Days of Hope (TV Mini Series 1975– ) Poster

(1975– )

User Reviews

Review this title
10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
I was an extra in The Days of Hope
karensiss1 March 2006
I was an extra in the Days of Hope as a school child in Langley Park where it was filmed and would dearly love to see a copy of the drama, which is only available now to schools and colleges.Being so young at the time I have very fond memories of taking part, queuing up to be kitted out in the period costume at the make shift costume department on location at the local youth centre. Waiting around in the rain for the weather to clear for shooting, enjoying the black leather boots and scruffy brown dress and shawl.I would love to see it now and follow the plot, which I was too young to appreciate at the time and to try to recognise fellow school mates who sadly I have now lost touch with.
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
An unashamedly leftist view of history
dr_clarke_24 September 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Ken Loach's 1975 four-part BBC drama Days of Hope marked his final television collaboration with writer Jim Allen, although the pair would work together again on feature films in the future. Subtitled "A Series of Four Films", it consists of four feature-length episodes that follow working class protagonist Ben Matthews as he navigates key issues beginning with the First World War, and ending with the 1926 General Strike, and does so in ways that will be entirely unsurprising to anyone familiar with the work of either the writer or director.

Episode One - '1916: Joining Up' - sets the tone. It follows Ben as he idealistically decides to join up to fight for his country against the Germans, only to be posted to Ireland, where the English are decidedly unpopular. Meanwhile, his brother-in-law Philip - a conscientious objector - is forced to join the army, refuses to fight, and finds himself facing a death sentence. This is World War I Loach- and Allen-style, comparing it to the issue of "Class War", and was unsurprisingly met with some controversy at the time it was broadcast.

And it goes on in that vein. Episode Two - '1921' - takes place against the back drop of the coal lock-out, as Ben deserts the army and is taken under the wing of miner Joel, who along with his fellow workers is caught up in what is either a strike or a lock-out, depending on one's point of view. It is most definitely history viewed from the left wing, with Allen and Loach firmly on the side of the miners. It is of course quite heavy-handed, with a policeman warning the miners that under the Emergency Powers Act he can arrest anyone he wants without a warrant (which he promptly does) and that every bit of land the villagers can see belongs to someone else. The army is seen to be the enemy, enjoying afternoon tea with the straw-boater wearing aristocrats at a nearby stately home; both police and army are portrayed as strong-arm, fascist bullies, and their individual members are portrayed as caricatures rather than characters, in stark contrast to Ben and his friends. Pritchard (Edward Underdown, perfectly cast) is written as an out-of-touch, if seemingly affable and well-meaning, landowner, whose attempt to convince the miners to return to work is patronising and condescending to say the least. He's portrayed as a stuffy old idiot who believes that erosion of religious spirit is responsible for Britain's ills, and he's ultimately untrustworthy, reneging on his promise to protect the miners from prosecution when the lock-out ends.

Episode Three - '1924' - marks a change of pace, as Ben is released from prison and joins the Communist Party. Meanwhile, Labour has come to power for the first time, and Philip Hargreaves becomes a Labour MP. There's lots of material about Communism versus Socialism, with Labour the acceptable face of the latter and uneasy about the former ("We support the Labour party as a rope supports a hanged man" one Communist Party leader says). As a left-wing view of the first Labour government, it's arguably the most interesting episode of the four. There is of course a naïve and doomed view from Hargreaves that Labour could legislate capitalism out of existence and implement socialism instead, and there's also lots of suspicion about the Liberals, who support the minority government. Inevitably, it's also very dialogue heavy, but often riveting, notably during the disillusioned Hargreaves discussion with the evasive Wedgwood (and the episode is also notable for featuring a line comparing Churchill to a vulture and Lenin to an eagle, which Loach has since claimed caused outrage in some quarters at the time).

