i don't think that's fair on Nigel - he does people his songs with morons, but a song isn't a film - it's not an ensemble thing, it's more focussed. Whereas in most of Leigh's movies, all the women are shrill victims or morons
Abigail's Party : Caricatured seventies grotesques, or accurate portrayals?
- Thread starter William of Walworth
- Start date
i don't think that's fair on Nigel - he does people his songs with morons, but a song isn't a film - it's not an ensemble thing, it's more focussed. Whereas in most of Leigh's movies, all the women are shrill victims or morons
don't be a fool
Nigel:
Hattie Jaques is fat - emphasis on the word fat
The 'overweight' girlfriend in With Goth on our Side
they're just the first two that spring to mind and I know there are more
Art is art, and no one escapes either Blackwell's or Leigh's scathing contempt
He's apologised a LOT for the Hattie song, he's really embarassed about it.
the fat goth - well, it's not nice but he's not saying all women are fat goths. but the vast majority of Leigh's female characters are pretty unpleasant.
Secrets & Lies is pretty much the only exception
Sounds to me like you're justifying Nigel and vilifying Mike Leigh for the same sort of attitudes
The girl with the black tour jacket with detachable sleeves doesn't come out too clever, nor does Nerys Hughes, or Dani Behr...etc
Spion
I hear ya
Yep. I'd agree with that. I can see aspects of members of my family at the time in the characters portrayed in AP.
Abigail's Party is nowhere near as good as Nuts in May, however
you're missing my point, which is probably my fault.
Nigel will make a list in a song of idiotic people - some male, some female. He doesn't mention non-idiotic people because songs don't work like that, they're not ensemble pieces
In a Leigh movie or play, there will be any number of characters interacting, but they're ALL grotesques, they're all portrayed badly, especially the women.
I wish I could explain what I mean better
you're missing my point, which is probably my fault.
Nigel will make a list in a song of idiotic people - some male, some female. He doesn't mention non-idiotic people because songs don't work like that, they're not ensemble pieces
In a Leigh movie or play, there will be any number of characters interacting, but they're ALL grotesques, they're all portrayed badly, especially the women.
I wish I could explain what I mean better
I still can't see the separation you're making - but it seems to be centred around it's okay for one art form to do it and not another
As you may know, I pick up on what I perceive as misogyny very quickly, but I don't think either one is. I genuinely think it's just a generalised contempt for the society around them both.
We'll have to just differ.
Or you'll have to become more articulate
I still can't see the separation you're making - but it seems to be centred around it's okay for one art form to do it and not another
As you may know, I pick up on what I perceive as misogyny very quickly, but I don't think either one is. I genuinely think it's just a generalised contempt for the society around them both.
We'll have to just differ.
Or you'll have to become more articulate
i can't find a way of making it make sense. It's about Nigel writing songs about particular targets - say, people who get their loft converted back into a loft. If he laughs at those people, his mockery is very targetted, he's not going to write a song about someone who's not worth laughing at - it would be meaningless.
Whereas in a film or a play you'd imagine that in an ensemble cast there might be a woman who is portrayed as weak or stupid in some way, but also a woman who is portrayed in a more positive way. But in Leigh's films there never is. A film isn't a song and doesn't have the same structure...
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
It was, of course, an inprov piece done with his wife at the very beginning of what turned out to be a career. That it was naïve and flawed seems both necessary and inevitable - finding great fault with AP is like criticising Lennon and McCartney for Please, Please Me.
Its triumph perhaps lays in identifying an emerging class, and how that group sits awkwardly amid the rest of the social awkwardness of the quite odd society. imo.
i haven't seen that one, i admit, so i'm not claiming EVERY female character is as i describe. But look at Naked - it's hard to think of a single woman in that film who isn't a victim.
Name me one positive male character in that film
They may not be positive, but they're not necessarily victims. I think he has a low opinion of most of his characters but women come off worse.
again i probably didn't explain myself well. Earlier i did say they were portrayed as being weak OR shrill OR stupid or whatever. Where is the balance?
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
But everyone is a victim to some degree or other in that film. Even the City twat is a victim of his own vileness.
They may not all be victims, but the security guard is, Johnny is, and for the others, all the viewer feels is loathing. They are deliberately not likeable, despicable actually
so in what way is he, as he claims, trying to champion the working classes in some way when he portrays them ALL as being unlikeable? Where's the love?
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
The Insecurity Guard. Liked him!
El Jefe said:
I'd probably agree with that -- after some more thought I'm starting to agree that a lot of Mike Leigh's character's show up his snobbery and/or simplisticness, what butchers said yesterday was right I think.
But I want to see Vera Drake too because from what I've read, in that one the characters are a lot more sympathetically drawn ...
Earlier points from several taken, on the deliberately grotessque caricatures in Abigail's Party btw. Been an interesting thread.
well i don't buy the latter part, sounds a bit bleeding heart liberal for you, gc
but why are all his characters victims? I know he's not a social realist or anything, but there's a strain of misanthropy / misogyny in his films that not only is at odds with his stated views but that he also denies is there
I'm going to have to check Naked again, been ages since I saw it. Didn't like it first time round for reaons similar to El Jefe's but maybe there's more to it?
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
well i don't buy the latter part, sounds a bit bleeding heart liberal for you, gc
but why are all his characters victims? I know he's not a social realist or anything, but there's a strain of misanthropy / misogyny in his films that not only is at odds with his stated views but that he also denies is there
Victims of the system, innit. Obviously I would see the city fella ground up and fed to the pigs, but even he is a product of the evil forces of capitalism. That's the message I've always taken from Naked anyway. Although I was an impressionable youngster the last time I watched it. Maybe I should give it another view.
For the record, I LOVED Naked when it came out. Thought it was powerful and inspirational.
But then I watched it with Furvert, who'd never seen it, who was absolutely appalled by the misogyny of it and it made me squirm too.
Johnny's a fucking rapist.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
A complete anti-hero with no redeeming features. But still a fascinating character.
Spion
I hear ya
I thinbk you're being harsh. I think some wariness is in order, at least with ref to AP, in case we start to view decades old works through today's eyes.
In AP the characters were a representation of people amid a new affluence. This has two potential implications: 1) that their awkward and cringeworthy behaviour is an accurate representation of people finding their way in new social circumstances 2) that how they are portrayed is possibly also an articulation of how a playwright who is keenly aware of class* views the impact of the new affluence on the w/c.
(* and the sub-strata within classes - which is one of Leigh's talents, IMO)
i'm not asking for Leigh to be a pure realist, I know he comes from a theatre background, I'm sure it's all very Brechtian yadda yadda yadda, but I don't see how his almost utter failure to include any sympathetic characters in his work can sit alongside his claims about what he's doing. There's a dissonance there.
Loach, who Leigh is usually compared to, is criticised for lionising the working classes too much, idealising them, but I see a lot more light and shade in his work
Loach, who Leigh is usually compared to, is criticised for lionising the working classes too much, idealising them, but I see a lot more light and shade in his work
Similar threads
