16th Hall of Fame

Tools    





movies can be okay...
Naked (1993) by Mike Leigh

This is my second time viewing Naked, and my fondness for it has expectedly increased. Why would it not, when its screenplay is overflowed with rich material, from the witty back and forth dialogue, to the nihilistic and philosophical rants. My interest and fascination of the main character Johnny, also keeps increasing as I think more about the film. He is a confused, self loathing, walking dead man, who believes mankind will cease to exist by the year 1999. He bombards whoever he encounters with his loud prophesy theories, and his only care is to fulfil his animalistic desires, before this apocalypse comes. However, I think his beliefs are only there as an excuse and a façade, that protects and gives him enough slack for his uncontrollable behaviour, so he doesn't hate himself even more than he already does. On the other side of the coin, there's Sebastian, who has completely accepted and embraced his urges, and definitely needs no cover-up story to feel less bad about his actions. He is an unsuppressed Johnny.

Huge credits need to be given to David Thewlis, for his brutal and unapologetic performance, in fact, the entirety of the cast is terrific. The stalking score is terrific too, as it follows Johnny wherever he goes, without tiring, and without us getting tired of it either. The dry comedic aspects work so well, and compliment the bleak world the characters live in. The streets of the apocalyptic London might as well be a character too, as one can feel dread just by walking through them. All of the latter comes together, to deliver us a peek at the life of a wandering man, who's constantly at war with his own existence. Such a great watch this was, and it has actually pushed me to go on my own Mike Leigh marathon.
__________________
"A film has to be a dialogue, not a monologue — a dialogue to provoke in the viewer his own thoughts, his own feelings. And if a film is a dialogue, then it’s a good film; if it’s not a dialogue, it’s a bad film."
- Michael "Gloomy Old Fart" Haneke



movies can be okay...
That other actor played a strange part to me. I feel like that character wasn't even needed. Maybe he was there to show the contrast to Johnny, show us what a real loser looks like?
I had the same complaint on my first watch, but it totally evaporated on this second watch of mine. It's kinda funny how the film sets them up as having some sort of connection, and it keeps building their eventual encounter, only for us to get what we got. As you said, his presence is there to contrast Johnny's behaviour, and to show maybe what he'd become in the future. Regardless, I was this time enthralled by the ambiguity of how they relate.



movies can be okay...
More thoughts on Naked:

- I thought Sophie's character was just as great as Johnny's. Her inability to achieve a substantial connection in life, has probablydriven her to where we found her at the beginning of the film: desperate for attention and love. Her walk-out at the end of the movie, was quite sad to watch too.

- The ending was fantastic, as Johnny runs away from his ex, refusing to drag her through his mud again, because of his inability to let go of his inner demons. Him walking out was probably the kindest gesture he has done in a while.



movies can be okay...
Naked (1993) n

Ever wanted to spend two hours watching an obnoxious smartass yapping his mouth? Me neither but now I had to.



So Johnny is a homeless bum and a wannabe intellectual who can't keep his mouth shut for a minute. His deep discussions with few unlucky encounters are like modern internet discussions - he drops walls of text from his mouth and doesn't give damn about what the other person is saying. He's a stupid movie cliche of an intellectual where being smart equals an ability to cite past philosophers instead of being able to think.

For some reason every woman he meets will instantly want to have sex with him despite of the fact that he's a smelly bum who mostly just insults these women and hurts them while having sex. Then there's this richer guy with his rape fantasies who has almost nothing to do with the rest of the story (I guess Mike Leigh was worried people wouldn't take him seriously if his film wouldn't break two hour mark so he decided to have two pricks instead of just one).

On the positive side acting is good, especially David Thewlis as Johnny is brilliant (I hated the guy but he was absolutely believable). Cinematography is pretty nice as well. Technical quality just doesn't save it from being horribly boring.

If it weren't for the HoF I wouldn't have finished this.

How can I agree with every line you've written here, yet still love this movie. Thanks for the honesty though, had a blast reading it all



Let the night air cool you off
It's funny how the biggest criticism of Naked is that the main character is deplorable. I don't know how that is a criticism, because, yeah, he obviously is terrible. But how is that a bad thing? Do people feel like this film is glorifying horrible people? I don't feel that way. I just don't quite get that as a criticism. Johnny is a sh*t-bird living in hell on Earth. He's obviously not happy and he is trying to burn the world down to make it feel the way he feels. He's created this hell for himself, but it's an interesting look at this guy who is suffering (and causing suffering) in a believable way. It's not a feel good movie, that's for sure. It's powerful though.

and by the way, this isn't aimed towards pahak, because he's (what's your pronoun?) not the only person who has tossed that criticism on the film.



Let the night air cool you off
I don't think he's a horrible person
You might be right, but I was conceding some ground to at least avoid the discussion falling into "he did horrible things therefore he is a horrible person"



Let the night air cool you off
No, because I have zero obligation to a movie. I try in my reviews to state how I personally feel as opposed to categorically stating my opinion as the ultimate truth. So my only obligation is to be true to myself.
And I totally agree with this statement from CR. So, I understand not liking the film. Some of the criticisms, I just don't understand is all.



It's funny how the biggest criticism of Naked is that the main character is deplorable.
That's still not what I'm trying to say. Practically the whole film is Johnny running his mouth with (in my opinion) almost nothing to say. The issue is not Johnny being an ass but him being utterly boring (lets hope someone doesn't find out that I used the B-word again).

...it's an interesting look at this guy who is suffering (and causing suffering) in a believable way. It's not a feel good movie, that's for sure. It's powerful though.
Here's the main difference in our opinions. I don't disagree with your interpretation of the film but I do (severely) disagree with it being interesting. I know people like Johnny exist and pretty sure that people like the women in Naked exist as well but them being believable doesn't draw me in any more than paint drying being a real phenomenon makes me want to watch it.

I'm not bashing the film from technical point of view and I'm not saying anyone is wrong if they like (or love) it. It just doesn't entertain me in any way (it's like a cinematic equivalent of going to some run-down bar and have a chat with the most bitter and talkative local drunk - I hate drunken people and crowds).

and by the way, this isn't aimed towards pahak, because he's (what's your pronoun?) not the only person who has tossed that criticism on the film.
He is correct pronoun. And I just wanted to give my explanation as I am, after all, one of these people



Poison For The Fairies aka Veneno para las hadas

The real highlight was the hidden smile in the closing scene as she pets her dog while watching the barn burn with Veronica inside. For all of Veronica's intent on being evil, I really felt sorry for the girl in those final moments.
I felt sorry for Veronica too as she wasn't a witch in my mind, but a little girl who was traumatized by the death of her parents and escaped into a make believe world of witch craft...a world where she could make believe she had control over the uncontrollable.

But mostly I felt sorry for the girl who burnt down the barn, Veronica. I thought to myself, her life would be ruined for ever. Even if others could forgive her, she could never forgive herself and as she became an older, the burning of the other little girl would haunt her like a hellish nightmare.



Women will be your undoing, Pépé
I felt sorry for Veronica too as she wasn't a witch in my mind, but a little girl who was traumatized by the death of her parents and escaped into a make believe world of witch craft...a world where she could make believe she had control over the uncontrollable.

But mostly I felt sorry for the girl who burnt down the barn, Veronica. I thought to myself, her life would be ruined for ever. Even if others could forgive her, she could never forgive herself and as she became an older, the burning of the other little girl would haunt her like a hellish nightmare.
I agree, I wondered what sort of dark place within her gotten woken up and what that would do to Flavia as she got older.
__________________
What I actually said to win MovieGal's heart:
- I might not be a real King of Kinkiness, but I make good pancakes
~Mr Minio



Think it's more the story I cared less about
Liar.....
Naked didn't have a story.

It's funny how the biggest criticism of Naked is that the main character is deplorable. I don't know how that is a criticism, because, yeah, he obviously is terrible. But how is that a bad thing? Do people feel like this film is glorifying horrible people? I don't feel that way. I just don't quite get that as a criticism. Johnny is a sh*t-bird living in hell on Earth. He's obviously not happy and he is trying to burn the world down to make it feel the way he feels. He's created this hell for himself, but it's an interesting look at this guy who is suffering (and causing suffering) in a believable way. It's not a feel good movie, that's for sure. It's powerful though.

and by the way, this isn't aimed towards pahak, because he's (what's your pronoun?) not the only person who has tossed that criticism on the film.
It's ironic that you think in this Hall of Fame that the lead character being deplorable is what people hate from this film. This Hall of Fame really was just the misery Olympics and why Naked ended up last on my list the film was in essence a narcissist prattling on about nihilism for two hours.

