criterionforum.org

Seems to follow Mr. Turner, but with a whole Loach vibe. Anyway I'm in.

I would expect it to be a heck of a lot bloodier than Mr Turner. I remember back in the late 90s whilst doing an A level history course that one of my lecturers diverted the class away from the Tudors for a lesson to bring a guest lecturer in to talk about the Peterloo Massacre in 1819. Peterloo directly led to the formation of the Manchester Guardian (now just the Guardian since its move down south in 1959), as it was created in the wake of the closure of the Manchester Observer, who had invited the speaker to the public meeting that the events occurred at. The Peterloo Massacre also inspired the Percy Shelley poem The Masque of Anarchy. (Here's a link to the full poem)

I think that I was only taught about it because I had a bit of a left leaning History teacher during my A-levels and lived in near enough proximity to Manchester to have had that guest lecturer brought in - this appears to be an event that is probably very little known or taught about outside of the north west of England at the moment, let alone internationally, but it is a touchstone for leftwing radical politics (and had a bit of a resurgence in the wake of Jeremy Corbyn leading the Labour party) so it will be interesting to see how this is received. It is certainly going to be Mike Leigh's most overtly political film just from the context it will be operating in.

(I remember thinking at the time that there could also be a weird parallel to be drawn to the even bloodier Amritsar Massacre (which gets depicted in Richard Attenborough's film on Gandhi), which occurred almost exactly 100 years after Peterloo)

Leigh has never struck me as a director to overindulge ( I haven't seen much of his work.) so IMdb listing the film as PG-13 here in the States for "a sequence of violence and chaos" seems appropriate. Seems he won't be going all Hacksaw Ridge on us.

All these leftist movies are hitting at just the right time. Not that U.S. midterm swing voters are going to be rushing out to see Peterloo, mind you.

Big Ben wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 9:36 pm Leigh has never struck me as a director to overindulge ( I haven't seen much of his work.) so IMdb listing the film as PG-13 here in the States for "a sequence of violence and chaos" seems appropriate. Seems he won't be going all Hacksaw Ridge on us.

Isn't every Mike Leigh film but this rated R though?

Mostly for language though. Or Vera Drake's abortion theme.

Another Year was PG-13.

Leigh's been so consistently great that he's easy to take for granted. I admittedly prefer when he works on a smaller scale because I cannot think of any other director who better dramatizes his/her scenarios than move from plot-point to plot-point, but a Mike Leigh movie on Peterloo is still an opening day movie.

A no-star approach seems natural for this material, but it still seems notable that this is the first Leigh film (at least looking at the cast list on Wikipedia) since Four Days in July to not feature anyone from his regular players.

It looks like Rory Kinnear is going to play Henry Hunt, who was the radical speaker that the cavalry trying to arrest sparked off the massacre. And Maxine Peake is in there too, so they will be the recognisable names even if they have not been in a Mike Leigh film before.

I am mostly hoping that the actual events of Peterloo will be the backdrop to the film and we will get much more into the debates around the subject of parliamentary reform and the importance of the press to speak to power (maybe it will neatly bookend the year that began with The Post!). Much as Topsy-Turvy was a bit more about probing into the creative processes in the relationship of Gilbert and Sullivan, and the marshalling of a company of actors than just about the creation of The Mikado itself.

Mark Kermode on Peterloo

I can also confirm that the Daily Mail gave the film one star in their reviews last Friday, so that must mean the film was doing something right!

I saw Peterloo this afternoon and loved it. Top shelf Leigh and a surprise to see Amazon co-producing such a radical film as events remain painfully relevant today. The production side of the film from art director, to costume design, to make-up, etc is all exceptional. Leigh's ability to intercut and edit the scenes and the progress the stories from the viewpoints of his huge cast was impressive. Shame its gotten so many negative reviews.

It'll probably not play here. Will have to keep checking justwatch to see when it's streaming.

