Peterloo

Dir: Mike Leigh

2018

*****

Peterloo is a dark chapter in British history, one that is often overlooked and forgotten. This is why we need directors such as Mike Leigh and Ken Loach and I fear for the days when they’re no longer around. If I watched Peterloo without knowing who directed it however, then I would have guessed Ken Loach and I would say the only negative I have about it is that there wasn’t quite enough Mike Leigh there. That said, I love his films such as Topsy-Turvey and Naked, and these are totally different films. Peterloo couldn’t really have the same humour often used by Leigh, it had to be factual and quite serious. However, Leigh’s unique charm comes through loud and clear in the script and in the performances. The film begins at the end of the Battle of Waterloo. A young bugler Joseph wanders around the battle field, bugle in hand, amazed that the battle is over and somehow he has survived. He walks all the way after serving in the Duke of Wellington's army to Manchester and his close-knit family headed by parents Joshua and Nellie. Joshua, son Robert, daughter Mary and daughter-in-law Esther all earn a living from manual labour in a cotton mill. An economic depression makes work impossible for the traumatised Joseph to find, and threatens the family's livelihood altogether. The family are sympathetic to the then-radical campaigns for equal civil and political rights for all free men, and against the Corn Laws that prevent them from buying cheaper imported grain. We follow Joshua, Joseph and Robert as they attend political meetings where local agitators including John Knight, Samuel Bamford and John Bagguley speak out against the system of government. Meanwhile, the local authorities, led by magistrates Colonel Fletcher, Reverend Hay, Reverend Ethelston and Mr Norris, and Deputy Chief Constable Nadin, spy on the radical movement and wait for an excuse to arrest its leaders. Likewise, Home Secretary Lord Sidmouth is determined to suppress radical politics. When a disgruntled Londoner smashes the window of the Prince Regent's coach, Sidmouth uses this as a pretext for suspending Habeas corpus. Bamford and his friend Joseph Healey travel south to London to hear the famous radical Henry 'Orator' Hunt speak at a political meeting. Hunt has a reputation for vanity, but Bamford persuades Manchester businessman Joseph Johnson to invite Hunt to address a mass meeting at St Peter's Fields, while the Home Office discovers this invitation by intercepting Johnson's letter. Arriving at Manchester, Hunt goes into hiding in Johnson's home. Richards, an undercover Home Office agent, is able to provoke Bagguley and fellow radicals Drummond and Johnston into publicly calling for armed insurrection, leading to their arrest and imprisonment. The magistrates plan to suppress Hunt's meeting and make an example of the attendees using the local mounted militia, the Manchester and Salford Yeomanry, and a regular army detachment led by General Byng. However, Hunt remains certain that he can lead a peaceful rally, and sidelines Bamford when he warns of the likelihood of brutal treatment by the authorities. On the day of the meeting, thousands of people march into Manchester from the surrounding towns to hear Hunt speak at St Peter's Fields, including Nellie and Joshua and their family. Bamford leads a procession from Middleton, but leaves in disgust once it becomes clear that Hunt wants to be the only speaker allowed to address the crowd. Meanwhile, General Byng has left his deputy in command in order to attend a genteel horseracing meet. A special committee of magistrates has been assembled to take charge of events, chaired by Mr Hulton. Norris, who urges restraint, is overruled. Once Hunt begins to speak, Reverend Ethelston reads the Riot Act to the crowd. Although the crowd pays no attention to Ethelston, the magistrates are now legally empowered to disperse the meeting. The Yeomanry cavalry assault the peaceful assembly with sabres drawn, while Hunt and Johnson are arrested by Nadin's men. The army tries to clear St Peter's Fields, but in the mayhem the crowd is unable to escape before several people are killed and many more injured. Joseph is wounded with a sabre and later dies. Despite the massacre, the Prince Regent sends his congratulations to the magistrates for suppressing radicalism in Manchester. It enrages me when people suggest Leigh and Loach get of their soapbox, as this is a brilliant look at how very little has changed in 200 years. Much criticism for the film was aimed at the length and content. It was lambasted by the papers for being too long and too ‘talky’, which goes to show the state of things. Each and every action has a reaction and everything that cumulated in the horrific massacre is explained for all to understand. It wasn’t just a thrown potato that caused a massacre. History is brought to life by characters and performances who help us understand the parallels to current events and what life was like for them; the differences and similarities. The teaching of sociology is in woeful decline so we need films like this. The history aspect is factual and nothing has been changed to suit a formulaic structure. People complain that the massacre scene is too short but I would argue that it is sharp, effective and to the point without being gratuitous. It’s still graphic and shows it for what it was. The performances are superb, with a plethora of great actors supporting each other. The truth is that there are several award winning performances here but when there are so many in one place they never seem to get nominated, which I can never quite understand. Although the film is visually impressive and the set piece etc are all brilliant I can understand why it may have been overlooked for other films but I think the overall screenplay and script has been woefully ignored. The fact that this sort of film still upsets people tell you everything you need to know about the state of things and why such films need to continue. It’s an amazingly detailed slice of history as well as an important one.