young-israeli-director#ixzz1j9wQ6xOY

       0 likes

  9. Martin says:

    Note how the BBC never asks who gets the profits from the films that we pay to make.

       0 likes

  10. Llew says:

    Saw him on the lunch time news. Allowed to say something like ‘typical nasty tories always after the big profit’.

    For balance there should have been someone else on camera saying something like ‘typical lefty luvvies always wanting something paid for by others not us’ but of course in beebland balance means reading out a one sentence comment when it isn’t knocking the Tories.

    His rant really did need someone to point out that there is nothing stopping the entertainment luvvies chucking some of their personal wealth into new films if it’s so important to them. Or maybe tapping up the rich luvvies over in Hollywood….

       0 likes

  11. james1070 says:

    I quite like some of ken Loaches films. I was enjoying The Wind that Shakes the Barley until I heard the directors commentary. Ken Loach came across as a horrible little Communist and a useful idiot at that! Loach is the sort of person who would be happy in a Gulag while chanting ‘Long Live Stalin’.

       0 likes

    • Reed says:

      Slight correction…

      Loach is the sort of person who would be happy to see others in a Gulag while chanting ‘Long Live Stalin’

         1 likes

  12. LJ says:

    Here is a more representative video of this scumbag – laugh at how he complains the BBC is pro-Israeli!



       0 likes

  13. Biodegradable says:

    I wonder what it is about the Jew-hating anti-American anti-capitalist Loach that appeals to the BBC?

    You can stop wondering David, you’ve answered your own question.

    That’s three boxes ticked right there  😉

       0 likes

  14. David Preiser (USA) says:

    I don’t think Loach hates Jews, full stop. Being anti-Israel doesn’t necessarily translate into full-blown anti-Semitism. I bet he likes these Jews just fine.

       0 likes

    • Biodegradable says:

      Other Jews that Loach possibly doesn’t hate are the ones that died in the Holocaust, the ones that were thrown out of Spain 500 years ago, and the ones that are assimilated all over the world and don’t want to rock the boat, those who “don’t want to be mixed into the problems of the Middle East”.

      The Jews that people like Loach hate are the ones who live in their historic homeland and defend their right to do so.

         0 likes

    • Demon1001 says:

      I think that the hatred of Israel, and the lies the left-wing tell about Israel is to hide their inner anti-Semitism.  They can’t openly admit, even to themselves, that they just irrationally hate Jews so they say they only hate Israel (or Zionism) to make themselves feel better about themselves.

      They’re all constantly telling us that it’s only Israeli Government actions that they hate, and get into mass huddles as a kind of group therapy.  They do actually welcome Israel-hating Jews (i.e. those on the hard left) as they can say – “look I’m not an anti-semite, some of my best friends are…” (self-loathing) “…Jews.” 

         0 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        I’m dubious about all anti-Israel talk being a cover for anti-Semitism. But it definitely can exacerbate and inspire and encourage anti-Jewish sentiment, and is used to excuse violence and prejudice against Jews. There’s plenty of evidence of that, and the BBC should be called on it at every turn.

           0 likes

        • Demon1001 says:

          I am convinced of it!  I cannot conceive of any other explanation why Israel, for all its faults (real or imaginary) is considered by these people to be hundreds times worse than Syria, Libya, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Iran, Iraq etc.  If the fault with Israel is the force of their retaliation, why aren’t the lefties attacking all these other, far worse, countries.  There can only be one reason – the one I stated above.

             0 likes

        • Biodegradable says:

          I’d agree with you David P if the Loaches of the world were as vociferously critical of of other countries and governments who are without a doubt committing real war crimes and crimes against humanity. They are only interested in “criticising” Israel and making false accusations.

          Here he is sharing a platform with the likes of Lauren Booth, George Galloway, and Yvonne Ridley (hat tip LJ: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JO6tf6vUCk )

          Note the repetition of those keywords like war crimes, crimes against humanity, international law, apartheid, etc.

          All accusations with no basis in reality or real law (no court judgements, anywhere, ever).

          It’s Jew hatred pure and simple while they ignore real apartheid in Saudi Arabia and real war crimes and crimes against humanity in countless places around the globe.

          Israel is the Jew among nations.

             0 likes

  15. Martin says:

    Loach really is talking bollocks. What happened to the profits the likes of Slumdog Millionnaire produced?

    I bet the profits went to the actors, director and film studio, did they pay back the money they got to pake the film? I bet not.

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      I thought the actors got flat fees and that’s it. Most film productions are rigged so that the production never makes an on-the-books profit, so the producers can pocket everything and don’t have to pay royalties to the actors. Hollywood does that all the time. But you don’t see the BBC having on cinema luvvies to complain about that.

         0 likes

  16. Merlin says:

    If I ever meet Roach in the pub I will have some very strong words with him and demand to know why he thinks it’s ok for us, the taxpayer, to fund obscure faux-intellectual left wing bullshit which is as much use to society as is a pair of glasses on a man with one ear.

       0 likes

  17. Martin says:

    I notice the BBC got in lefty Loach’s dig at ‘Tories’.

    As usual from Loach all we get is a lot of bollocks rather than anything useful.

    Luckily I don’t do the Lottery so I don’t mind where the money goes, but I don’t want scum like Loach getting tax money, tax breaks or BBC money.

       0 likes

  18. Martin says:

    The BBC just did a puff piece on Twitter now being used by pedophiles. Well BBC very informative. Shame you are not so forthcoming when it comes to Muslim men who are not just talking about child abuse but actually carrying it out.

       0 likes

  19. Martin says:

    CanI just wish Guantanamo a happy 10th birthday A great day when it was setup keeping the scum off the streets.

    A great day for democracy as well.

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      I wonder if Mardell will be able to find some “independents” who won’t vote for Him because of Gitmo still being open, and the newly minted NDAA, which He signed behind closed doors.

         0 likes

  20. Louis Robinson says:

    For me, the ultimate Ken Loach experience was the BBC’s 1975 miniseries “Days of Hope”. Just tick the boxes:

    The plot: Ben Matthews enlists in the army and ends up serving in Ireland, where there is resistance to British rule. His sister’s husband Philip Hargreaves is sentenced to death as a conscientious objector but is given a last-minute reprieve. Ben deserts from the army and joins the Durham miners in their fight against wage reductions. Ben and other miners are arrested. Ben is released from prison and joins the Communist Party. Philip Hargreaves is elected as a Labour MP. The miners are betrayed by union leaders during the general strike.

    Stock Loach characters: Police bad, army bad, Britain bad, Ireland good, strikers good, miners good, Tories bad, labour politicians flawed, communists good, everything gloomy, the end in nigh.  

    The only thing missing were those nice PLO chaps.

       1 likes

    • Buggy says:

      By Loach standards that sounds like a knockabout farce, Louis. Fortunately I was much more into “Mary, Mungo & Midge” at the time and missed it.

      Incidentally, why was the conchie sentenced to death in the jolly romp : can you recall ? I’m pretty sure that “being a conchie” didn’t carry an appointment with the firing squad though, given el Beeb’s obsession with the subject, last seen during the execrable Remembrance Sunday edition of The Antiques Roadshow, I’d not put it past them or the likes of Comrade Ken here to “massage” the truth a wee bit for the sake of (altogether now) “a higher truth”.  

         0 likes

      • Louis Robinson says:

        Buggy, I was playing around with an episode of “Mary, Mungo and Midge” (“Mungo Lost”) after you mentioned them and wondered how Red Ken Loach would think about this episode”

        “Mungo thought he could go and see Mary where she went to see her aunt who had just moved to a new house, but Mungo got really lost so he decided to ask a policeman to take him home while Midge was looking for him.

        Totally unacceptable: Mary’s aunt has “moved into a new house” – middle class property owner…

        “Mungo decided to ask a policeman” – shows an unhealthy trust in the law.

        Worst of all: “Mungo thought.” THOUGHT? Shameful.

           0 likes

  21. Martin says:

    What ‘proper’ directors do (that excludes scum like Loach) is they often make a ‘commercial film and then used some of the profit from that to make an arthouse film.

    Or they will get a big name actor to cough up some of the money to make the arty film.

    Why these arseholes think the bloody tax payer should pay up is beyond me.

