MovieChat Forums > Naked (1994) Discussion > How exactly do Johnny and Sebastian conn...

How exactly do Johnny and Sebastian connect?


Are they just two separate characters in this movie with apparently on a metaphorical level Sebastian perhaps being simply Johnny's darker side.

But then at the end, after getting beaten, Johnny looks at Sebastian/Jeremy as if he knew him from some distant past, and then talks about "I'm still wet, why not my brother" as if that man was his distant brother or something.

And if they aren't at all connected, was this film then just having two separate characters and telling two separate stories and that its also a huge coincidence that the Sebastian character intruded on the lives of people close to Johnny and even violated that woman (yes, I know I know) close to him or did perhaps Sebastian know him and the people he was related to or lived close to?

And when he attacked and yes sexually assaulted Katrin Cartlidge's "Sophie" character, he did it for his own very of course selfish reasons and because he was simply a violent and sadistic psychopath but it wasn't in any way tied to him having any real connection to Johnny? Right?

Thanks.

reply

I don't know if you're British but we have a saying "wet behind the ears" which means naive. When Johnny says "I'm still wet" it's the only time in the film he lays bare who he is. Someone who doesn't know as much as he thinks and still has a lot to learn about life. When he says "why me, why not my brother" he's reliving his dad physically assaulting him as a kid. He was the one who always got it. There's no actual connection between Johnny and Jeremy other than a possible metaphorical one.

Jeremy is Satan. Pure evil with no redeeming value while Johnny is like a fallen Christ. Notice the clock behind his head to represent an halo. That wasn't an accident. Mike Leigh wanted that shot in there. There's a hint of some humanity in Johnny somewhere but we see very little of it. In the closing shot, he literally doesn't choose a path. He walks right down the middle of the road. He might end up on one path and ultimately change or he might go down the same path as Jeremy who is beyond hope. But for now or possibly forever, Johnny is in between redemption and destruction.

I think Jeremy is also there as a device for Mike Leigh to show different sides of the same coin on a social level, and to hold a mirror up to the audience in terms of manipulation of cinema and storytelling. Leigh seems to be saying men can be sexist and abusive whether they are poor like Johnny or wealthy like Jeremy. Ultimately, there's not much difference between the two, we just subconsciously think there is because we mostly follow Johnny but he shouldn't nescessarily be given a "get out of jail free" card from the audience just because of his background and because he has most of the screen time.






reply

"we mostly follow Johnny but he shouldn't nescessarily be given a "get out of jail free" card from the audience just because of his background and because he has most of the screen time."

Obviously, and we shouldn't grant him a "totally forgiven" and "morally less responsible" as such "card" either, but I wasn't totally JUST looking at those matters and aspects in terms of their "legal" sides as valid and inexplicable as they are though.

reply

Plus, what about vengeance aspect that even at the end of this movie, before the total end with "Johnny", ALMOST happens, with Louise and Sebastian in that kitchen after the "smoked salmon" (pronounced "samon", last word, in English, its a popular fish by the way) brief conversation?

Like, we have seen in certain movies such scenes and films if such mostly in those cases male perps against (as included an example) mostly in those cases female victims or potential victims... If law can't touch them, that is.

Not to mention the fact that, SPOILER, in this film, the main "plot line" revolves around Johnny fleeing to London for apparently committing that act at the beginning and attempting to escape the vengeful wrath of the woman's brothers.

reply