The final episode, '1926: General Strike', is similarly dialogue-heavy, but is unfortunately less riveting. In an attempt to accurately establish the history of the eponymous strike, it sees Allen writing a first half that sidelines Ben, Philip and Philip's wife Sarah, in favour of lengthy, dialogue-heavy scenes that provide context and background at the expense of pace. With a focus on the historical background to the General Strike, the unions are the target of as much of Allen and Loach's ire as the government, and there's lots of politics and scheming, with Brian Hayes' Stanley Baldwin portrayed as being in the pocket of the coal mine owners. In the strive for historical accuracy (albeit with a very left-wing bias), the episode becomes interminably slow, and even when Ben, Philip and Sarah start to become more prominent, Allen seems more interested in focusing on the real-life details than his pre-established characters (at times in fact, it recalls his previous docu-drama collaborations with Loach, most notably The Big Flame). The Labour Party's unease about the concept of a General Strike features heavily, with concerns that it smacks of revolution and a concern that Communist Party members might try to take control of the strike for their own ends, which they do indeed attempt to do. Given that history largely judged the General Strike as a failure, the episode has a definite air of sour grapes about it, and Allen lets his prejudices show during a dinner party scene that is embarrassingly caricatured, with an elderly female aristocrat wondering the unemployed could just emigrate to Australia; he makes his point, but without subtlety.

Thus, Days of Hope feels like a Loach and Allen leftist manifesto that is trying to be a historical document presented in a dramatic format. And for all its flaws, as a weighty slice of television, it's actually quite impressive. Loach shoots the whole series largely on location, with relatively static camera work which makes it seem less like a docu-drama than Loach's earlier work for the BBC and more closely resemble the feature films that he would make later. He handles relatively action-packed sequences as well as he does the dialogue-heavy ones, for example during the battle between villagers and police and army in the second episode, which sees the camera getting up close, drawing the viewer into the action. When actors are talking, which is most of the time, he makes good use of close-ups; Loach is a director who has always given his cast members plenty of room.

Of that cast, Paul Copley stars as Ben, and gives a brilliant, naturalistic performance, particularly when he sees a comrade killed by a landmine in Episode One, and when he becomes increasingly impressionable and passionate about Communism in the later episode. The rest of the large cast consists largely of jobbing actors familiar from a dozen BBC productions of the era, and some less so: Nikolas Simmonds gives an earnest (if occasionally slightly stilted) performance as Philip Hargreaves, but frequently fluffs his lines. There's a scene with Philip and Clifford Kershaw's Tom Matthews in which the characters discuss the rights and wrongs of war, and both actors stumble over their dialogue. By contrast, Gary Roberts, in what appears to have been his first television role of not very many, gives a much more impressive performance as Joel Barnett, whilst famous faces at early stages of their career include Alun Armstrong as Billy Shepherd and Stephen Rea as a reporter.

In keeping with most of Allen and Loach's work, every character feels real - for better or for worse. Days of Hope is now largely forgotten except by Loach and Allen fans, and it is very much a product of its time - overly long, slow and occasionally dull. But it remains compelling, even for audience members who disagree with its politics, and if nothing else it showcases Loach's talents as a director when he was still in the early days of his long cinema career.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
excellent series
marktayloruk9 July 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Held my interest and I'm a Conservative! I must say that I found the character Sarah rather offputting. I believe there should have been a sequel-Philip would,I think,have wound up a Minister in the 1945 Government and then in the House of Lords.Ben stuck with the Communist Party,gone out to Spain, eventually left the Party over Humgary.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A compassionate study of hopes and hopes deceived.
tonyglad27 February 1999
Kenneth Loach's story of three people living through the period between the world wars covers the recovery from the slaughter after 1918, the conflict in Ireland, the Depression and the general strike. Though the overall outcome is a betrayal of the hopes of ordinary people, it is not depressing or preachy. The director's point of view is always overt, but the great impressions are of compassion and of complete truthfulness in the representation of characters. After seeing and hearing one of the group scenes, of conversations in a pub, for example, you realise that every similar scene you've experienced before in film or on television was quite artificial. The rather drawn face of the (then young) Paul Copley in the leading role is unforgettable. This is at the top of my great experiences on television.
17 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The most moving TV miniseries I have seen
dblomberg8 May 2004
I have searched high and low in video stores for this. I think it is the most memorable TV drama I have seen, even though it is now almost 30 years since I saw it. I kept waiting for replays. I was gratified to read a couple of years ago that Phillip Adams, a prominent Australian commentator on movies and everything else (and heavily involved in Oz film and advertising) placed this #1 on his list of TV shows. You want reasons? All I remember now is the emotional power, the deep sense of injustice, the face of the CO given white feathers in England, later in France taken out to be wired to a post in No Man's Land. Why is this not shown again? Or did the BBC destroy the tapes, like they did with most of 'Not only, but also'?
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The golden age of TV drama
emuir-114 September 2013
TV doesn't get any better than this. During the 1970's there was a golden age of TV drama which produced some magnificent series. I Claudius, Fall of Eagles, the Glittering Prizes and the very naturalistic Days of Hope which was more of a fly-on-the wall style of drama. For the first time regional accents were not confined to the lower working class, simpletons, maids, char ladies and criminals, but were spoken by real people. The class struggle of the working class to obtain a better life and not be used as cheap labor and serfs by the upper classes, who seemed to think that they had a right to superiority and that the underclass should be grateful for their guidance, and the ultimate betrayal of their struggle is shown in this drama which begins in WWI where the poor were cannon fodder, and ends with the general strike of 1926. It may seem shocking to modern audiences, but the men returning from WWI faced wage cuts combined with longer hours as their wages were tied to the commodity price of their production. For many there was only unemployment. There was no national health care. Wages were subsistence. Housing was tied to employment, lose your job and out on the street you go. There was no further education for the children of the poor, in fact at 12 they went on half time, half the day at school and the other half in the mine or the mill.

