Jump to content

Naked (1993 film): Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m typos
background reading of Thewlis for prep.
Line 46: Line 46:
==Notes==
==Notes==
[[Sheridan Morley]] described Johnny as, "[[Alfie (1966 film)|Alfie]] in the grips of Thatcherite depression", - thus, according to the critic [[Michael Coveney]], " cross fertilising [[Bill Naughton]]'s chirpy [[Cockney|cockney]] [[Lothario]], immortalised by [[Michael Caine]], with the dark sinister disaffection of the new underclass - a neat way of indicating that the [[Swinging London|Swinging Sixties]] had degenerated into the nauseated Nineties." <ref> Michael Coveney, ''The World According to Mike Leigh'', p.19, Harper Collins, 1996 </ref> Leigh had captured, according to Coveney, something of the anxiety, rootless [[cynicism]], and big-city disaffection of the time.
[[Sheridan Morley]] described Johnny as, "[[Alfie (1966 film)|Alfie]] in the grips of Thatcherite depression", - thus, according to the critic [[Michael Coveney]], " cross fertilising [[Bill Naughton]]'s chirpy [[Cockney|cockney]] [[Lothario]], immortalised by [[Michael Caine]], with the dark sinister disaffection of the new underclass - a neat way of indicating that the [[Swinging London|Swinging Sixties]] had degenerated into the nauseated Nineties." <ref> Michael Coveney, ''The World According to Mike Leigh'', p.19, Harper Collins, 1996 </ref> Leigh had captured, according to Coveney, something of the anxiety, rootless [[cynicism]], and big-city disaffection of the time.

Thewlis's background reading for the part of Johnny included [[Voltaire]]'s ''[[Candide]]'', the teachings of [[Gautama Buddha|Buddha]] and [[James Gleick]]'s ''[[Chaos: Making a New Science|Chaos]]''. <ref> Coveney, p. 27 </ref>
==Criticism==
==Criticism==
[[Julie Burchill]] attacked the film in the ''Sunday Times'', saying that Leigh's characters talked like lobotomized [[Muppets]]; they talked, she said, "sub-wittily, the way [[Diane Arbus]]'s subjects look." And [[Suzanne Moore]] in ''The Guardian'' criticized the lethargic females whose lives Johnny routinely ruins ; "What sort of realism is this? To show a misogynist and surround him with such walking doormats has the effect, intentional or not, of justifying this behaviour." [[Lesley Sharp]] ,(Louise), responded ; " There are a lot of people who don't go to art house cinemas who do have deeply troubled lives and are at risk....We do actually live in a misogynistic, violent society and there are a lot of women in abusive relationships who find it very difficult to get out of them. And a lot of men, too. " The critic [[Michael Coveney]] denied the relevance of the criticism ; " Is there no room for irony, for the idea that in depicting horror in the sex war an artist is exposing them, not endorsing them? And who says that Sophie is an unwilling doormat or that Louise is a doormat at all? It is clear that the latter is taking serious stock of her relationship with Johnny. She exhibits both patience and tenderness in her dealings with him, whereas she finally pulls a knife on Jeremy." <ref> Coveney, p.33-34 </ref>
[[Julie Burchill]] attacked the film in the ''Sunday Times'', saying that Leigh's characters talked like lobotomized [[Muppets]]; they talked, she said, "sub-wittily, the way [[Diane Arbus]]'s subjects look." And [[Suzanne Moore]] in ''The Guardian'' criticized the lethargic females whose lives Johnny routinely ruins ; "What sort of realism is this? To show a misogynist and surround him with such walking doormats has the effect, intentional or not, of justifying this behaviour." [[Lesley Sharp]] ,(Louise), responded ; " There are a lot of people who don't go to art house cinemas who do have deeply troubled lives and are at risk....We do actually live in a misogynistic, violent society and there are a lot of women in abusive relationships who find it very difficult to get out of them. And a lot of men, too. " The critic [[Michael Coveney]] denied the relevance of the criticism ; " Is there no room for irony, for the idea that in depicting horror in the sex war an artist is exposing them, not endorsing them? And who says that Sophie is an unwilling doormat or that Louise is a doormat at all? It is clear that the latter is taking serious stock of her relationship with Johnny. She exhibits both patience and tenderness in her dealings with him, whereas she finally pulls a knife on Jeremy." <ref> Coveney, p.33-34 </ref>

Revision as of 18:29, 30 January 2011

For other uses of naked(ness), see Naked (disambiguation)