Since no one else on the board was either attending last night, or at least not woken up yet to post anything, I will be the first to update. At the Wexner Center conversation last night here in Columbus, Mike Leigh gave a very enjoyable discussion and Q&A on several of his films and jumped into Peterloo at times. We were not allowed to record the event on my phones so I took copious notes on my legal pad. Leigh said that he will begrudgingly admit that when he first started researching Peterloo in 2014 he had no idea that by the time of its release it would be "prescient" about our current political climate and how two-hundred years apart does not end the need for protesting. The discussion moderator, Shawn Sullivan, asked if this could be considered a Brexit-film, and Leigh chuckled and admitted it could, but that it was not his intention. Leigh did smile at the Brexit-question but seemed very reticent to elaborate on this further.

Leigh later said that his worst moment directing the film was when he was setting up the massacre shots and realized that at some point after its release, someone would be watching this on a iphone instead of on a big screen in a a "communal" atmosphere in a theatre-setting.

I think my favorite moment of his chat about this (just as a former history teacher myself) was when he described getting permission to have the actors portraying the magistrates to go to Kew and read the letters written by the 1819 counterparts. I wish he had clarified what dialogue was verbatim from those letters and which were paraphrased, he did say that it was a bit of both.

Wow, I wish I had known! Thanks for this update britcom68. Did they say if they have plans to release video footage of this conversation?

I did not think to ask about whether they would record this or not. They used to live-stream a lot of their QandAs but none recently have I seen. I did not see anything in checking the Wexner website about the Mike Leigh discussion being recorded. However, I will say that I did not see any cameras, tripods or any other video equipment setup, and, for what its worth, they did have a few mic issues at times and there was no sense of Wexner staff rushing around replacing batteries or checking the speakers at all when that happened and no chatter about it affecting any recording. I will also say that from a legal standpoint, if they were recording, they ought to have made an announcement up front.

If anyone is interested I took two pages down of notes from the event and I can share all, although I pretty much just recapped anything worth repeating on Peterloo in my prior post. Leigh did have a lot to say on Happy Go Lucky, Another Year, Secrets and Lies, and Topsy-Turvy. I do not mind splitting up my notes and posting the content on all relevant threads, or I can do so here so that only one page is just bumped up.

Well, Secrets and Lies and Topsy-Turvy are movies that I adore as much as any ever made. The later in particular could have gone on forever. So any tidbits on those, or Happy Go Lucky would be appreciated.

For the benefit of clarification, I will be making the related notes to Topsy-Turvy under the spine’s own dedicated thread. Since Leigh did discuss and took several questions related to that film, it will be easier to follow there. Also, I honestly would advise that there wasn’t much discussed further on Peterloo by Leigh during his talk or during the Q and A, except I also made a marginal notation that he said of this film’s reception, it “hasn’t been around as much as one would like.”

Just so everyone is clear, as a former statehouse legislative clerk, history nut/teacher and political cartoonist, I take citations seriously and I only include quotation marks when I was able to write the words down verbatim. Perhaps at some later date the Wexner will release a transcript of Leigh’s talk, but since I did not see any recording equipment or announcements concerning that, I honestly am in doubt if that may happen.

The Wexner Center’s Leigh evening started with its films director, David, who- naturally enough- rhetorically asked the audience is it ok to say this is one director who needs no intro, and then proceeded to give an introduction on Leigh’s career and awards lasting some two minutes.

When Leigh came onto the stage he had a matched maroon-colored flannel shirt and trousers and dark blue or black socks and Leigh was commented upon by the Wexner director as being noted for his unique character as much as for his unique appearance. Leigh did smile a bit and did not object at that.

Leigh’s first remarks were about the craft of filmmaking and his unique structure of focus on backstories of characters and their improv during rehearsal. As he put it, he felt this did unfortunately mean there were times of not knowing what you are doing entirely, but it is better to do this than allow actors to be isolated. Leigh commented that actors often only look at the script or treatment pages related to their own character and how limiting that is for all concerned. Leigh commented that he had nothing but respect for actors but that, in his estimation, one should not loose ones self, as with the Method school of acting. The Actors Studio itself he singled out especially to say it is “impractical” as pedagogy. Leigh went on to say that even with a “conventional” play or film, even studio blockbusters, that at “some point [during its production] nothing was there.” Starting without a script, Leigh continued, was essential to his way of creating a story, a “rich and terrifying experience,” but also not entirely unique.

