Mike Leigh: For Or Against?
Posted on Thursday August 27, 2009, 13:24 by Ian Freer in Empire States
 In case you hadn’t noticed, Mike Leigh has started improvising his new film in London. While I would like to see Mike Leigh’s Avatar (in which Leigh recreates sitting in a living room with more dimensions than actually sitting in your living room)or Mike Leigh’s Twilight (Timothy Spall IS Edward Cullen), the idea that he’s back with the likes of Jim Broadbent, Imelda Staunton and Phil Davis exploring life’s petty triumphs and clanging ironies is cause for celebration round my way.
But it wasn’t always the case. I have been resistant to Leigh’s work for many years. For a start I thought it was rooted in the televisual rather than the cinematic, a visual style that seemed to reduce life to the dimensions of a small box in the corner of the room. It might have had admirable depth but where was the width. French filmmakers have made all sorts of domestic scaled dramas but managed to imbue them with a cinematic wit that I could never detect in Leigh. Also, I found Leigh’s stuff — and Life is Sweet in particular — to have a sneering rather than generous quality towards his characters. He seemed to be dealing with caricatures rather than fully rounded people.
But – and it’s been known to happen every now and then – I was wrong. Maybe appreciating Leigh comes with age. Firstly, there are cinematic chops in Dick Pope’s courageous cinematography in Naked or the historical stylings of Topsy-Turvy if you want to look at them. And, especially of late, Leigh’s generosity of spirit has become more apparent to me. Take Sally Hawkins’ Poppy from Happy-Go-Lucky. In Leigh and Hawkins’ hands, Poppy is a convincing eternal optimist but as the film moves she is revealed as courageous (remember her run in with the homeless man) empathetic, kind, sensitive and wise. While the title Life Is Sweet seemed to be an ironic comment on its characters, Happy-Go-Lucky is a genuine description of Poppy. Everybody could benefit by going on vacation with her — and who’d have thought you would ever want to go on holiday with a Mike Leigh character?
So, where do you stand on Mike Leigh — mundane miserablist or poet of the everyday. And who are the filmmakers that have taken a little longer for you to figure out?
Login or register to comment.
Advertisement
Comments
| 1 |
Taz69
Posted on Thursday August 27, 2009, 14:55
I like him - Topsy Turvy is my favourite of his. You do tend to look at your watch at least once during most of his films, no matter how good they are, but with Topsy-Turvy (which I think actually is his longest film) it sailed by.
I just like to see him out of his comfort zone of real-life/kitchen sink dramas now and see how manages a genre movie. Oh I love to see a Mike Leigh actioner. Happy-Go-Lucky 2: Remberence Sunday (otherwise known as Poppy meets Frank 'The Stath' Martin, they fall in love and run off and go for a drive around France. With hilarious action packed consequences.) |
|
| 2 |
DorianAsh
Posted on Thursday August 27, 2009, 15:03
Simple answer a la Stephen Fry on Room 101; any artsy person who when talking about said artsy stuff mimes holding an imaginary ball in their hands (as in the above picture), is a Dickhead. 'Nuff said |
|
| 3 |
absinthezombie
Posted on Thursday August 27, 2009, 15:03
Although I havn't seen many of his films, Mike Leigh does seem to trancend the traditional TV genres. His characters seem to keep a very unique balance of larger-than-life and extreme realism. Doesn't what you think of his films, you can't deny how great he is with actors.
I've been getting to understand the works of Alerrandro Gonzalez Innaritu (spelling?!). I used to think his films were a chaotic mess of miserable imagery and seedy cinematography, now I understand the true beauty of his art. |
|
| 4 |
Alvin Stardust
Posted on Thursday August 27, 2009, 15:14
I wish he'd come back to his native North West to do a film. I know he's been in London a while now but looking at the cast and setting suggests he's a bit too embedded in his comfort zone.
The outstanding Leigh films are the ones where he stretches himself (Topsy Turvy, Vera Drake) though of course they're all of a high standard. |
|
| 5 |
sohaveaniceday
Posted on Thursday August 27, 2009, 15:17
I have had a certain disdain for Mike Leigh ever since I asked him a question in a previous issue of Empire. I asked him whether he would consider working with another director, say Ken Loach for example, considering their styles of filmmaking seemed to compliment each other. To which he replied how rediculous it would be to work with another director, and why on earth anybody would do that. Erm, a perfectly reasonable question considering it works quite well with Tarintino/Rodriguez, the Coen Brothers, the Wachowskis, and let us not forget one of greatest musicals ever made, Singing in the Rain, was directed by 2 directors (Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen).
Maybe I just caught him on a bad day. Either way; I think he's a bit of a knob. |
|
| 6 |
Dr Science
Posted on Thursday August 27, 2009, 15:18
I loved Naked - it's rare to see a character that balances compelling, repuslive and sympathetic all at the same time - and some of the dialogue is the most superbly crafted examples of bile and misanthropy you'll see on film. I haven't seen Happy Go Lucky, but I get the feeling that Naked is yang to its yin.
however, when i saw naked it was on channel 4 - and it felt perfectly suited to TV - and I really wouldn't want to pay to see a Leigh film in the cinema
Also - I met Mike's son Leo a few years ago - he was at University with my sister - and he's obviously inherited Mike's grounded wit and intelligence - instantly likeable |
|
| 7 |
Alvy Singer
Posted on Thursday August 27, 2009, 15:21
Great films, don't like his politics. High Hopes seemed to be saying that all poor people have hearts of gold wheras the rest are evil, money grabbing Tories. Naive in the extreme.
