I have very little knowledge of the struggles of Northern Ireland in 1980 and "Hunger" didn't inform much. What it did show was Northern Irish prisoners practicing a form of rebellion in prison that amounted to not wearing clothes, smearing their cells with feces, and pouring their urine into the jail corridors. I know the protest had to be more than that, but I'm merely reporting what the movie showed us.
The protest graduated to a hunger strike which, from the little dialog, was their second hunger strike. This one was led by Bobby Sands (Michael Fassbender). We wouldn't see Bobby Sands until thirty minutes into the movie. We don't hear any dialog until fifteen minutes into the movie. "Hunger" relied largely upon imagery. Personally, I like a blend of imagery and dialog with more of the latter than the former. Imagery works best once a premise has been established by the dialog, it is not as effective to establish the premise.
"Hunger" is probably best viewed by those familiar with the Northern Ireland struggle. If you're like me, then you will garner a small bit of the meaning of their fight and lot of the personal sacrifice made by Bobby Sands.
The protest graduated to a hunger strike which, from the little dialog, was their second hunger strike. This one was led by Bobby Sands (Michael Fassbender). We wouldn't see Bobby Sands until thirty minutes into the movie. We don't hear any dialog until fifteen minutes into the movie. "Hunger" relied largely upon imagery. Personally, I like a blend of imagery and dialog with more of the latter than the former. Imagery works best once a premise has been established by the dialog, it is not as effective to establish the premise.
"Hunger" is probably best viewed by those familiar with the Northern Ireland struggle. If you're like me, then you will garner a small bit of the meaning of their fight and lot of the personal sacrifice made by Bobby Sands.