Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Peterloo

Anyone seen it?

This review is about right i think
I learnt a lot and the detail was definitely thorough and educational, particularly good depiction of the different strands and dynamics amongst the reformists, but its slow going with not enough classic story telling drive and thats going to put off wider audiences I'd expect..


A bit i liked to see was that during one worthy but very overly wordy address by a couple of more middle class christian women, other working class women in the audience complain "we don't understand what you're on about", wanting something a bit more concrete, directly relating to their lives and meaningful in terms of action too. Thing is in a way Mike Leigh takes the same path as these Christian lecturers.

Id have liked something a bit less text book and with more guts to it. Peoples hardships weren't visceral enough, and for my tastes the massacre itself wasn't violent enough, with literally no blood shown (probably to help keep the rating at a 12, but still). Its no Thin Red Line (which still was a 15).

On the plus side it wasn't overly sentimentalised and had a good degree of naturalism in showing the way people were - apart from a couple of pantomime villains, but then again, maybe this kind of over the top acting, particularly one of the judges, does have historical basis?


Ironic that it was funded by Amazon. Bit crap that.
 
ska invita said:
but its slow going with not enough classic story telling drive and thats going to put off wider audiences I'd expect..
Click to expand...
I've seen a couple of reviews which have been along the same lines. I think I'll probably still try and see it at some point though.
 
Saw it yesterday.
In a word; disappointed.
Clunky, speechified script, lack of gritty reality of life that drove the demands for Corn law reform, radicals (republicans) portrayed as raving madmen, people looked well(fed) ...difficult, I know to do otherwise, but..interiors looked National Trust, exterior GCIs pretty poor tbh, some of the convos lacked all credibility.
I wanted to like it...but 2/5 for me.
 
brogdale said:
Saw it yesterday.
In a word; disappointed.
Clunky, speechified script, lack of gritty reality of life that drove the demands for Corn law reform, radicals (republicans) portrayed as raving madmen, people looked well(fed) ...difficult, I know to do otherwise, but..interiors looked National Trust, exterior GCIs pretty poor tbh, some of the convos lacked all credibility.
I wanted to like it...but 2/5 for me.
Click to expand...

I feel the same, it was very clunky and over-long to me. And felt like I was being preached to by someone that had half read EP Thompson. Shame, was looking forward to it. More excited for the Sleaford Mods Invisible Britain film I'm seeing tonight.
 
Well I "enjoyed" that.

I left feeling unsettled. Which is good. I think.

It was incoherent at times. The tone was all over the place. The dialogue generally dull. The film reeked of bitterness. In a good way.

I loved the heavy handed caricatures of the prince, the magistrates etc. No attempt at persuasion. Just "Here's some bastards. I'm taking it as read that you already know they're bastards, so here's some over the top bastards."

There were some memorable take away moments. Some blunt portrayals of the protagonists. Crude and lacking subtlety perhaps. But to the point. The allusions with today were plenty but not in your face.

I liked the relatively unspectacular massacre. The clumsy yet deliberate nature of it.

I was distracted by the familiar faces. Especially Wasted's Morpheus.

It's not a film I'd recommend to people though.

But it resonated with me. Despite the lack of depth in the characters, there was a current of ambiguity or uncertainty about the film's message. Sure, we all know the enemy. But what to do about it?

I think the film is about defeat. Then and now.
 
One scene (or pair of scenes) that stand out is the looms.

The thunderous roar when we first see them. Then the silence later in the film when the workers are away at the rally. Followed by the millowner walking bitterly through his deserted yard.
 
chilango said:
One scene (or pair of scenes) that stand out is the looms.

The thunderous roar when we first see them. Then the silence later in the film when the workers are away at the rally. Followed by the millowner walking bitterly through his deserted yard.
Click to expand...
Yeah when that first shot of the looms kicks in its really impressive. I immediately thought, i look forward to seeing someone getting their hand cut off and people falling over with exhaustion etc (dont judge me ;)), but no, we got a brooding bearded man working intensely who looked like he was overseeing an artisnal vintage clothing start up in Hebden. Just didn't have the rawness for me.

Heres Kermodes review

...which basically says the final act is so powerful it makes up for possible sluggishness and desire to have so many different voices and angles in the run up. But I didnt find the massacre any where near shocking enough, though clearly some people did, so maybe its a question of taste and sensitivity. It should have brought the audience to tears of rage. Since we know the massacre is going to happen from before the film starts that bit of it needs to pack an almighty punch.

I don't understand, why go for a no blood 12 certificate? Pity the 12 year old dragged along to sit through this.

I still got a lot out of it though.
 
Just got back from seeing it. What a wasted opportunity.

