Once upon a time in the midlands

[Dazza]

That's a real shame that they are not running the two disc. Perhaps Ebay or amazon second hand might at some point turn one up. I agree I love Shane's work that is low budget and has heart and soul. I've got Small Town on my freeview box, its not his best work but it does have moments and the Gavin Clark sound track is just brilliant.

Come on Shane get back with both Paddy and Gav and Steve Graham for that matter and give us another original gem. As I said before my DVD collection top shelf is for your work and it currently had space.

[thegooddoctor]

Folks contributing to this thread may be interested in this newly published essay, available in pdf format via the link below. The authors examine ...Midlands' poor critical reputation and explore the various assumptions (and prejudices) about what does - and, supposedly, does not - make an 'authentic' Shane Meadows movie.

As a bonus, some of the regulars on here even get quoted as evidence of (oh yes!) "fan discourse"


www.nottingham.ac.uk/scope/february-issue-26.aspx#Articles

It's intended as food for thought rather than the final word on the matter, so I hope some of you find it interesting.

[jill]

Hi Martin,

I read your (and Emma's) article on the train on the way home tonight. A few random thoughts...

The whole auteur thing is curious- the heroic individual/visionary in the context of the collective effort of film making. My daughter often has a mini-rant about the total invisibility of Thelma Shoonmaker as the unsung 'other director' of Scorcese's films. It's especially problematic in ensemble and improvised works-who is the author? Yet, it is odd how Meadow's (and other) auteur film makers do have that distinctive personality stamped through them. I find that in Made of Stone, even as it is designed to tell/show somebody else's story, with the director stepping back. How does that happen?

On binaries, it's striking I think, how much our telling and reading of stories does pivot around what are-at root-simplistic constructions. I used to pride myself on thinking that I could discriminate between a classic or good Indie film and mainstream dross and so I was sort of knocked off kilter when I noticed that all the films I really loved actually conformed-pretty much-to the same archetypes, dramatic devices and narrative structures as a lot of the stuff I thought was crap. I personally think Meadow films do pivot around a dark/light binary. E.g Combo/Woody- and the psycho-drama, dark/light battle within those same characters. Maybe OUTIM ultimately fails because that (simple) element is missing in regard to the two central character's? I'm not sure, but I remember reading some place that Robert Carlyle insisted on changes in how Jimmy was written because he didn't want to be typecast (as a nasty). Perhaps Considine (who, as you say, features in the rehearsals), would have and was intended to play that part differently?

The feminisation thing is interesting to me also. While there was no work with a female lead and story until TiE 88, there has always been a solid feminine/feminised world that functions as a sort of sane, grounded counterpoint to those worlds of masculine dramas (so another binary). Still, Cathy Burke and Finn Atkins always were the stand out performances for me in OUTIM. And those 'homely' scenes-e.g all of them on the bed-are the bits of the film I like best. Maybe these gems really did escape being messed up by interventions from the producer ;D Shane has mentioned that at some point he'd like to lay down an alternative soundtrack.Would be interesting to see/hear how different music might change the mood and the meaning of the film...

Anyway, your paper's inspired me to watch it again....

(PS I've edited this down from my even longer and more rambling post last night. I travelled back with a workmate and we ended up killing a bit too much time, between trains, in the pub )

[thegooddoctor]

Thanks for this, Jill - I did read the full version last night! I take it from this that (beer or no beer) the article does indeed offer food for thought?

PS - being in Derby makes me want to drink heavily too...

[jill]

Yes, indeed. I thought it was a good piece. And you're undoubtedly onto something in your observations on the gendered language and phallic imagery invoked by reviewers. Like I say, I think there is a strong 'feminine' dimension in the films. And these portrayals are so very different from the 1960s social realist fare (much of which I find pretty misogynist or -I think-don't get much beyond women as victims. There are exception, of course and Taste of Honey is superb). The gendered and classed 'readings' of Shane as auteur is also an interesting point. I really need to watch it again though... I will do soon and post something more.

[thegooddoctor]

It's probably worth pointing out that at one point there was a paragraph (which later become a footnote, and was then later removed entirely due to the pressures of the word limit) which clarified our take on gender/Meadows - ie: we underscored the fact that while we think that Meadows' films themselves are far from 'masculinist' (quite the opposite, in fact, as myself and others have argued at length), the way critics talk about his work *is* often quite dubious on this level. I'm not sure its always clear in the essay that when we talk about the construction of Meadows' public image we're talking about the way he's portrayed in the media and how this inflects the way(s) his films are understood. As soon as you start talking about someone on the public eye who is both male and working-class there's a whole load of ideological baggage that comes with it (whether that's consciously invoked or not), and this tendency stretches waaaaay back - including, as you say Jill, the classic 'new wave' films from the middle of the century....

[jill]

I actually rewatched the film this afternoon. It's been a good few years and even longer since I watched the extras-Carlyle makes those comments in his extras interview and it seems Considine was originally in the frame to play Dek not Jimmy.

I do think a mythology has grown up around it being a 'bad' film. It's not a bad film and it certainly isn't shite. The basic concept's good and there are some lovely moments (I love the dancing in this and 24/7). To me, it just misses the mark-something's missing. I think the missing element might be the dramatic tension built around the dark/light, good/evil axis. I think Ifans is too OTT-it's actually hard to sympathise with his character. It's interesting that Jimmy was originally written as a much darker character. I think you can see from some of what remains (after those infamous interventions) that there might well have been an intended Romeo Brass type moment, when the film turned. Be interesting to know what was in those missing pages that were cut. I can imagine the producer saying, tone that down/keep it light, but I suspect it was never meant to be a comedy; like the other major films, the comedy was meant to be an organic, embedded part of the world. That's a huge difference.

You're right though, I think. It's not about the film not being 'masculine' (hard edged, 'gritty', whatever)-less still macho. It's about the construction of the plot and the drama, I think. Even as there were some nice moments and the penultimate scene is touching, I never felt emotionally caught up in the story. But yes it's interesting how those reviewers interpret it in that way-and what that tells you about how they've read earlier films too. I am sure there are a lot of creative people (as opposed to the suits and the money) throughout the industry who 'get it', but there are as many middle class commentators who can't get beyond class and gender stereotypes and totally miss the nuance and depth in the characters, in the world -and in the film maker.

[thegooddoctor]

Ironically enough the essay was originally supposed to be in the special edition of the Journal of British Cinema and Television' but they told us we needed to re-write it so it argued that the film is shit because Medders had his hands tied. Which seemed pointless because that's what everybody says: why spend 7000 words making the same point that everyone else does in 100?

I wonder if our essay just wasn't 'phallic' enough for them, eh?