The moderator, Shawn Sullivan, asked Leigh about his relationship to film structure, in particular to his film, Secrets and Lies. Sullivan asked if Leigh felt criticism against this film was correct that there was at least one sub-plot element that was “extraneous” to which Leigh replied that quality of characters and form and content are as one. But Leigh did acknowledge he felt that from the “Hollywood” studio/executive perspective that yes, Secrets and Lies had a lot to it around the periphery, but that when viewed only from the focus of characters, that sub-plots are often needed, even if they do not advance the plot in any way. Leigh was not argumentative but rather jovial and stated that only “boneheads” wanted to cut away at Secrets and Lies anyway, as it was “boring” to insider-Hollywood suits. Leigh said he was actually close during post-production to agreeing to some more cuts but that he wisely ignored this, mostly as he was tired of hearing so many suggestions.

Sullivan next asked Leigh about his choices for when to shoot on location and when he decides that it is not necessary to do so, and his preferences for interior versus exterior shooting scenes. Leigh cited his Vera Drake as an example where it was needed to go onto the set as he felt it was a period piece but didn’t want to focus on the period sets of the outside world, just the period-sets related to the essential elements, that of Vera’s flat. Leigh said that rounding up period trams, cars and exterior shots would have been what some people wanted to see but that it was not needed for the titular character at all. Leigh said he grew up knowing women of Vera Drake’s generation and that he felt perhaps it was that connection which made him want to re-focus the attention to her rather than the greater world intruding around her at the edges. He stated that shooting on location would also not have allowed certain angles to be shot, as removing walls were necessary in her flat’s interior shots. Leigh stated that he believed interior scenes should connect to exterior scenes in a practical way, but did not elaborate with any specific examples from his films.

Sullivan segued to ask Leigh why in 50 years of filmmaking, the first 25-years of Leigh’s career did not include any intentionally “period” films, and why this break occurred only after making Secrets and Lies. Leigh replied that focusing on the “present”-tense rather than past always appeals to him, but that he felt with age and experience he was better able to trust telling stories from characters not contemporary to himself only after making stories with characters that were not from period settings.

When the discussion’s moderator asked Leigh to elaborate on specific actors Leigh has worked with, they focused on Leslie Manville. Sullivan pointed out to the audience that she “holds the record” for working with Leigh more often than any other actor. Leigh replied that he felt that her performance in Secrets and Lies was “not destructive” but rather just, “distracted” as the case-worker, and how it was a small but important part nonetheless. Leigh felt that her character in particular was good, but not always perceived well in criticism, partly due to the character’s relationship to the others in the film. Leigh went on to say that Manville was “great” to work with, with a great sense of humor. He felt that she was likely to start making more of impression on this side of the Atlantic (Ocean) following her well-deserved praise for Phantom Thread. Leigh was asked if her prior roles informed on their next collaborations, but Leigh responded that no, this is not a part of their working relationship. Leigh said that he admires actors who are intelligent enough to rehearse in character and then drop out of character so that they can “objectively” look at mistakes or ways for improvement. Leigh said that the honing use of the Method-acting can cause harm and “real trauma” to the actors, in that he does not wish them to feel the physical pain that their character feels too intensely. Leigh went on to say that he likes working with actors, like Manville, who can take a bit of character from one person in real life, and then a bit from a totally separate person, to create something unexpected in rehearsals without going too inward. Leigh said that “loads of actors are thick as shit” but he likes working with all types of actors.

Sullivan next asked Leigh about his relationships and perspective on music and composers. Leigh said that he has a “very conventional” process with composers, but he went on to say that he likes composers that can emotionally relate with the films. Leigh stated that, “for me the best day of making film is the day, or days, when recording the music.” Leigh said that it was “very exciting” being in the company of musicians and that he has only had one film with no live musicians for that reason. Leigh said that it was a great treat to pile into the control-room with the musicians and listen to the playback of their tracks.