       1 likes

    • wild says:

      The item I saw on the BBC was a lobbying effort for Guardian readers masquerading as news. The BBC journalist said that the Government is going to shift its investment in the film industry away from “artistic quality” towards “commercial success”, and the BBC explained that this was a bad a idea, because there is no formula for commercial success.  
       
      What the BBC reporter failed to mention is that there is no formula for artistic success either, unless we are talking about the near certainty that money taken from the taxpayer and given to Guardian readers will lead to the production of films that only Guardian readers want to watch – which is why they have to be subsidised.  
       
      I am confident that taking money from taxpayers and giving it to Guardian readers is popular with Guardian readers, but given that the film industry is, was, and always will be, a commercial operation (i.e. everybody from the electrician to the actor get paid otherwise it is not an “industry” but a hobby) what is the justification for extracting money from the taxpayer into the pockets of middle class Leftists? 
       
      If the justification is commercial (it is a good investment) then they cannot attack the desire to help the production of films that they believe will pay back their costs. If the justification is artistic, they have to ask themselves why everybody should be forced to pay for films which are made by and for Guardian readers, simply because it is the sort of films which middle class Leftists want to be made. 
       

         1 likes

      • wild says:

        Newsnight had a lady on explaining that taxpayer funded films may not be the sort of films that most [non-Guardian] readers would (given the choice) pay money to watch, but that they should be funded by the tax payer because they “broaden the mind”.  
         
        I take by “broaden the mind” she meant shrink reality until it conforms to Leftist prejudices.

           0 likes

        • wild says:

          If tax funding the film industry did “broaden the mind” by encouraging plurality in the pursuit of artistic excellence, a case could be made for it, but we know from the example of the BBC that once the Guardian reader’s take over (which given the Leftist quest to seek power – and money – via unelected tax payer funded institutions at some point they inevitably do) “plurality” is replaced by correct (i.e. Leftist) thinking.

          This of course is not creative freedom, it is its exact opposite. It is seeking to use art as a medium of political instruction, which is of course (other than the fact it redistributes wealth into the pockets of Guardian readers) is why they defend it, and why the “works of art” they produce are films that few people want to see.

          The reason why most people do not want to see them is because their political baggage makes them absolutely predictable and artistically worthless i.e. the exact opposite of the supposed justification for taxpayer funding.  

             0 likes

          • matthew rowe says:

            Great posts  Wild takes the argument apart in a way the Mr Leech could never understand  !!

               0 likes

  22. Foxgoose says:

    “Working class roots” Loach lives in some Georgian splendour in Bath, near me, where the local artsie types fawn over him.

    Although his dad was an electrician, Roach has never done a days physical work in his life.

    He went to a good grammar school, studied law at Oxford, started acting in reviews there and then became a full time actor briefly before latching onto the public teat as a producer at the good old BBC.

    Just a typical luvvie marxist poseur with a bit of assumed woking class street cred to help flog the product.

       0 likes

  23. cjhartnett says:

    Love the idea of these films “broadening the mind”.
    Unless the name is Redgrave,Benn, Miliband or Dimbleby and is repearted to them down the generations, they think that time actually has stood still since 1968-with that awful Thatcher aberration somewhere along the way!
    I could not imagine a more ossified anal retentive and grasping bunch of State leeches than these luvvies who know us all better than we know ourselves… Loach is a medai Rachman(he`ll get that reference if nursey tells him!).
    To see Baddiel named as a film maker on Newsnight last night was good-I`d only known him as the self-loathing Jewish lad from a private school-went to Cambridge or somewhere suitable-and (oddly) has never made anyone laugh.
    This despite being surrounded by the likes of Newman, Baron Cohen and Lucas..remarkable.
    Thankfully Frank Skinner seems to have survived carrying Baddiel round for, perhaps: way too long.

       0 likes

  24. james1070 says:

    Funny how the BBC has never mentioned all the ‘art house’ films financed and promoted by Rupert Murdoch.

    The Full Monty
    Titus
    Sexy Beast
    Bend it like Beckham
    28 Days Later
    The Last King of Scotland
    Slumdog Millionaire
    Shame

    Oh but we was too busy being evil and populist and anti intellectual.

       0 likes

  25. Jonathan S says:

    can the photo of Loach above be replaced with a turd wearing glasses? Mind you, thinking about it, it wouldn’t be that different 

       0 likes