The film stars Fassbender as Bobby Sands, the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) member who led the second IRA hunger strike and participated in the no wash protest (led by Brendan "The Dark" Hughes) in which Irish republican prisoners tried to regain political status after it had been revoked by the British government in 1976.
Prison officer Raymond Lohan prepares to leave for work, cleaning his wounded knuckles and checking his car for bombs.
Sands tells the priest that he drowned the foal and that although he got into trouble for it, he knew he had done the right thing by ending the animal's suffering.
Sometime later, Bobby is well into his hunger strike, suffering from weeping sores, kidney failure, low blood pressure, and stomach ulcers.
A textual epilogue reveals that Sands was elected to the United Kingdom Parliament as MP for Fermanagh and South Tyrone while he was on the hunger strike.
Shortly afterward, the British government conceded in one form or another to virtually all of the prisoners' five demands despite never officially granting them political status.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Fassbender said that he skipped, did yoga, and walked four and a half miles a day, but also added that he had difficulty sleeping, and stopped seeing friends.
[5] The film is also notable for an unbroken 17-minute shot, in which a priest played by Liam Cunningham tries to talk Bobby Sands out of his protest.
The website's critical consensus states, "Unflinching, uncompromising, vivid and vital, Steve McQueen's challenging debut is not for the faint hearted, but it's still a richly rewarding retelling of troubled times.
[13] Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times spoke most positively of the piece stating, "Hunger is not about the rights and wrongs of the British in Northern Ireland, but about inhumane prison conditions, the steeled determination of IRA members like Bobby Sands, and a rock and a hard place.
"[14] Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, regarded the film highly and said: "Shockingly immediate and philosophically reflective, Hunger is an indelibly moving tribute to what makes us human."
"[15] Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian scored the piece a maximum five stars, writing, "There is an avoidance of affect and a repudiation of the traditional liberal-lenient gestures of dialogue, dramatic consensus and narrative resolution.
On either side of its middle section, where the very wordiness stands ironic witness to the ultimate impossibility to explain, Hunger has the power and hieratic integrity of silent cinema.
"[18] Matthew De Abaitua of Film4 scored the film five out of five stars, "Intense, disturbing and powerful mix of vision and detail: a recreation of a terrible time combined with a vivid and distinctive artistic sensibility.
"[20] Dave Calhoun of Time Out, gave the film a maximum five stars, stating "Imagine how most filmmakers would tell this story and then see 'Hunger': the differences are bold and powerful and restore faith in cinema's ability to cover history free from the bounds of texts and personalities.
Club highlighted "Hunger may be criticized for being willfully arty, or for reducing a complex political situation to a broadly allegorical vision of martyrdom, but it's never less than visually stunning.
"[22] Critic J. Hoberman of The Village Voice called the film, "A superbly balanced piece of work" and a "compelling drama that's also a formalist triumph."
"[26] Ann Hornaday of The Washington Post was very praising of the film, writing, "McQueen has taken the raw materials of filmmaking and committed an act of great art."