Sullivan asked Leigh about his television work and Leigh seemed to change his tone, a little more reticence and almost brittle at times. Leigh explicitly said that of Meantime and High Hopes they were only made because he got a shot to work with Channel 4 and BBC when no film studio would give him those chances and he is grateful for that. He also said he was thankful that British television helped both him and Stephen Frears, at a time when they couldn’t get a film made with any UK studios. But, he did say that he finds working in TV very limiting. Leigh pointed out that if one is filming something multi-camera for television, the camera-operators and the director alike often cannot see each other or the different angles until they view the rushes and how that frustrates him. Leigh said he does not regret making a foray into television, for Abigail’s Party, in particular, but that he is not likely to do so again. Leigh noted that his “greater love is filming, but my roots are in theatre.” Leigh said in response to Sullivan’s prodding about the so-called golden-age of at-home streaming that such choices are good, but that on the whole, TV is a “horrible medium” which is unfortunately “kind of mechanical” in ways that theatre and filming is not. Leigh noted that there are times and places to work in film rather than theatre. Leigh pointed out that asking an actor to have a break-down or breaking apart props is difficult to ask them to do on stage and re-create again and again, but how beneficial it is to try to cut that in shots if filming. Leigh said that the one drawback to the stage is that often the audience does not know where to focus their own attentions.

When Sullivan asked Leigh about the current state of affairs, Leigh said that it was “not good news” to be a British filmmaker in America, or a British filmmaker in Britain, or for that matter, a Brit in Britain full-stop. Leigh then directly opened up into the discussion on Peterloo already mentioned in my previous post.

The first question asked by a member of the audience to Leigh was “How did [he] become interested in female psychology.” Leigh said a bit awkwardly that, well, “I had a mother, so that probably had something to do with it.” He said that there have always been women in his life but that he “can’t really answer the question” as it was put to him, which resulted in much audience chuckling.

The next audience question was about the formation of his film structure, and Leigh replied that “on the whole, there is no structure at the beginning,” but that no matter the characters or setting he “always” has “a film in my head.” Leigh gave as an example that he had to give much credit where credit is due to Dick Pope, for Another Year. As Leigh related, it was solely Pope’s tests which led Leigh to decide to structure the film around and showing the seasons, which was not his original vision. Interestingly, Leigh related that Pope said to Leigh that this idea was ludicrous but Leigh said that no, it would work, and that he very much wanted to do it, even though it was just by coincidence that Pope had decided to run these tests in the style of winter, autumn, etc.

When the next audience member asked Leigh about actors and how he works with them to create their characters together so specifically, Leigh asked this audience member if she was an actor herself. The audience member stated she was a former actor, to which Leigh affirmed, “I can smell an actor.” He did not elaborate on her question further than previously discussed, but he did go on to suggest that it can help to give an actor their costumes as early in the film as possible. Leigh divulged that many actors in more conventional studio films, do not even see their costumes until the day of shooting, and that they may feel uncomfortable not only in wearing them (if the costumes are not tailored to even fit right) but at that last-minute feeling of strangeness, of rehearsing or learning lines in their normal “comfortable” clothes and shedding that stability upon the moment of filming with the new set of clothes.

Another audience member asked Leigh about working in non-fiction versus fiction, Leigh responded that it was “simply different ballgame” from one style to the other. Leigh did not say if he had one preference over the other, but he did say that working in non-fiction films, or films based on real persons, “you can read all the books in the world but still” even if you do, not all will show up on screen.

One woman in the audience admittedly gushed profusely when asking Leigh about his choices when casting and creating her favorite film in his oeuvre, Happy Go-Lucky. Leigh said that he honestly didn’t know where that film would take him originally. He continued so say that in so carefully creating the character with Sally Hawkins, how “dangerous” her character could have been to any other film with so “relentlessly a cheerful person.” Leigh noted that in finding the voice of her character, it was important to show she was fully aware she was dealing in often unsavory persons or situations, but that she was in control and could handle herself regardless. Leigh related an anecdote that at her rehearsals with the actor playing her driving instructor, they could not have worked in any “conventional hall” or similar working space where the two were not in close contact, so Leigh had them drive around in a duel-control vehicle and had them rehearse and improve seated up front while he was hunkered down in the rear seat, on the floor mostly.