You have to separate a director's politics from their film-making abilities though and Secrets and Lies and Topsy-Turvy are undoubtedly great films. The moment during the party in Secrets and Lies when everything starts to unravel is utterly brilliant; however this seems more down to Leigh coaxing great performances from his cast than anything else. I would agree with Ian Freer that he aint exactly cinematic, more Play for Today.
Really enjoyed Happy Go Lucky (Sally Hawkins you are wonderful...) |
|
| 8 |
Mopictures
Posted on Thursday August 27, 2009, 16:29
There is definitely room for Mike Leigh in my life.
Granted, I've only ever seen his films on a "small box in the corner of the room" and maybe that's where they are best suited, and some I have had no interest in whatsoever. But it wasn't for him, we wouldn't be able to use him as a point of reference to compare/contrast with other filmmakers. Eg. "It's Mike Leigh meets..."
It allows for a strange sub-genre of films, like you can imagine people saying "It;s like Kung Fu movie crossed with a Mike Leigh film" or "If Mike Leigh directed a war movie!". Those are the kind of films that I love: Thought provoking, character driven, emotional - mixed with something else! In other words, I wish there was a "Mike Leigh meets" film in EVERY genre. That would be something.
Also, although I'm not a wholesale fan of his work (And trust me, I will be delving into the "Mike Leigh at the BBC" DVD I won at Empire's Movie-Con, Oh yes!) there are elements of some of his films that I adore. Take "Naked", the film itself is a little too wordy, a little too sprawling and a little too cruel - but the 15 minute sequence between David Thewlis and the night watchmen is absolutely gripping! A masterfully constructed film-within-a-film in which two people argue themselves into discussing the end of the fucking world! Also, I wish that Thewlis could return to the anti-hero mould, he was virtuoso.
But he's a fine director, he makes serious films and whether he likes it or not his name is now part of our film language!
|
|
| 9 |
Mopictures
Posted on Thursday August 27, 2009, 17:07
NOT particularly, that should read. Shouldn't type and sip tea. |
|
| 10 |
batmagnet
Posted on Thursday August 27, 2009, 20:20
I liked Secrets and Lies but that's all i've seen, as for directors that took me a while to figure out I would say Kevin Smith's films are more layered than people give him credit for. |
|
| 11 |
lfrost
Posted on Thursday August 27, 2009, 23:30
Mike Leigh - a great filmmaker - have seen all his films - and while there may be a touch of caricature in his characters, they are more complex and full blooded that most of the bland crap that comes out. High Hopes focused on the poor but wasn't all pro - remember the hippie like layabouts. Life Is Sweet is a wonderful, dry comedy with the serious part being the bulimic Jane Horrocks whose sister talks to her about dealing with her disease. David Thewlis is repulsing and rivetting in Naked. Secrets and Lies earned Brenda B. an academy award but it was Timothy Spall 's performance as the put upon husband wanting his family to connect, communicate and dispense with differences and secrets that should also have earned an Oscar nod. You feel sympathy for even the characters you dislike, the scenes are realistic and natural due to the impromptu way Leigh create his script. |
|
| 12 |
sadtwat
Posted on Friday August 28, 2009, 03:24
I have only really discovered Mike Leigh in the last year. After seeing Vera Drake and Happy-Go-Lucky (which was a lot funnier than I thought it would be; I assumed it'd be some fucking horrible 'indywood' comedy which are never funny) I read Mike Leigh on Mike Leigh. Having heard him in his own words, I thought, I have to see more of this guy's films! Since then I have seen High Hopes, Life is Sweet, A Sense of History, Naked, Secrets and Lies and Topsy-Turvy. The only one that disappointed me was Life is Sweet. I thought the characters were irritating and too grotesque for me. They certainly didn't seem real. They may well have come from real life but I'd still want to switch those people off.
