Introduction: Guided by the theory of guilt, Blake's tragic ending is already predestined.
The film "I Am Blake" is undoubtedly a film with a socially critical theme. Director Ken Lodge single-handedly attacked the welfare system in the superficial scenery of British society with an unpretentious realist style, targeting the "guilty" welfare system from beginning to end, full of humanistic care for the underclass, and further consolidating its socialist ideas and left-wing political stance, making the film a complete "political criticism film".
The protagonist of the film, Blake, not only wants to apply for social benefits due to physical reasons, but also submits a resume to prove that he still has the ability to work, which makes many people puzzled. In order to better understand the absurd behavior and situation of the protagonist in the film, it is necessary to understand the welfare system of British society, and Blake's dilemma is completely based on this institutional background, so such a strong British style has become a highlight of the film.
Britain, like other advanced capitalist countries in Western Europe, had a high level of welfare policy, and this tradition of caring for the lower classes of the people can be traced back to the Marshall Plan after World War II. In addition to the implementation of the free medical care system, several aspects of social life such as family, education, and old-age care are basically included in the welfare system. The government provides benefits to unemployed and low-income individuals for a one-year, bi-weekly basis, provided that they demonstrate that they are capable of working and are actively seeking employment. Herein lies the problem in the film. Blake was supposed to be entitled to welfare protection because he could not work because of heart disease, but because he did not pass the government's assessment test, he could only apply for unemployment benefits, and the necessary condition for applying for benefits was to find a job and provide proof, so there was dissatisfaction and resistance to the policy.
The Government's original intention was to encourage the unemployed to re-enter employment, and it hoped that through this system provision, applicants would find work as soon as possible. But in reality it's just wishful thinking on the part of the government. Imagine an unemployed person whose first priority after losing his job is not to look for a job but to go to a government agency to provide proof? The director explicitly attacked this, regarded it as the initiator of the film's tragedy, and thus made a series of guilty pushes in the film.
The implementation of the guilty welfare system first stems from the bipolar portrayal of the portrait of the class group. The film begins with a dialogue with apparent power repression. Black was reluctant to answer the tester's series of questions unrelated to the relief request, but the tester's cold and commanding words and verbal threats of institutional regulations forced Black to give in. Since then, the staff in the space of welfare institutions has always been ruthless and mechanical, representing an absolute authority to control the survival of others. The director also carefully set up the "outlier" of authority - Ann, who patiently helped Blake solve the problem. But soon the "outlier" was assimilated by authority, and the closed doors of the superior office blocked the attempts to care for the vulnerable.
But even without this plot, this little care is far from enough to help the Blacks jump out of the prescribed limits. On the other hand, the bottom group represented by Blake, they are kind and helpful, feel sorry for each other, and are full of obvious warmth between their hands and feet. Although such a character design can enrich the character of the character, make Blake's final fate more sympathetic to the audience, and criticize the indifferent government, such an obvious portrayal of traits has to make people question whether they have fallen into the dual perspective of good and evil. This makes the film seem less clever in terms of expression, but it reveals too much political significance. But it is not that warmth cannot appear, but it lacks a background or rationality in the underlying environment of the film, so that warmth flows on the surface. However, through this design, the "abominable" image of government agencies has been artificially consolidated.
Under the paving of this "guilty" identity, the dissatisfaction of the masses at the bottom with the government is long-standing and may erupt at any time. After Blake's repeated unsuccessful complaints, he resolutely rebelled against the government's inaction. However, his resistance only wrote his anger on the façade of the institution, and it was quickly "suppressed" by the police. But this act was presented by the director as a heroic uprising. In the short time before the arrival of the police, Blake attracted the attention of many passers-by and received a unanimous response, and the people along the way took off their clothes and draped them on Blake to show their support, like a hero. It seems that the discontent between the people and the government has reached a point where it is on the verge of erupting.
But in fact, this is only an exaggerated interpretation of the director, and it is an inevitable result of the "guilt theory" set for himself. Also set to provoke the audience is katie forced to become a sex worker. This is the greatest humiliation of female identity. The result of this setting is to put the subtext that the director wants to express - the rigidity and decay of the government mechanism are more and more ready to come out in front of the audience. Perhaps this is the director's understanding of the underclass in reality, or expectation, like his own political ideas. But is there a tendency to use the audience's psychology to set up this group of extremely incited people and poor women to fool the public? Does it also constitute a denial of humanitarianism?
The tragic ending for Blake is to be expected from the beginning of the film. After the director's targeted ridicule of the government and the rigid system, this only ending has long been laid. Blake's problems cannot be solved, whether it is the director's arrangement in the film or the director's position outside the film. Because the government's welfare mechanism is set to be useless from the beginning of the film, it is doomed to a more tragic ending for the vulnerable. In Britain, what happened to Blake in a similar film is indeed real. People who are unable to continue working for various reasons deserve help from the government under welfare mechanisms, but unreasonable regulations make their situation worse, or they are forced to live on the streets because they do not comply with the relief regulations, or they are doing contradictory superficial work by complying with the system. These are indeed the problems that the UK needs to face, and the director's eyes are indeed sharp.
It can be understood that the director has an urgent humanistic concern for the people at the bottom, and uses a pioneering position to express the concern that humanitarianism is neglected. It is also acceptable to bring political positions into one's own works, after all, classics such as Forrest Gump do not simply emphasize personal value. It seems inappropriate to just put political ideas so preconceived into the film, which makes the whole film simply a guilty implementation of the social system, losing room for thinking. Under this premise, fatalism leads Blake into a step-by-step dilemma, and going to death can only be Blake's only end.