Reviews

The review entitled "Ken Loach: the Leni Riefenstahl of the left" had me spitting nails when I read it. I have only just watched Cathy Come Home for the first time, although I have seen a number of Ken Loach's other films in the past. I find it shocking that someone could suggest that "If children weren't so inclined to be noisy and messy and unpredictable and demanding and expensive then the issue wouldn't be as serious". So, if children weren't, y'know, CHILDREN, and were robotic, and didn't require things like food, clothes and shelter, that the problem of homelessness would magically disappear? Also, the contraceptive pill was approved by the Family Planning Association in 1962, and considering the ages of Cathy's children and the time-scale of the show, it'd still have been in its very early stages and not as widely available, especially when people could barely afford to keep a roof over their heads. Yes, the film might be a little heavy-handed, but if it weren't for 'archetypal social propaganda', who would take notice? Would we all be sitting around under a Conservative government who don't particularly care for anyone but England's upper middle classes, waiting for a change that would never happen? Yes, homelessness is still an issue, but at its time of release, there was far less being done about it, and the prospect of families being separated was one faced by all those who lived in slum-housing. Which, after the film's release, was abolished. It's small minded attitudes people such as this who think that because they watch a film, and notice that there are still homeless people, that they can complain about people having children and the fact that Shelter did not build a home for absolutely everyone who needs one. I can only imagine that Australia is quite similar to working class 1960s London, otherwise how would you know so much?