Leigh has spoken of how he doesn't think Peterloo is taught enough in schools. And he's right. Unfortunately it seems to have inspired him to make a film to be shown in schools. Sod characterisation, sod nuance, sod depth, let's throw in lots of verifiable facts and classic speeches, and that'll cover it. There's a lot to be said for what Leigh tried to do - to show how 'universal' didn't include women, to show the different class aspects of the struggle, to show how the 'left behind' who don't believe the political class or governments will ever do anything for them can be drawn into a radical movement, but he does nowt with it, they feel like isolated movements, held together by the men from the Manchester Observer.

Some bloody awful acting too, McInnerny, and the blokes who played Liverpool, Nadin and the Spy were all terrible.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to hear it’s not what it could have been. But if it raises awareness and gets seen in schools it might have been worth it.
What’s next Burford starring Benedict Cumberbatch, Hugh Grant and Eddie Redmayne as the executed Levellers!
 
belboid said:
Just got back from seeing it. What a wasted oppoertunity.

Leigh has spoked of how he doesn't think Peterloo is taught enough in schools. And he's right. Unfortunately it seems to have inspired him to make a film to be shown in schools. Sod characterisation, sod nuance, sod depth, let's throw in lots of verifiable facts and classic speeche, and that'll cover it. There's a lot to be said for what Leigh trued to do - to show how 'universal' didn't include women, to show the different class aspects of the struggle, to show how the 'left behind' who don't believe the political class or governments will ever do anything for them can be drawn into a radical movement, but he does nowt with it, they feel like isolated movements, held together by the men from the Manchester Observer.

Some bloody awful acting too, McInnerny, and the blokes who played Liverpool, Nadin and the Spy were all terrible.
Click to expand...
I get where you're coming from, but. . .

McInnerny's caricature of the Prince Regent was a necessary bit of light relief after the heaviness that preceded it.

As for the "Janet and John" version of the Corn Laws and their roots in the landed aristocratic interests, I'm afraid they had to do it that way. Most people will never have heard of it, and modern attention spans wouldn't allow for title cards ("THE YEAR IS 1819. . . ").
 
Idris2002 said:
I get where you're coming from, but. . .

McInnerny's caricature of the Prince Regent was a necessary bit of light relief after the heaviness that preceded it.

As for the "Janet and John" version of the Corn Laws and their roots in the landed aristocratic interests, I'm afraid they had to do it that way. Most people will never have heard of it, and modern attention spans wouldn't allow for title cards ("THE YEAR IS 1819. . . ").
Click to expand...
If it had just been McInnerny, I might agree with you. But it was every member of the ruling-class who was a lazy caricature, with their stutters, weak lips

I want to rewatch the debate about land reform in Land and Freedom again now. I mean, it was a debate about land reform - just a bunch of blokes sat around talking. But it was involving, exciting and understandable. It can be done. And it's the kind of thing that could be (I apologise for the following word) workshopped amongst the cast to make it sound real. But I don't think it was.
 
belboid said:
If it had just been McInnerny, I might agree with you. But it was every member of the ruling-class who was a lazy caricature, with their stutters, weak lips
Click to expand...

As well as being ahistorical this representation of the foppish ruling class never explains how they’ve managed to win - again and again. It’s lazy and it’s bollocks
 
Sprocket. said:
Sorry to hear it’s not what it could have been. But if it raises awareness and gets seen in schools it might have been worth it.
What’s next Burford starring Benedict Cumberbatch, Hugh Grant and Eddie Redmayne as the executed Levellers!
Click to expand...
It's two and a half hours long so too long for screening in schools I expect.
Smokeandsteam said:
As well as being ahistorical this representation of the foppish ruling class never explains how they’ve managed to win - again and again. It’s lazy and it’s bollocks
Click to expand...
Monopoloy of violence with a stitch up between judges police army and head of state - it was pretty clear tbf
 
brogdale said:
Saw it yesterday.
In a word; disappointed.
Clunky, speechified script, lack of gritty reality of life that drove the demands for Corn law reform, radicals (republicans) portrayed as raving madmen, people looked well(fed) ...difficult, I know to do otherwise, but..interiors looked National Trust, exterior GCIs pretty poor tbh, some of the convos lacked all credibility.
I wanted to like it...but 2/5 for me.
Click to expand...

aka : most Mike Leigh films for me
 
Haven't seen it yet but it seems bizarre to me that he made a film without any engaging characters when he could have focussed on Samuel Bamford, who wrote an eyewitness account (from the credits it seems he appears somewhere in the film but not as a main character?). Whatever you think of Bamford - and you can argue he sometimes lobbied for the middle class more than the working class - his autobiography is still readable and engaging 200 years later, and his story is an interesting one. Seems like a missed opportunity to have a really good character in there.
 
Personally I would have preferred more of a "Manc" identity to the film. More of a swagger to the locals. More in the vein of Looking for Eric or 24 Hour Party People.

Just draft in half the cast of No Offence (yeah I saw Dr Peeps in there! Coogan as a magistrate.

Follk versions of She's Lost Control and Wrote For Luck as the soundtrack

Might've undermined the authenticity, but would've been more of cause to get behind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom