[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You did, you made all manner of assertions, that her entire weekly outgoings are less than the cost of a nandos for one!


It matters not if you go in there sympathetic or not, how do you get from the context of abject fuel poverty, food bank use, shoplifting sanitary products that she in actual fact has (or should have in your mind ) more than enough to live on?...

Easy, you ignore that subtext of spiraling debt, shoplifting fines , travel costs, new school uniforms, bills, food/household costs.

No, I don't ignore it. For about the fifth time - *I* do understand those issues and you've been reading my posts on here long enough to know that. I understand the character and how she would end up in that situation. So do you. But we did before we watched the film. A lot of people watching the film DON'T, and that is my entire point. THEY will wonder how on earth it could be happening, because if you take those things out of the equation, it does seem like enough to live on. We are aware that it is not enough because we are already aware of those extra considerations. The film does not address or even hint at those extra considerations. In fact, the film implies that all of her money is sanctioned when she is late, which is false. Therefore, people who don't know about the complex issues going into this film, leave the film... STILL not knowing about those issues.

If the films message only works for those of us who already know it, what is the point of the film? Light entertainment? Is it not aiming to change perceptions? Were your perceptions changed by the film? No, because you were already aware. I am already aware. Does it not have to at least outline these real issues - the ones me and you know about - to those who are ignorant to them and think people "have plenty"... in order to effectively change perceptions? I'm putting myself in the shoes of those people and realising it comes up short. It will not change perceptions.