What makes Naked the worst Mike Leigh film I've seen is that the film gives into Mike Leigh worst habit, the character is a proxy for the writer. Johnny doesn't have any sort humanity so he fails to feel real...which you can still make a good film with that as long as you ground that plot with other characters that seem human.


In They Shoot Horses Don't They, MC Rocky and Gloria are just as terrible as Johnny but in that film it isn't just a masturbatory exercise in soliloquy. The film has a point and the characters go on a journey.

In Three Monkeys, you've got the same poor miserable people doing horrible things to each other but their is a point to it all. It's not a collection of scenes loosely tied together so the writer can espouse about the BS of the world.

In my nominee Mr Freedom, he's a monster and he also goes on these entertaining rants but you understand his motivations. What he says and what he is are two very different things and you always know that. When your film is less subtle than Mr Freedom you've got issues.

The biggest problem with Naked isn't that it's self absorption misery porn...but that it's to lazy to have a structure and plot to it.



movies can be okay...
Three Monkeys (2008) by Nuri Bilge Ceylan

I don't think I can seriously refer to the featured characters in this movie as "characters", when all I see is real people with real life problems. This is not only due to Ceylan's unique and minimalistic writing style, but also the reserved yet powerful performances, especially by Hatice Aslan, who flawlessly embodies the type of woman she's playing. One can clearly see through Hatice's fearful face, the conflict between her true desires and societal role. The war between her femininity and motherhood. How can the Turkish woman give herself up to lust, destroy the structure of her family, knowing the societal consequences she can face. What drives Hacer to her unarguably wrong act, could be her sexual insatisfaction, her hidden loath for her husband, the chains around her tightened up by society, or the wreckage of the family's haunting past. Whatever it is, it leads to a game of see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, filled with emptiness.

All of Ceylan's films are shot beautifully, and if that isn't enough, the cinematography also matches the tone of the events, and amplifies the intensity of the atmosphere. In Three Monkeys, the colour palette increases the grimness of the air, giving off an ugly and sweaty look, while still maintaining the mastery and class of the cinematography. The impeccable sound design also aids at emphasizing the bleak mood, with each passing train, lightning strike, knock on door, foot step, or water drop, we're engrossed by these sounds regardless of their volume. I should also mention that the editing sometimes is particularly impressive too, with its clever transitions. All around, the craftsmanship displayed not only in this feature, but throughout all of Ceylan's filmography, definitely ranks him among the best directors working today.

My only substantial problem with the film, would be how a certain scene was handled. It's the last meet-up between Hacer and the politician, where we can distinctly hear their conversation, despite them being significantly far away from the camera. This wouldn't be as big of an issue to me, if I didn't think that a better decision would be to let the audio play out realistically, which I believe would of stuck true to the overall tone. Nonetheless, the sequence still manages to be powerful because of the performances and the cinematography.



movies can be okay...
I could have used more detail on some things, like what exactly happened to the son when he was injured and what happened to the other son
I believe the son came home injured, because of some sort of trouble with his friends. His mother made a few comments here and there, about how he should stay away from them.

As for the other younger son, I guess it's implied that he somehow accidentally drowned (we see a ghostly shot of him dripping with water). I don't think it really matters anyways, what's certainly clear is the significance of his death to the family's current state.



movies can be okay...
Hey Okay, I thought you said I was going to hate this? Surprise, I enjoyed it! It's my kind of film.
Glad you enjoyed it I just thought otherwise because of your distaste towards the pacing and atmospheric shots in Benny's Video, when Three Monkeys is similar in that regard.

I know there were a couple of technical issues with the film. But I won't hold that against the film maker as I'm sure he was working on a tight budget. Which might explain why there was dialogue in the car scene with the wife and the boss, and yet they weren't shown talking. They must have either decided later that the scene needed more explaining so added in more dialogue, or perhaps footage that they shot didn't turn out so it couldn't be used.
You could be right, but I actually took that as a stylistic choice, especially since it was a recurring thing, how the audio would play on top of a scene, where the characters are silent, or how the audio of a previous or future scene, would overlap with the following or the preceding scene.