Talk:I, Daniel Blake

WCA Portrayal

I've restored the "ludicrous box-ticking exercise" portrayal phrase, as:

1. It's right at the start of the film in a prominent position
2. The WCA is integral to the plot
3. It is obviously portrayed as ludicrous and box-ticking - and gets cinema laughs; that doesn't mean WCAs are ludicrous in reality, but that is how it's shown in the film

--Dr Greg Wood (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Correction of plot to an encylopedic tone

I had to correct the tone of the plot section, it previously read as the following.

Daniel Blake is a 59-year-old joiner living in the North-East of England. He has worked all his adult life but recently had a major heart attack. When we meet him, his recovery is incomplete and his cardiologist is concerned that Daniel's heart might begin to beat abnormally, putting him at risk of developing a life-threatening arrhythmia.

Daniel has fair day-to-day function – he shops, does DIY and generally looks after himself – and does score some points at his eligibility assessment for the sickness benefit called Employment and Support Allowance; unfortunately, his points tally is below the threshold needed to qualify for this benefit and so he is deemed fit for work. Daniel has assumed that the unspecified "healthcare professional" from the global outsourcing company that carried out his Work Capability Assessment (portrayed as a ludicrous box-ticking exercise) has contacted his doctors for information on his condition, but she has not. The upshot is that the test's criterion for people who are at risk – which would have qualified Daniel for sickness benefits – is not applied by the Job Centre's ubiquitous but unseen "decision-maker". Daniel's only option is to claim Jobseekers' Allowance (JSA) for people who are able and ready to work, while he waits for the appeal on his ESA to be arranged.

While Daniel struggles inside a web of red tape, he meets single mother Katie and her two children, Dylan and Daisy, who to escape a homeless persons' hostel in London, take up residence 300 miles (480 kilometres) away in Newcastle. Katie has been "sanctioned" – her benefits have been stopped because she briefly got lost on the way to the Job Centre – and she cannot feed everyone in her family nor heat their apartment. Widower Daniel, single-parent Katie and her children together face poverty and humiliation caused, says Loach, by a system that is designed, at best, to drive them into the black economy, or, at worst, to crush them completely between its robotic jaws.

There are elements of this section which disobeys WP:MOS, WP:FICT and WP:PLOTSUM.

When we meet him

Cannot address the reader, MOS:PERSON/MOS:YOU.

Daniel has fair day-to-day function

This is quite a wooly, needlessly generalised interpretation (cannot engage in a interpretation of a work. MOS:PLOT). Just describe what happens, "Daniel continues his day-to-day functions".

Is deemed fit for work

Enclosed "fit for work" in double quotes. For readers unfamiliar with British welfare system, should be clarified that this is a specific term.

(portrayed as a ludicrous box-ticking exercise)

Plot summaries cannot engage in a interpretation of a work. MOS:PLOT

While Daniel struggles inside a web of red tape

I left this part unedited, but this needs to be rewritten, this is potentially confusing for readers. WP:IDIOM

ubiquitous but unseen

This point needs to be rewritten in a way that doesn't require the reader to extrapolate plot details as to what it means to be "unseen" in spite of being "ubiqutuous". Does it mean "is not applied by the Job Centre's "decision-maker", Daniel criticises the "decision-maker" as an "unseen" figure despite being portrayed as ubiqtuously present by the Job Centre"? Not sure.

Widower Daniel, single-parent Katie and her children together face poverty and humiliation caused, says Loach, by a system that is designed, at best, to drive them into the black economy, or, at worst, to crush them completely between its robotic jaws.

Plot summaries cannot engage in a interpretation of a work. Loach's intepretation needs to be cut out and placed in a different and appropriate section (as well as referenced to a source and enclosed in double quotes) - for now, it is better to cut it out all together. MOS:PLOT.

I hope you understand why these changes were necessary, and thank you if you do. This isn't the worst plot summary I've seen (if it was, given things I've come across, I would've deleted this section altogether!), did my best to retain as much of the original details as possible. This article is potentially significant, don't wish to risk it in the future requriing a major clean up.

Derick1259 (talk)

Some of what you say I agree with. The more lyrical bit is probably better left out. However, the detail about the WCA is important to understand what has happened to Daniel. I think you also have to have a sense of the Kafkaesque nature of the film - all the reviews picked up on it. Otherwise, you'd end up saying 'Jaws' was about marine biology or fishermen or beach holidays, instead of jeopardy and struggle! Dr Greg Wood (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Jaws is actually a fantastic example of a good plot summary, a long-standing featured article it is. I think I understand your point on emphasising the significance about the WCA in the film. Can we at least reword this so we're not using a strongly emotive adjective ('ludicrous') and opt for something like 'portrayed a tediously drawn out box-ticking excercise'. I understand from the edit history that I'm not the only one who found this phrasing contentious given it comes off as an interpretation, despite you'd no doubt insist that's how its inherently portrayed. Worth making this more clarified. Derick1259 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Simplistic instead of ludicrous? Dr Greg Wood (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

That'll do, thank you. Derick1259 (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Have either of you actually seen the film? Veryscarymary (talk) 10:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)