Naked
by Mike Leigh
When we first encounter Johnny, the “hero” of Mike Leigh’s caustic Naked, he’s raping a woman in a seamy Manchester back alley. Fearing retribution, he steals a car and makes a midnight journey to London, to shack up with an ex-girlfriend. From there, he launches into a series of nocturnal sorties through the city’s underbelly, leaving a swath of sexual, physical, intellectual, and spiritual devastation in his wake.
Why in the world do I find myself identifying with him as much as I do?
Anyone who knows me will tell you I’m a cynic. My wife last witnessed one my diatribes, done in the supermarket as I went off on some rant about celebrity magazines and the stupidity of the clothing worn by the women in front of us. I’ve been a cynic for a long time, and one thing I’ve realized is that there’s a great deal of righteous safety in cynicism. Sure, it’s cool to be a cynic, especially in this day and age, but the appeal of cynicism is the safety of it.
From that safety, you can launch into a million diatribes, confronting the ills of society with contempt and disdain, proud in the fact that you—and you alone—know how screwed up things are. Like the Cynics of ancient Greece, who pursued after Virtue by pointing out the flaws in everything else around them, it is often quite hypocritical. But it’s so easy, and it feels so right, especially when scorning something as obviously vapid as “Us Weekly” (who is currently trying to determine just how pregnant Katie Holmes is).
Johnny isn’t just a cynic, however. He’s a black hole, attracting people with his intellect and wit only to point out their shortcomings before thoroughly and systematically demolishing their notions, beliefs, and values. During one of the film’s most riveting scenes, he’s taken in by Brian, a security guard whose only purpose in life is to watch over an empty building. As Brian goes on about the thrills of his job and his plans for the future, Johnny lays into the man’s naivete, deconstructing his notions of God and existence and throwing in some conjecture about the Apocalypse for good measure.
Johnny is cynicism personified, and though we never learn what set him on such a destructive path, we do see the cancerous results. It’s difficult to discern if Johnny believes in anything anymore, or if it’s just become a game for him. Whatever the case, he’s fully unable to truly connect with anyone anymore. Either he twists their words back on them, perhaps out of some twisted desire to get them to think about their own lives, or attempts to abuse them or gain some sort of power over them.
But even that leaves him disgusted and unfulfilled, and so he throws himself through the night, trying to find something or nothing—as if it matters anymore.
However, despite being quite the bastard, it’s difficult to dismiss him entirely. For all of their poison and bile, there is truth in Johnny’s words. For example, when Louise, his ex, asks him if he came to London because he was bored, Johnny’s sneer of a response is an accurate summation of one of modern society’s failings:
Was I bored? No, I wasn’t fuckin’ bored. I’m never bored. That’s the trouble with everybody—you’re all so bored. You’ve had nature explained to you and you’re bored with it. You’ve had the living body explained to you and you’re bored with it. You’ve had the universe explained to you and you’re bored with it. So now you want cheap thrills and, like, plenty of them, and it doesn’t matter how tawdry or vacuous they are as long as it’s new, as long as it’s new, as long as it flashes and fuckin’ bleeps in forty fuckin’ different colors. So whatever else you can say about me, I’m not fuckin’ bored.
Although David Thewlis gets most of the praise for his work as Johnny, and rightfully so, one shouldn’t discount Greg Cruttwell, who portrays one of the most evil, amoral bastards ever committed to celluloid. On the surface, the slick, well-manicured, Porsche-driving Jeremy is the complete opposite of Johnny. But Jeremy is just as caustic and abusive, spouting off deplorable platitudes about the healthiness of AIDS and wondering if women like being raped or not.
But unlike Johnny, who occasionally seems willing to own up to emptiness of his situation, and whose rants contain hints of someone attempting to strike out against meaninglessness, Jeremy has no such qualms. He is utterly soulless and callous, and he doesn’t care at all. At least we glimpse moments of sadness, of regret in Johnny’s wasted visage. In Jeremy’s face, all we ever get is a smirk, followed by a proposition.
