In the continuing effort to “expand the frame on international cinema,” Cinema Scope often offers reviews and commentary on international films and directors. I stumbled on an article by Richard Porton, in which he discusses the latest film by Mike Leigh, a director from the United Kingdom. After my time of searching and picking through articles, this is the first negative review I have found. Not only does Porton attack Leigh’s latest film, “Happy-Go-Lucky,” he also attacks his personality and intentions.
The mood of the article is established instantly, as Porton calls Leigh a “world-class blowhard.” This is not the only time Porton mentions how much Leigh likes to talk about his work. Most of Porton’s claims in his article are backed up, but it seems to be written in such a personal way. He attacks Leigh’s protagonist, saying she seems more like “a Free Spirit than a believable human being.”
In terms of the writing itself, I felt that Porton tried to be way too clever and coy with his writing. Much of it seemed over-written, wordy, and difficult to follow. Also, Porton includes far too many specific references in this article. This is supposed to be an international publication- but I didn’t feel like my movie experiences were represented very well in this article.
If anything, Porton made me want to look into the work of Mike Leigh. “Audiences familiar with Naked (1993), or the self-parodic All or Nothing (2002), might assume that a certain misanthropy and pessimism— either fairly bracing in the case of Naked or the embodiment of dime store existentialism in All or Nothing— is Leigh’s stock in trade.” In this portion, Porton is giving Leigh credit for what he can do, which ultimately sold the work of Mike Leigh.
After reading the article, I have decided to locate a Mike Leigh film. If Leigh was able to generate this sort of review for his film, I am sure he is slightly controversial in his methods. Like many of the articles I have found through Cinema Scope, I have gained some information on an international director and film. Most of what I read I am discovering for the first time, but I am starting to get an idea of the common thread that runs through all of the articles and ties it all together.
The mood of the article is established instantly, as Porton calls Leigh a “world-class blowhard.” This is not the only time Porton mentions how much Leigh likes to talk about his work. Most of Porton’s claims in his article are backed up, but it seems to be written in such a personal way. He attacks Leigh’s protagonist, saying she seems more like “a Free Spirit than a believable human being.”
In terms of the writing itself, I felt that Porton tried to be way too clever and coy with his writing. Much of it seemed over-written, wordy, and difficult to follow. Also, Porton includes far too many specific references in this article. This is supposed to be an international publication- but I didn’t feel like my movie experiences were represented very well in this article.
If anything, Porton made me want to look into the work of Mike Leigh. “Audiences familiar with Naked (1993), or the self-parodic All or Nothing (2002), might assume that a certain misanthropy and pessimism— either fairly bracing in the case of Naked or the embodiment of dime store existentialism in All or Nothing— is Leigh’s stock in trade.” In this portion, Porton is giving Leigh credit for what he can do, which ultimately sold the work of Mike Leigh.
After reading the article, I have decided to locate a Mike Leigh film. If Leigh was able to generate this sort of review for his film, I am sure he is slightly controversial in his methods. Like many of the articles I have found through Cinema Scope, I have gained some information on an international director and film. Most of what I read I am discovering for the first time, but I am starting to get an idea of the common thread that runs through all of the articles and ties it all together.
1 comment:
Conner - you know that "Happy Go Lucky" is now playing in Milwaukee? It just opened. at, I believe, the Oriental. I liked it mostly - and do think it makes for a good intro to Leigh. Full disclosure: I find Leigh very interesting-- as much for his process as for his films. (Will check out the Porton article - does he describe his singular process here?) And Leigh's films are, I think, pretty easy to find? Will check Netflix, for example.
Am guessing not if he calls Leigh a blowhard, an accusation both unexpectedly negative, unconventional, and interesting.
Makes sense for your selection that you would pick something uncommon - like a negative review. Nice to find something like that among the celebratory, and I do value Cinemascope for the varying tenor of its responses. And I do like your attention to detail, to critical language here. Your responses to this,and to Finn's letter, testify to a perceptive, discriminating reader. Keep it up.
Some questions: what do you think of Porton's "personal way" of writing. Does that have a place in criticism do you think? Why not or why?
Also, I'd like to hear more about the lack of representation of your movie experiences. What do you think Porton _could_ have referred to? Is he being elitist? Does he just have a narrow range of reference? Is this a case where a writer is just speaking to members of a club?
Again,feel free to take your comments further. Your responses are good, have an engagement and a vitality. These are good responses and also good starts to even thinking and considering of topics approached here.
Post a Comment