Naked : The dialogue between Johnny and Sebastian/Jeremy

Can anyone explain the dialogue between Johnny and Sebastian/Jeremy when they meet towards the end of the film at Sophie and Louise's house?

Johnny is undergoing an epileptic fit, brought on by the beating he's just had. I think he is hallucinating when he sees Sebastian, and says 'Are you me Dad?'. We must assume that Johnny's dad left when he was young, and so doesn't really remember him.

It's difficult to work out the other line that Johnny says though, before Sebastian says 'Aren't people pathetic.' From memory it is something like 'Are we going now?'

I thought the meeting was intended to be more meaningful in terms of the storyline rather than just a chance occurrence. It struck me during this scene and indeed throughout the film that there must be some connection between the two characters. Sebastian certainly seems to have an arresting affect on Johnny, beyond the obvious trauma caused by the beating, when they meet in the hallway. Equally, Sebastian looks unusually shocked, given his liking for offensive behaviour. As you mention, it is hard to make out the actual dialogue at this point and Ive not read the screenplay but does anyone think the reference to Dad and the general reactions of Johnny and Sebastian point to a previous history between these two characters? And does Sebastians alias have anything to do with this?

when i first watched this movie i hoped that the two enigmatic characters paths would cross at some pointi was disappointed with the eventual confrontation as i was expecting some serious verbal fire works! i also found johnnys words a bit confusing. whether intended or not, the bond between the two seemed quite evident throughout the movie to me. although i can't explain why i felt they related to one another. they were quite opposite in many ways. although both had a unique outlook towards life and people.

maybe mike leigh was suggesting that the two were brothers that once born had seperated and followed different paths in life?

incidently, as anyone seen the character greg crutwell plays in '2 days in the valley'? the character in that movie is strikingly similar to his sebastian/jeremy character, although somewhat weaker.

When I first saw 'Naked' on video, I spent quite a lot of time trying to understand what Johnny said to Sebastian, and I'm almost certain that he mumbled "Are you my brother?"

Since then, I've assumed that Johnny and Sebastian were brothers, who were separated when young.

____
"If you ain't a marine then you ain't *beep*

Johnny and Sebastian are supposed to be like two sides of the same coin. Sebastian is basically in the movie in order to make Johnny more sympathetic. Both are nasty, violent misoginists, however Sebastian, who is upper-class, is portrayed as a pure slimeball, whereas Johnny, who is lower-class, is a slightly better human being. Whereas Sebastian purposely acts like monster and enjoys it, Johnny is more conflicted. He doesn't feel good about the way he acts the way Sebastian does. Because he is lower-class, he is even a bit of a victim himself. A victim of society. Sebastian, being wealthy, doesn't have that excuse. Whereas Johnny lashes out because of the bad hand he's been dealt in life, Sebastian is merely sadistic for the fun of it.

Sick of the train he galloped with a false pride to his bitches side

I think the character's of Johnny's girlfriend and Sebastian are arranged as opposite ends of a spectrum that Johnny finds himself in. His girlfriend is still a good person, trying to help him, whereas Sebastian is entirely evil, who lives to inflict harm. Johnny, throughout the movie, is moving towards Sebastian's style of behaviour - although not entirely evil, something seems to have gone very wrong in his life, and he is beginning to enjoy hurting more and more, as with the flatmate, and the security guard he encounters, to whom his long rant is an attempt to strip back all that the guy lives for, almost under the pretense of helping him, enlightening him. Reaching out to Sebastian was like seeing if he would take Johnny into his corner, a life of complete hurtfulness. Sebastian would not have it, and Johnny needed his old girlfriend to take care of him at that point. Perhaps that neither she nor Sebastian could understand Johnny suggests that he is still floating in between the two extremes, good and bad.

Bastard Wisher and Trbrogxren:

Bam. You nailed exactly how I saw it. Well said

another correlation i saw between sebastion and johnny was both of their invasion of peoples privacy and personal space. johnny freaked out the girl from the diner as sebastion was terrorizing the 2 girls. both characters often say increadably inappropriate things as well. the roomate that gets home at the end is the only woman in the film to speak her mind efficently. she sums it all up when she talks to johnny at the end saying stuff like "i'm not comfortable" and "this is my house."