Naked is a difficult film to watch. There’s no other word for it. And in praising the film—if that’s the right word—I don’t want to attempt to gloss over it’s more unsavory elements. The sexual content is particularly difficult, not because it’s graphic, but because it’s so cold and cruel. One feels especially sorry for the drugged out Sophie, who is misused by both Johnny and Jeremy and left a shaking wreck. While I don’t agree that the film is misogynistic—we are never once led to believe that men’s treatment of the women is ever laudatory in any way whatsoever—I do see why people might hold to that opinion.
However, looking back on the film, I don’t feel any sense of moral outrage or indignation at the improprieties on display. Rather, I feel a great deal of sadness, both for Johnny and because I recognize in Johnny the same dark cynicism and tendency to alienate that I myself can often exhibit.
Naked was recently re-issued by The Criterion Collection; the film’s details can be found here. The IMDb listing is here. The Pagan Agenda has an excellent review of the film that goes into some “behind the scenes” details about Mike Leigh’s direction and David Thewlis’ acting.
What Is This Place?
Opus is a website masquerading as a blog masquerading as a webzine. It’s where I (Jason Morehead) write about music, movies, art, web design, religion and whatever else interests me at the time (Read More).
Related: I can also be found on Twitter, Facebook, and Flickr.
Recent Music Reviews
Recent Movie Reviews
Recent Comments
- Joe Davenport on Slowdive's "Pygmalion" has been reissued
- Jason Morehead on New album from Sufjan Stevens: "The Age of Adz"
- James Wright on New album from Sufjan Stevens: "The Age of Adz"
- bekahcubed on Elsewhere, August 24, 2010
- Jason Morehead on Elsewhere, August 24, 2010
Friends, Allies & Inspiration
- The Grand
- View from the Prairie Box
- Red Bicycle, Inc.
- Looking Closer
- Arts & Faith
- Filmwell
- Twitch
- Elastic Heart
- Raymonn
- Skoolbus 39
- Something Excellent
- Bad Robot Brain
- Long Pauses
- Firespring
- Andy Whitman
- The Search
- The Hurst Review
- Christ and Pop Culture
- This Is Not Entertainment
- TheoFantastique
- Image Journal
- Flickerings
- Disquiet
- PopMatters
- The War Against Silence
- EE Insider
- Godbit Project
- Smashing Magazine









3 Comments
-
mike rot
4 years, 10 months ago
-
Jason
4 years, 10 months ago
-
Brian John Mitchell
4 years, 10 months ago
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.According to Mike Leigh, Johnny is not a cynic but actually an idealist. I labelled Johnny a cynic too until I thought about it, and it does seem that his cynicism towards the outside world is a consequence of something positive he holds to be valued that the rest of the world is not living up to. A cynic would find no point in anything, at least that is the strongest sense of the term. There are glimpses throughout the film, like when Johnny says ‘I could have been a doctor’ where you see that he does prize certain things a cynic perhaps would not. It is just he is at odds with the values of the world around him.
what are your feelings about Jeremy in the film? I personally find him a bit too one dimensional, and he sticks out beside the other well-developed characters.
That’s a good point. There does seem to be the sense that Johnny is pissed at the world, not because he has no values, but because it fails to live up to some standard he sets (and tragically, he also seems incapable of living up to it as well). But the way in which he goes about expressing that idealism is far from ideal, I’m sure you’ll agree. And I can’t help but wonder if Johnny has held onto such an idealism for so long, and in such an unrealistic manner, that it’s become poisoned in some way,
As for Jeremy, he does seem to be rather one-dimensional, doesn’t he? I take him to be a foil for Johnny, perhaps to show all that Johnny disagrees with and despises. Again, tragically, Johnny and Jeremy are quite similar in many ways. I kept waiting for a confrontation between them, such as when Johnny is flailing about on the floor after having been beaten up and Jeremy comes out to see what all the commotion is. I was half-expecting Johnny to size him up and tear him a new one. But alas, Jeremy dismisses him and on we go. (However, I must say I love Louise’s method of “handling” Johnny.)
All that being said, I do think the character of Jeremy could’ve been fleshed out a bit more. He is a bit of a stock villain.
I used to love this movie, but I don’t even know if I could watch it with how much I’ve calmed down after the past ten years. I think High Hopes is a better Leigh movie in a similar style….