Naked
File:307 naked.jpg
Criterion Collection DVD cover for Naked
Directed byMike Leigh
Written byMike Leigh
Produced bySimon Channing-Williams
StarringDavid Thewlis
Lesley Sharp
Katrin Cartlidge
CinematographyDick Pope
Edited byJon Gregory
Music byAndrew Dickson
Distributed byFine Line Features
Release date
1993
Running time
131 minutes
CountryTemplate:FilmUK
LanguageEnglish
Box office$1,769,306 (USA)

Naked is a 1993 British film directed by Mike Leigh. Before this film, Leigh was known for more-low-key, subtler comedic dissections of middle-class and working-class manners. Naked was more stark and brutal than his previous works. Leigh relied heavily on improvisation in the making of the film, but little actual ad-libbing was filmed; lengthy rehearsals in character provided much of the script. Almost all of the dialogue was filmed as written. The film received largely favorable reviews.

Plot

After a sexual encounter with a married woman in an alley in Manchester turns into a rape, Johnny (David Thewlis) steals a car and flees for Dalston, 'a scrawny, unpretentious area' in the east of London, to seek refuge with his former girlfriend, fellow Mancunian Louise (Lesley Sharp).

Despite being intelligent, educated and eloquent, Johnny is deeply embittered and egotistical, fighting and provoking anyone he meets in order to prove his superiority. His behaviour is reckless, self-destructive and at times borderline sadistic; he seduces Louise's flatmate, Sophie (Katrin Cartlidge), simply because he can, but he soon gets tired of her and embarks on an extended latter-day odyssey among the destitute and despairing of the United Kingdom's capital city.

During his encounters in London's seedy underbelly, Johnny expounds his world-view (which in different instances seems to be fatalist, nihilist or transhumanist) at long and lyrical length to anyone who will listen, whilst the sinister presence of his ex-girlfriend's psychopathic landlord, Jeremy (Greg Cruttwell), lurks in the background. Johnny eventually suffers horribly at the hands of thugs in the most casual manner; and, when the primary tenant of the flat (Claire Skinner) returns from a trip overseas, Johnny is compelled to leave, to throw himself back into the world as he has ostensibly done so many times before.

It is subtly hinted at, throughout the movie, that Johnny's unusual personality and behavior could be the result of a variety of (presumably undiagnosed and untreated) medical conditions, including manic depression, and whatever it is that causes him to experience episodic, severe headaches. These conditions are certainly affecting him physically; one of the characters he meets thinks he is about 40 years old, when he is actually only 27.

Main cast

Notes

Sheridan Morley described Johnny as, "Alfie in the grips of Thatcherite depression", - thus, according to the critic Michael Coveney, " cross fertilising Bill Naughton's chirpy cockney Lothario, immortalised by Michael Caine, with the dark sinister disaffection of the new underclass - a neat way of indicating that the Swinging Sixties had degenerated into the nauseated Nineties." [1] Leigh had captured, according to Coveney, something of the anxiety, rootless cynicism, and big-city disaffection of the time.

Thewlis's background reading for the part of Johnny included Voltaire's Candide, the teachings of Buddha and James Gleick's Chaos. [2]

Criticism

Julie Burchill attacked the film in the Sunday Times, saying that Leigh's characters talked like lobotomized Muppets; they talked, she said, "sub-wittily, the way Diane Arbus's subjects look." And Suzanne Moore in The Guardian criticized the lethargic females whose lives Johnny routinely ruins ; "What sort of realism is this? To show a misogynist and surround him with such walking doormats has the effect, intentional or not, of justifying this behaviour." Lesley Sharp ,(Louise), responded ; " There are a lot of people who don't go to art house cinemas who do have deeply troubled lives and are at risk....We do actually live in a misogynistic, violent society and there are a lot of women in abusive relationships who find it very difficult to get out of them. And a lot of men, too. " The critic Michael Coveney denied the relevance of the criticism ; " Is there no room for irony, for the idea that in depicting horror in the sex war an artist is exposing them, not endorsing them? And who says that Sophie is an unwilling doormat or that Louise is a doormat at all? It is clear that the latter is taking serious stock of her relationship with Johnny. She exhibits both patience and tenderness in her dealings with him, whereas she finally pulls a knife on Jeremy." [3]

Awards and nominations

References

  1. ^ Michael Coveney, The World According to Mike Leigh, p.19, Harper Collins, 1996
  2. ^ Coveney, p. 27
  3. ^ Coveney, p.33-34
  4. ^ a b c "Festival de Cannes: Naked". festival-cannes.com. Retrieved 2009-08-22.
Wikiquote has quotations related to Naked (1993 film).

Further reading

  • Ali Catterall and Simon Wells, Your Face Here: British Cult Movies Since The Sixties (Fourth Estate, 2001) ISBN 0-00-714554-3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naked_(1993_film)&oldid=411004106"