I thought all of the above, but I also thought there were some bizarre pseudo-religious connotations in the scene also. With Johnny as Jesus, and Jeremy as Satan. I might be way off the markit was more a sustained mood than anything concrete I have to offer, actually.

Great thread some interesting observations. While I agree that the juxtaposition of the two characters emphasizes certain parallels (ie, educated, selfish and sexually violent towards women) they are, in some respects, antithetical to one another: Sebastian was upper class, whereas Johnny was working class; Sebastian was wealthy, Johnny was poor (was on "the dole"); Sebastian looked after himself physically and mentally (he attended the gym, massage parlours and ate at expensive restaurants), whereas Johnny didn't at all (Johnny smoked, drank alcohol, had to manipulate people/steal to obtain food and drink, etc) and was ravaged by physical and, therefore, mental illness ("chronic systolic palpitations and acute neuralgia"). In other words, they both lived entirely different lifestyles; Sebastian's affluent and salubrious, Johnny's poor and wretched. Sebastian was a Tory and Johnny, Labour!

In addition, I don't think Johnny was entirely misogynistic like Sebastian was. For example, when he crossed paths with Maggie and the girl from the cafe, he was quite benevolent and caring, particularly with the former.

---

looker7
In addition, I don't think Johnny was entirely misogynistic like Sebastian was. For example, when he crossed paths with Maggie and the girl from the cafe, he was quite benevolent and caring, particularly with the former.

---

You may be unclear of the meaning of the word "misogynist" if you don't think the character of Johnny was full on misogynistic.

It means, hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misogynist

The movie opens with Johnny raping a woman in an alleyway than running off to London to escape the consequences. While in London, he rapes or almost rapes at least 2 more women. Including one who woman, Sophie, who said she loved him and was willing to have a consensual relationship with him. We won't even mention how cruelly he treated Louise and the tea shop girl, for no good reason that I could see.

What else does the man have to do to earn the title of misogynist?

---

No two persons ever watch the same movie.

---

I believe Johnny is a fallen angel, and Sebastian is "the" fallen angel, Satan.
This fits in with his biblical obsession. He recognizes satan because Satan is notorious.

Or, perhaps Johnny is an angel of the apocalypse. He mentions the end of times on multiple occasions. In many ways you could see Johnny's role in the film as trying to get people to really live their lives while they still can, seek fufillment by taking them out of their comfort zone.
He's trying to resuscitate them, and this has to be done violently.

He says, "I'm still wet." in his confrontation with Sebastian in reference to his birth as a human being. He's only just reached earth and already he realizes he's not cut out for it.
And Satan rejects him, outright.
This metaphor of birth continues in a few scenes when he asks about what it would be like if they never cut the umbilical chord? Would it just rot and fall off? I imagine he's referring to his relationship with God.

I don't buy the "two sides of the same coin" theory

I think it's that Sebastian wishes to destroy all around him while Johnny just wants to destroy himself.

Sebastian picks his targets and is just plain evil to them. If you notice, most of Johhny's victims cross his path by chance. He doesn't start abusing them until they show him some kindness or try to connect with him. His abuse of these people, I believe, is just a manifestation of his own self hatred.

When they meet. Sebastian shows only the vaguest interest in Johhny. Johnny on the other hand (no pun inteneded), seems drawn to Sebastian like no other character in the film. He tries to hold his hand. I think this is because Johnny immediately recognizes Sebastian as a vessel of destruction. Sebastian recoils because he doesn't want to be exposed to somebody that wants to destroy himself. It's antithetical to his motives.

Two people of the same kind but without the same path. When they look at each other, it's like looking in a mirror.

The only psychological difference I saw is that Sebastian seems to like who he is, I'm not so sure that Johnny was really enjoying himself, he was more on some kind of self destruction life by the destruction of others. First one was a misogynist, rapist, cruel and selfish man while the other one was hiding behind all his.

I think one idea was to show a rich Johnny, using Sebastian. Forcing you to admit that you like Johnny most because he's poor, because he has no place to hide (and often to sleep) after all. And you kind of feel guilty about it, because you know these guys are equals when it comes to be the devil himself.

Johnny is a clever man who happends to be crazy, in his very complicated way he uses sadism to be masochist. It's obvious the character was given a huge seduction power he uses for woman to be attracted to him, and finally he rapes them. What's the point of raping a woman who's agreeing to be banged ? He's also using it to get a place to sleep or a meal, but again he manages at the end to be hated. All this because he wants to feel comfortable and accepted in order to be thrown and rejected.

And at the end the point of the movie was really misunderstood. While being hated by so many for being a misogynist movie when it's in fact a movie against men, who are always so horrible, while women suffer because of them.

I like the idea the character of Jeremy is there "to show a rich Johnny". That's the primary difference between them. Johnny has to be charismatic and seductive to get close enough to women in order to vent his misogynist rage and it's this charm that makes Johnny likable to the audience.

Jeremy can seduce women with his material possessions so hasn't developed any charisma so is intensely unlikable. I think Leigh's masterstroke is showing two equally despicable men and playing with the audience to make them feel (hope?) that Johnny is somehow morally a better man than Jeremy, when in fact it's merely a matter of class, some good jokes and a top notch performance from David Thewlis.

With the line "Will it be quiet?", I think Johnny believes that he has died and mistakes Jeremy for some figure of the afterlife. He is quite tormented, faith and reason waring within, and I feel a suicidal subtext to his character, one that desires to evolve into the next state of being. He is on a quest to see just how much hell he can put himself through and those around him, learning as much as he can along the way. His life is his own, he's not going to waste it, even if he is miserable. He wants to transcend this madness but at the same time, he doesn't want to miss out on those moments that make life worth living. That's what I get out of the film, "DON'T WASTE YOUR LIFE." Its' a goddamned tragedy, life is cruel, men and women rip each others souls apart, everyone is a liar, etc., but don't take it for granted, it could always be worse, AND OTHER CLICHES.

I can't be sure exactly, but I think he also says something along the lines of "I'm still wet" - as someone else pointed out, perhaps he thinks he's died and been reborn as something else like the prophecy he describes to Brian.

However I took it to mean something more along the lines of being wet behind the ears, if you'll excuse the cliche - despite his apparently formidable armour of cruel wit and cynical intellect, he is still ill equipped to deal with life. It seems to me he thinks the world could and should be better, but the thought of such beauty renders him even more wretched. He would rather deal in life's cruelties, because he trusts them. Everyone knows that cynics are just disappointed romantics

To me he was an incredibly sad character, because he spends the whole film reaching out to people in his own terrible way, and either ends up disappointed that they're so easily broken, or disappointed that he didn't get through to them; then he rejects the one person who might be able to get through to him. Don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware that he is a loathsome misanthrope and a despicable opportunist, but his abhorrent behaviour is born of desperation rather than wickedness, unlike Jeremy/Sebastian. I felt a curious mixture of things for his character, which is surely the mark of a truly great performance.

To me, this is the only point in the film where he is as naked as the title suggests. I was surprisingly moved by it. That's how I see it anyway; but it's an incredibly complex film, I could watch it many times and see it differently each time.

I also think that this a great thread and a very interesting thematic question that I was wondering about as soon as I finished the film (10 minutes ago)

Jeremy/Sebastian is clearly set up as a foil to Johnny from his first appearance in the film, getting massaged. To me this was obvious almost a cliche. You have your male protagonist introduced, and suddenly, another male character, slightly similar in appearance but different somehow, slightly eviler, appears. You have a "double," and your thematics in each character will echo off each other. [Example, although very different film: Matt Damon and Leo Dicaprio in The Departed]

So, the encounter of these two foils finally comes at the end, but it's incredibly anticlimactic. I really like what people said about Jeremy being a more evil Johnny. But I feel like there's more to it.

-Jeremy is hilarious. Many of his lines are outrageous and funny.
-Jeremy and Johnny, while very different as people, are virtually identical in their actions. The upfront sexual demands, the misogny, the rapes. Yet Jeremy is definitely the "bad one" and Johnny is our hero, so

Actually, I'm confused and I don't know what to make of it, or of this movie. Heh. All I know is that I loved it and am dying to see more Mike Leigh. (The only film of his I'd seen previous to this one was 'Topsy Turvy,' which was great).

Another thing - the money Johnny takes at the end seemed like it must have been left by Sebastian.

Here's Johnny's dialogue that's hard to understand, taken from the captions/subs, just to be helpful. This is after he's done thrashing and screaming in the hallway:

"I know.

I know you told me.

AndI'm not here yet! I'm still wet.

What did she mean?

Why not me brother?

Will it be quiet now? Yeah?

(Johnny reaches out to touch Jeremy's hand)

Are we going?

