January 25, 2024 - 6:00pm
The Kitchen, a new dystopian thriller directed by Daniel Kaluuya, arrived on Netflix at the end of last week. A tale of haves and have-nots set in London in 2040, the film presents us with “a future where the gap between the rich and the poor has reached its limits”, and where the vast majority of social housing has been privatised. Kaluuya calls the work both a dystopian drama and a “love letter to London”.
Britain’s capital has been the backdrop for many dystopian visions, on page and screen. An oppressed underclass might struggle against an authoritarian government, as in Nineteen Eighty-Four or V For Vendetta. An experimental way of living could be introduced, leading to violent class struggle, as happens in J.G. Ballard’s High Rise, while Brave New World depicts a stratified society in which the underlings have their agency taken away via doping. In each case, a key theme is the desire to escape.
The Kitchen, however, is different, telling a deeply confused story which manages to both romanticise and applaud poverty. The deprivation in which the underdogs live turns out to be the status quo they are righteously campaigning to uphold. The titular housing estate more closely resembles university halls than a crumbling slum under siege — walls are painted goofy colours and cheerful reggae fills the corridors.
Talk of food scarcity doesn’t stop our protagonists from enjoying a full English at the local greasy spoon, which is softly lit with chic, rustic furniture. This sentimentalised depiction of inner-city, below-the-line living would be difficult to accept were the film set in 2024. As a vision of a future London in which the gap between rich and poor has been stretched further than it already is, it verges on delusional.
Kaluuya’s low estimation of the richer London outside the Kitchen is cartoonishly signposted. Where the estate’s colour palette is a technicolour dream, a step outside brings a shift to drab greyness. The main character, Izi, manages to put down a deposit for a new flat outside the estate through no great struggle, simply by turning up for his relatively low-pressure nine-to-five. The ease with which he leaves the Kitchen prompts viewers to ponder: if moving out of a food and water-deprived “slum” is an option, why don’t the other residents want to do the same?
The answer the film seemingly posits is: because poverty isn’t all that bad. It also makes people happier, kinder and more community-minded. Those like Izi, who want running water and to own a house, end up sad and alone.
This attitude can also be seen in the most recent series of Top Boy, a gritty drama about gang warfare on the fictional Summerhouse estate in Hackney. Earlier series were brutal in their depiction of the violence and deprivation estate residents had to endure. But the show’s last episodes began to drift into sentimental territory. Despite unemployment, drug addiction and murder still being prevalent at Summerhouse in Series Three, hackneyed storylines then took over, making sure to inform the audience of the estate’s enviable community spirit.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI watched the first 30 minutes and turned it off. I had no idea what the storyline was. Kinda confusing. I liked the main character, but what’s the point if you don’t know what’s going on?
And I really don’t mind movies with an underlying theme that I find annoying and distasteful. Look Up was a great movie with quirky characters, but a theme I found completely delusional.
the vast majority of social housing has been privatised.
This may come as a shock to Mr. Kaluuya, but most people live in private homes.
A lack of council houses is the biggest cause of hardship. High private rents mean wages have to be higher or subsidised by the state in order for people to have a roof over their head. It also means they have less money to spend on businesses that create jobs and growth, leading to lower productivity
Who pays for the council houses? Do they appear by magic with a wand supplied for decoration and repairs? How will the rents be decided and who pays for the subsidy?
How much does the state currently hand over each year to private landlords in order to help those whose wages don’t cover the extortionate rents? Wouldn’t it be much better to instead use that money to build homes so the state gets an asset for its outlay and tenants have more money to spend on local businesses that create jobs and growth?
“A lack of council houses is the biggest cause of hardship.”
Yeah, right. Back when most non-owned homes were council houses, that was the main source of hardship.
You’re talking out of your arse.
So you disagree with my statement above? You’d rather the status quo where the government hands over billions of pounds to private landlords annually and gets nothing to show for it? You don’t believe the high rents charged (leaving little disposable income to spend elsewhere) are a drag on the wider economy?
The answer to this is not more council houses, it’s more houses! Then more people could own houses and rented accommodation would be cheaper
Classic problem for the Left: decrying poverty while romanticizing the poverty-stricken.
This reviewer totally missed the point ofTHE KITCHEN. You CAN’T glamorize POVERTY. The POOR everywhere make the BEST of their lives especially when they feel there is nothing they can do to change their circumstances. This review is NOT a fair representation of THE KITCHEN. My email address is [email protected] I’m a writer this person doesn’t understand the word WRITER. What she wrote bears no resemblance to THE KITCHEN I watched. HIRE ME.
Did you enjoy it? I thought the storyline was confusing. I actually didn’t know what the storyline was so I turned it off.
I don’t think going ham with capitals and making demands in a comment section is likely to result in gainful employment. You may have to try the arduous and gruelling task of pitching, just like everybody else (and I mean pitching for articles, not pitching more of your toys out of the pram).
I don’t have Netflix but I’m not surprised to hear of romanticized poverty. Being poor has been romanticized for the last couple of thousand years ever since whoever transcribed Jesus words wrote “Blessed are the Poor” when what he actually said was “Fucked are the Poor”. Even among “the Poor” there are different communities and as in that last 20 years life has given me glimpses (no more I’m glad to say) I can say a word or two. This image or idea of the warm hearted poor folk who will share everything with you,take you in,feed you,etc they do exist but they are not the POOR poor. Or they couldnt do it. And they are shrewd enough to know when they are being taken advantage of. These are the “respectable poor” who are of no interest to the artistic, the raffish,the high born who want to get down and dirty with lowlife. That sort of poor only accept you into their “community” if you partake of there consumption habits. It’s like an initiation.At some point you’re invited to have a drink with me or smoke a joint,refusal means end of the relationship,thank goodness I’m not that desperate. A significant portion of those poor who you may see in a shop doorway,humble and abject. Not so when off duty. In private they are arrogant and take a weird pride in getting a living for free as they see it. Their conversation is swapping stories of strokes theyve pulled on normal people or the DWP. I’ve never been wealthy but my unsought poverty tourism has given me insights that make me scoff at the pious pronouncements one hears. And I’ve NEVER VOTED TORY. There is nothing cheery,blessed or pleasant about Poverty. It’s inconvenient and robs you of choice and opportunity. Just like Scotland,the best thing about Poverty is the road out of it.