Leigh notably did not talk or was asked by anyone to talk about Naked, Life is Sweet, Meantime or High Hopes (other than a passing mention as noted above in the case of High Hopes and Meantime).

And that, as they say, is that.

Thanks for the detailed report!

This is first rate reporting britcom68! I’m looking forward to the Topsy-Turvy post.

Him being able to smell an actor was described beautifully, thanks for the chuckle!

Well I guess I make this two people who have seen this extraordinary film. Watching in the midst of reading Little Doritt, which uses the massacre as a piece of background, really highlights how Leigh in good and bad is a modern day Dickens or as is the case here just flatly Dickens. While stolen from Jeeves and Wooster the film's greatest scene at a woman's suffrage meeting contains all the earmarks of Dickens' comedy and characterization for political purposes. Leigh in a hilarious fashion let's be known he realizes that a film such as this might be incomprehensible to the mass that he cares about and so he might be a blind fool. There's a deep humility to the scene that allows an unusual level of empathy even to the figures of the humour.

That leads a bit to the point of Leigh which grated me here. It reminds of a bit from Family Guy, I know, joking that in Spike Lee movies all black people are articulate and well informed while whites are drooling beasts. The class representation here is quite like that wherein the upper class when not acting cruelly, such as in a witty montage of court cases, are showing off their incredible stupidity. Sometimes these upperclass twits can do both at once. Only Hunt seems to have any positive traits and even then he's portrayed as vainglorious and blind. In a phenomenal piece of characterization Hunt complains about being in Manchester for a week to a group of Manchunians. The comedy is effective, but as in Dickens I could see it inviting the criticism of absurdity undermining his criticism (though it equally invites the compliments).

I really love this film and beg others to talk about it.

I've been sleeping on this one after finding Mr. Turner to be a huge disappointment, only in reference to what I look for in a Leigh drama (it's certainly not a 'bad' film), and this looked to be more in line with that. Having seen all of his features and a chunk of his TV work, and holding him in the highest esteem, I should probably just suck it up and give it a go. It's definitely a case of wanting a filmmaker to make the kind of film I want him to make rather than meeting him where he's at. Yet when a guy who makes arguably the most authentically emotional dynamic character dramas turns his attention to the biographical period-films, shifting from my favorite genre to my least favorite, I'm doomed to have an opinion to overcome.

Period, certainly in this case, is not a matter of genre. In the introduction to Little Dorrit I have there's a contemporaneous quote saying that if you thought the novel was about the 1820s you would have to be blind and this is very much the same. It's dealing with contemporary issues with a contemporary mind, The past is merely an illustration to that point the way use of colour in the cinematography is. Being worried you won't like this because of some dislike of period set films is like swearing off Nashville because you don't like country.

K, "genre" was the wrong word when I meant "type," and I'm freely admitting to this being my own preconceived bias I wrestle with as the block to accessing what the film obviously has to offer a flexible position upon entry, since you got something out of it. I'm surprised that wasn't clear. I enjoy it when films use iconography and setting as a dressing or vehicle to apply to modern themes, the film just didn't pique my interest from the glimpses I saw and from what heard from everyone I've spoken to who has seen it, which have been unanimously shrugged responses, but I'll keep your thoughts in mind when I do finally get to it.

The idea of period symbolizing anything is a bit of a pet peeve so apologies if I came across as biting heads. I once met someone who swore Kiera Knightly to be a terrible actress due to her presence in period pictures so your honest assessment of your own biases is not anywhere close to the most outrageous thing I've heard. In any case I'll just point out for all in the audience that The Informant! is a period piece in order to highlight what a strange bias it isn't to have.