criterionforum.org

Yes I think that's going in the opposite direction of what I said though, reverting to semantics based on your own peeve to highlight a broader point instead of focusing on the specifics detailed. I said "biographical period-films" with the "biographical" as the adjective signifying what I generally didn't like, which I suppose could have been unclear. You're right that I love The Informant! which meets that criteria, but I think you know what I mean especially after having an apathetic attitude to Mr. Turner and directly comparing this to that, simply in terms of how it appeared to be, judged from a distance, which I also admitted is unfair. Some of my favorite films are loosely "period films" (just look at three of my top Bogdanovich's, not to mention most of PTAs, for American movies off the top of my head), but I said I tend to find the average "biographical period-film" to be personally tough to attach to more than most other genres. This does not mean that there isn't merit in many, or that I'm not able to flex my perspective to giving them rope. I've come around to confronting that bias - yet my point is that it's a conditioned response to being more prone to ignoring them that I need to continuously push myself to overcome, which then caused me to completely forget that this one existed despite it being by a favorite filmmaker, if that makes more sense (In general it felt like a puzzling interaction where I admitted to a fault in my approach to a certain kind of film and you decided to go on the offensive to poke holes in what was already revealed as a giant hole in essence). I trust your tastes, and often seek out movies I wouldn't otherwise based on them, so my initial post was an admission to this one totally slipping off my to-watch list rather than a preliminary dismissal of its worth.

Finally caught up with this and although I cannot fault it for its formalism, I was left shrugging like at Mr. Turner by the dry, safe delivery of the material. I can appreciate knives' comparison to Dickens, but my own disinterest stems from what I perceive to be an overcrowded population of bland characters engaging with mannerisms that don't say much to me, and the crowded nature of thinly veiled people blocks much of the empathy that is probably deserved here. I find Leigh to be masterful, as usual, at drawing this compassion out of small gestures, looks, and nonverbal responses, but they're just too little and spread too far between for me. I miss him using his skills for more experimental actor-driven construction of events based on character, working out from the details rather than going the other way with pre-scripted historical narrative serving as a canvas to color in small idiosyncrasies. I just think that his prior, unique process plays to his strengths- as well as my interest, while the colored-in flourishes just aren't enough to elicit the same kind of raw emotion.

Hopefully you could at least appreciate that ending which is as haunting a conclusion as I can remember. It almost reminds me of Tarantino.

Are you referring to the massacre itself or the conversations after? As for the massacre, it definitely was unsettling in its graphic wails and extended forced attention- which answered the confusion I had when the film was rated PG-13 and thought to myself, "Oh, they're going to dull down the horrific effects of this massacre"- Nope!

Both are amazing in their own ways, but I meant the conversation.

I just rewatched it, and yes, very eerie especially the implications for how intention is spun in media and general manipulations of history, as well as a lack of awareness and the untouchable nature of aristocracy. The euphoric repetition of "tranquility!" with a smile reminded me more of Lynch or other filmmakers who engage in more behavioral surrealism, to juxtapose what we are feeling, and what they should be feeling, with their mismatched attitudes to highlight the absurdism.

Yeah. When I rewatched this, the film caught hold of me, the way uses dialogue and character to illustrate the disconnect in perceptions took me for a ride. We end with these three bizarre people who seem to have no competencies, that grape, discussing an event no one saw essentially.

Yeah I just rewatched the ending twice and it was perfect, definitely makes me appreciate the film a lot more (endings do that). Maybe if I ever do a full revisit of Mike Leigh's filmography the other parts will hold up better in that context (I still have a couple of his television films to go before I can call myself a completist though)

I really do think the film is a masterclass of characterization and my rewatch helped show the beats of all of these reoccurring characters who are where all the themes derive from. I also imagine the film would work well next to Vera Drake which I would argue is the film's closest antecedent.

I’d agree with that, though perhaps tellingly it’s the celebrated Leigh I find most overrated. I still like it though

It was my previous favorite so I suspect we get very different things out of him.

By the way (and sorry that I still have not got to Peterloo in my 'to watch' pile as yet to be able to talk about it) if anyone is interested in another film in a similar vein that takes place historically thirty or so years later from the events of Peterloo, I would recommend The Rochdale Pioneers, about the creation of the first successful co-operative movement.

That does sound interesting. Thanks Colin.