Other than that, I am consistently impressed with his films. The recent ones are a lot more cinematic than people give them for. I didn't realise how much the camera moves in Vera Drake until the last time I saw it, which was lucky enough to be on the big screen. There are very subtle tracks into and around the characters. And some of the shots are lit like Apocalypse Now or Road to Perdition (i.e. when Reg and Stan go to work in the morning). I think he's starting to push the cinematic boundaries of the constraints on kitchen-sink drama. I for one can't wait for his next film and the next and the next... |
|
| 13 |
sadtwat
Posted on Friday August 28, 2009, 03:40
Actually, it's all a waste of time really. Because you don't HAVE TO like Mike Leigh. The people who say that are in the wrong. You HAVE TO like any director. I know a lot of people love George Lucas; I however, think he's the most over-rated human being on the planet. Interesting argument but It's a bit like any top 100 movies of all time list. It's all a matter of opinion so it'd ultimately be a bit redundant. Is that wanky of me to say that? Can't be any worse than me just comparing Vera Drake with Apocalypse Now. |
|
| 14 |
scruffylooking
Posted on Friday August 28, 2009, 10:27
Not seen a lot of his films to be honest but Nuts in May is, in my opinion, one of the best British comedies you will ever see. If you have never seen this Leigh-directed film from the BBC's Play for Today series, get hold of a copy or watch it when it is repeated on TV (usually on BBC 4) and you will see the influence it has had on some of this country's brightest comic talents. |
|
| 15 |
Damon_Wise
Posted on Friday August 28, 2009, 11:44
sohaveaniceday: It was I who put your question to Mike Leigh, and though it sounded grumpy, there wasn't really any malice in the answer: it's just his way of looking at it. The nice thing about interviewing him is that he's always up for a fight... |
|
| 16 |
D.J
Posted on Friday August 28, 2009, 19:23
He should make a film with Michael Bay. |
|
| 17 |
trothon
Posted on Friday August 28, 2009, 20:02
I had put the Mike Leigh boxset on my LOVEFiLM rental earlier on in the year, which would have been fine, if they hadn't sent me them all in a row. Having already appreciated Vera Drake and loved Happy-Go-Lucky, I was sent 'All or Nothing' which wasn't bad, quite good performances from Timothy Spall and James Corden, followed by 'Career Girls', which I loved, great performances from the two lead actresses. And then came 'High Hopes', which certainly didn't leave me as the film suggests, and the only scene that drew my attention was the one in Highgate Cemetry, but only because I didn't know Karl Marx was buried there until then. And then came 'Bleak Moments' - this is one of the only films I've started watching and stopped halfway through, never wishing to watch it ever again! I know it was only his first film but it well and truly bored me! And after that I removed the Mike Leigh collection from my LOVEFiLM rental list. And it's not coming back anytime soon! |
|
| 18 |
sohaveaniceday
Posted on Saturday August 29, 2009, 10:27
Lol, thank you for the reassurance Damon. I have never seen him in interviews, so all I could picture was a disgruntled bearded hobbit, letting loose on a poor innocent work experience's question. Although, I have to say, it was one of my highlights whilst working at Empire. "I got slagged off by Mike Leigh!", I told my friends. |
|
| 19 |
Damon_Wise
Posted on Wednesday September 2, 2009, 07:32
It's honestly just his manner, and it's the reason so many journalists are scared of him. If you want to ask him questions you have to be ready to answer the questions he throws back, which I think is fair enough! I do feel a bit bad that I didn't defend your question, though. But if I had, it wouldn't have been a genuine answer to a genuine reader's question... |
|
| 20 |
sohaveaniceday
Posted on Thursday September 3, 2009, 11:34
No, I understand your position. He does sounds like an interesting fella, and it's quite refreshing to have a director who won't simply sit back and give easy answers *ahemLucas*. Would like to see how well I would do up against him, one day... |
|
| 21 |
blindfold
Posted on Friday September 4, 2009, 11:55
Oh aren't things grim up north. haha.
Yes a director to split audiences. Students love him in general, but as much as I like a bot of realism in film, I don't want actual real life. If I want to see that I'll walk out the front door.
But i recognise the importance of the Leighs, Loach's and even the Von triers of the world. Just not my cup of tea. Although I would be first in line if any of them did a genre piece! A mike Leigh Western! A Ken Loach Horror, A Pedro Almodavar Sci-Fi!
Too right I would! Now that would be exciting and worth watching! (Watch them take the Bays and Andersons of this world to town).
|
|
| 22 |
FincherFan27
Posted on Saturday September 12, 2009, 22:59
I sound like a bit of a film fascist i know, but Mike Leigh is the scum of cinema, he should not be allowed to make films. His films connect with hardly anyone because he doesn't use images, he uses words.
He is bad for cinema both in that he is interested only in realism and bringing what we see everyday to the screen (we don't have to have to pay for a ticket to stay at home or go out and visit a friend or someone who we know will have come kind of drama), and also in that he tells stories theatrically, as opposed to visually, and cinema is made for stories to be told primarily with images (as well as non-verbal sound).
Leigh represents all that is bad about movies - especially british films. I know i am rambling now here, but i think that, considering that Britain's cultural traditions lie in theatre, that british culture has decided to reinvent theatre as british cinema, because Britain doesn't want to culturally adjust to the times - this is why we have shitty films known as 'kitchen-sink-drams', which NO ONE likes. Mike Leigh represents all of this. I mean, if you took people off the street, or asked film fans for their favourite movies, do you reckon any of them would include a Mike Leigh film in there? Thought not.
If his work were up on the stage, would it affect at all the 'effect' of his work??? Mike Leigh's films are a waste of celluloid, and he explains instantly why british cinema is so bad, despite how much we would like to think it is somehow thriving. |
|
|
|
| EMPIRE BLOGGERS | |
|
|
Follow us on Twitter | 
Follow us on Facebook | RSS | Empire iPad Edition