It would not be until after the second world war that they would begin to rise above poverty and inferiority and be treated as individuals. Just as the returning soldiers from WWI were betrayed by the politicians, as were the countries of the middle east and far east which were divided up as spoils of war, the working men and their families were treated as a disposable commodity by the ruling class. Even in the 60's a regional accent was a barrier to advancement in employment or society, and the class system definitely still existed.

The sad thing today is seeing how the descendants and beneficiaries of the labor movement have abused and taken for granted the fruits of the struggle.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Incisive political drama- UK 1918-26 A must see film
danlloydE22 December 2011
This is a brilliant and moving Film Verite that shows the complicated lives of a single family directly after the first world war Loach comments on the chaos, stitch-up, and buried hopes of a world full of hope for a better world after the war to end all wars. The acting is first-class and this film deserves to be seen by everyone. Unfortunately, the BBC were told not to show the film again in the UK, though it was sold abroad to many countries, Rumour has it that the originals were actually destroyed at the behest of the British government. In 1975 we named our lefty football team after it,which played in Bristol on Sundays till 2005. It would be fantastic if someone could admit to having a copy of the film. There are so many who would like to see and appreciate it again.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I need a copy of it
kevin-cook318 September 2003
this was a great bbc tv series by ken loach directing ,jim allen writing and tony garnett producing but I can`t find a copy anywhere ,has anyone got one ,please? It seems the bbc are not going to rebroadcast which is a shame as it was a classic like so many Ken Loach films,so it`s a faint hope that someone videod it in 1974/5 slim but worth a try
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Available as part of Ken Loach Box Set
christopherdunne-7637210 October 2023
Four film's following three young members of a Yorkshire farming family. Spanning the period from the First World War to the General Strike. Left wing working class history of a superior sort. Broadcast in 1975 (the 70s were a very radical cultural decade) Covers conscientious objectors, Durham miners strike and rise of the Labour Party. Excellent acting and very engaging script. I still found it a brilliant bit of social history so missing these days. Caused an absolute stink when broadcast lots of criticism from the usual right wing parties. It was felt that the series was too critical of the army Soviet and police etc. A landmark series. The best of loach (director) Tony Garnett ( Producer) and Jim Allen (Writer)
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Another grim "Up with the Working Class" message film from Ken Loach
210west4 August 2022
Okay, let's give credit where it's due: As in other Loach productions, the actors in this grim, earnest series look and sound relatively real. And as for one of the issues raised in the first installment -- whether Britain was wise to have entered the Great War -- I'd probably side, thanks to 20-20 hindsight, with those who wanted to stay out... which is certainly the point of view Loach is advocating.

But throughout his career, every film he's made is meant to convey some sort of heavy-duty left-wing political message - in this case, a numbingly predictable one about how the working class has been duped, screwed, and exploited. And because his movies are less interested in entertaining us than they are about Teaching Us a Lesson, I find myself tuning out. Granted, some lefty friends of mine revere Loach, because his films reflect and confirm their political beliefs. But for me, they're just skillfully made propaganda.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed