One in a million!!
-
fabGirl — 20 years ago(March 21, 2006 05:58 PM)
Barbera Windsor cannot act her way out of a paper bag.
Just because a actor comes from the area where it is set, does not mean they are right for the part.
Brenda was perfect for the role. If you don't agree the only other actor who could have taken on the role would be Julie Walters. The acting of Brenda' character is her journey of humanity. Dealing with issues she had kept secret but had to face. A personal journey, she is acting with her body as well as through speech. Something I doubt that Barbera Windsor could do. -
fabGirl — 20 years ago(March 22, 2006 02:32 PM)
Look all comments are appreciated.
Just as long as they are logical.
Not everyone likes the same things in life which is fine.
I just love Mike Leigh because I think he paints a true picture about humanity and the dark areas of life as well as the bright ones.
By the way Alison would have been great but I don't think he wanted to put his then wife in the main role because he might have thought it would not have been taken seriously.
Brenda was great although come to think of it Lesley Manville might have given a good shot. She is brilliant and works with Mike a lot which might have brought the character out to its full potential.
Anyway Brenda must have done something right, she got heaps of awards for it. -
cafcjen — 20 years ago(March 23, 2006 05:52 AM)
By the way Alison would have been great but I don't think he wanted to put his then wife in the main role because he might have thought it would not have been taken seriously.
Maybe, but he's put her in the lead role of many of his other filmsAbigail's Party, Life is Sweet, Nuts in May, etcbut I do totally agree with the choice of Brenda as Cynthia.
Brenda was great although come to think of it Lesley Manville might have given >a good shot. She is brilliant and works with Mike a lot which might have >brought the chaarcter out to its full potential.
I hadn't thought of Lesley Manville, but now you've suggesed her, I do think she'd have played the role well. Most women that Mike has casted in his films would have, thoughI've said it before, but I really don't think there are any bad actors/actresses in Mike's films. -
fabGirl — 20 years ago(March 23, 2006 08:02 AM)
True.
He only picks the best actors/actresses for the roles.
But with Mike' way of working you expect that, he improvises with them for months so really the film is a whole affair with everyone putting in their fair share of the work.
I like that Mike actaully has the decency to work with actors rather than stars. He is using the best of England' finest actors rather than chasing big name American stars (no names) who would not be as able to perform in the roles.
He's great, the best director really that has ever lived (well for me anyway)! -
fabGirl — 19 years ago(April 12, 2006 06:37 PM)
Secrets and Lies works because of the few characters, so you home in on them in great detail. Its very moving.
All or Nothing is second best. The normal characters yet so isolated. It juxtoposed quite well. Very raw and always gripping.
Vera Drake was less accomplshed I think. For me anyway, it does not hit the mark. Its good but not great is what Im trying to say. -
Chavista — 19 years ago(April 13, 2006 03:06 AM)
Secrets and Lies is great in its analysis of social dislocation and exclusion. How the pressures of modern society can disrupt even family relationships that should be sound. It also contains some of the best examples of Leigh's signature tragicomedy.
Abigail's Party has the same qualities, but in a far more distilled form. It deals with even bigger issues such as domestic violence and work-life balance. These are societal issues compared to the family issues of Secrets. The drama and comedy are also even better. It's a seminal piece for a reason.
Naked is a hugely ambitious film which achieves everything it aims for. It speaks to everyone trying to find their place in a society dominated by self-interest. It blows my mind.
Nuts in May is fantastic observational comedy with some of Leigh's best characters representing the atomised factions of society.
Vera Drake is one of the most moving films I've ever seen. It has everything: the humour and happiness inspired by post-war relief, the class issues of the day and today, tender character and relationship studies and suspense far superior to most thrillers. The period setting enhanc16d0es Leighs exquisite sense of detail and allows him to deal with forgotten dilemmas in his usual, even-handed manner. For me, his best film since Naked.
All or Nothing is, for me, Secrets and Lies plus. Better characters dealing with bigger issues in more complex relationships.
Having said all that, I love each and every one for different reasons. Everybody will take different things from different films, which is why opinions will always differ on his 'best' work. -
fabGirl — 19 years ago(April 13, 2006 06:21 PM)
Yeah, have to agree with you.
Abigail's Party worked for the time period. The 1970s, when domestic violence was hushed up, that is why it is great.
Naked worked again for the time period. It coincided with the famous paddington green police documentary.
Vera Drake, great and worked because he set it in the 1950s, ten years before the 1967/9 abortion act.
Secrets and Lies though just breaks my heart everytime I see it. It is a masterpiece for me, as is All or Nothing. I put them on the same level of magnificence. -
JetG — 19 years ago(May 17, 2006 02:17 PM)
Well, definitely he's one of the fast diminishing category of auteurs who always in every film says exactly what they wanna say and make it in a remarkable way. Some of his films better than others, but they're all MOVING.
My personal favourite is Naked. To all haters I recommend to watch this movie first before giving judgement on him.
And he's very good at shorts too. His 'sense of history' is astonishing.
And the main thing in my opinion is that he's real indie without using a trend. -
fabGirl — 19 years ago(May 17, 2006 04:42 PM)
I don't think Mike Leigh falls into the auteur theory somehow.
I can understand why you would think that but auteur is something in which we can always expect the same from directors. The autuer directors like Woody Allen and Ridley Scott are facinating in their own work but really auteur cinema is really what the film looks like in relevance to style rather than content.
Mike Leigh values language and narrative in his films. He is very much a director of realism, the reality of humanity and how it can be depicted in both a posotive and negative way.
He is not afraid to be controversial but I don't think he is auteur. His films are always different. They are original works of art and they are what make Mike Leigh a directing mastermind. -
JetG — 19 years ago(June 28, 2006 11:36 AM)
Don't hitch on the ol' french theory.
[Auteur is (accordin' 2 Websters) a filmmaker whose individual style and complete control over all elements of production give a film its personal and unique stamp.]
Woody & Scott are more crowd pleasing directors. Well, due to their brandnames they got access to the best stock (actors, equipment etc). Visuals, sound & so called content in their films are commercially oriented.
Leigh is a totally different ballgame. For me his films have the impact equal to the works of directors such as Ozu, Von Trier, Dardenne Bros, Kiarostami and some others
Mike Leigh values language and narrative in his films. He is very much a director of realism, the reality of humanity and how it can be depicted in both a posotive and negative way.
He is not afraid to be controversial but I don't thib68nk he is auteur. His films are always different. They are original works of art and they are what make Mike Leigh a directing mastermind.
I like your point. almost agree in general. -
fabGirl — 19 years ago(July 03, 2006 05:57 PM)
Im studying film at university at the moment and we did a lecture on Auteur theory.
Mike Leigh was not mentioned, it was Woody Allen and Ridley Scott.
I agree with you on Scott and Woody, total croud pleasers. No passion for risk taking.
Anyway, Leigh dominated our lectures on realism, social realism in particular. -
cedrus-libani — 19 years ago(January 12, 2007 08:14 AM)
I agree with the OP, and would only add that Leigh belongs to a brave handful of filmmakers (e.g. Mexican director Arturo Ripstein and the late Luis Bunuel) who refuse to romanticize, patronize, or condescend to poor and disadvantaged people. His body of work reveals his enormous sympathy and compassion for people who, beneath their motley exteriors, are no more nor less worthy than you or I.
I'm also very struck by his insistence on addressing political and ideological issues not in theoretical terms but rather in terms of the routines and rituals of the way real, everyday people conduct their real, everyday lives. He rejects all idealized, abstracted, intellectualized understandings of the social world, believing instead in the importance of the ties that bind people together.