(recoils back)

Oh *beep*. *beep*

A d-doctor? Is he the doctor?

Ow. Me leg.

You don't know."


It's taken me 16 years to find out for sure what the dialogue was in that scene. Figured I should share.

Something that just occurred to me..maybe the Johnny thinks Jeremy is the angel of death, in bikini drawers? LOL ;)

Not totally sure having read the dialogue but I always felt this might have been a reference to physical/sexual abuse when he was younger, suggesting that he was beaten when his brother was unpunished.

I think much of the scene is Johnny reliving past events due to his state of confusion after the attack. Before this scene he's saying "it's not my fault" relating this back to a previous traumatic event. He's lying on the ground, battered and bruised, sees a scornful man standing over him, and the "I know, you told me" refers to the "lesson" he believes this father figure has "taught" him through physical punishment. Maybe his mother always blamed him for any wrongdoing, sparing his brother. The "will it be quiet now?" I believe refers to him asking if he will stop being shouted at and beaten.

The only part that doesn't make sense in this interpretation is the phrase "I'm not here yet! I'm still wet" although this might possibly relate to being young and not yet grown at the time of the abuse ("wet behind the ears" meaning young, naive or inexperienced).

So much of Johnny's behaviour: the bleak outlook; his inability to form substantial intimate relationships; the underlying anger; and passive-aggression as a projection of his self hatred, used to belittle and ultimately crush the self-respect and motivations of others would tend to indicate an individual who had developed in an abusive, destructive environment with toxic, parental relationships.

I definitely agree that Johnny, given his often chaotic, unpredictable and odious behaviour, was raised in a very dysfunctional family where physical and, perhaps, sexual abuse was the norm. I think the dialogue spoken after he was subjected to a vicious, physical gang assault and confrontation with Jeremy is indicative of this type of tragic upbringing. On a more nebulous and cryptic note, I think that the line "I'm not here yet. I'm still wet." could, perhaps, signify that he was a bedwetter, a condition that can be induced by, among other things, sexual abuse. Any thoughts?

I've always thought all the characters in the film are different parts of one being's mind. From a Freudian perspective, I think Johnny is the Superego, although one with a highly flawed moral code, one still exists.

Johnny and Sebastian/Jeremy both appear to be sadists, but as the film goes it becomes more clear that Johnny oscillates between sadism and masochism he sins, but he believes in having to pay for his sins, while for Sebastian/Jeremy that entire paradigm is alien to him. Through the film Johnny is moving more towards what Sebastian/Jeremy already is, the Id, more animal than human being as he's driven by pure instinct and a complete lack of empathy.

Though it is tough to see at first, Johnny has a profound empathy with the other characters in the film, but his fatalism often masks it. In the end, the Superego triumphs over the Id, and the meta-character of the film matures. Similarly, Johnny got what he came for in the first place, the opportunity to accompany Louise back to Manchester, but by not going with her, he is letting himself fade to black, with Louise, the Ego, being left in control of this same meta-character at the end.

I can't help but feel that the inevitable meeting between the two characters was simply a beautifully executed case of misdirection by the director to keep the audience in check. He lead us down the path of "These two characters are similar, unruly, unreasonable and bound to meet." just for them to meet in a very anticlimactic fashion. Just to remind us that the world of film need not be perfect and nor should it's circumstances be preordained to the extent that they align precisely how we'd like them to align, in a purely entertaining and exciting manner.

I couldn't wait for the two to meet and was sorely disappointed by their meeting. In saying that, I remember being surprised and being filled with a feeling of "If only they were both at their best: There would be firework!" but alas they weren't, as is often the case in real life. Ultimately, it was more surprising that they DIDN'T have a showdown and was a truly spectacular demonstration of life and how easily it catches us off-guard or under-prepared even when we were the man for the job, the better candidate, a worthy adversary.

I enjoyed their poorly timed encounter as I felt that it was real, I believed it.

Or am I perhaps under-analyzing their meeting?

TheRecommendationStudio Wed Oct 26 2016 20:57:52

"I can't help but feel that the inevitable meeting between the two characters was simply a beautifully executed case of misdirection by the director to keep the audience in check. He lead us down the path of "These two characters are similar, unruly, unreasonable and bound to meet." just for them to meet in a very anticlimactic fashion. Just to remind us that the world of film need not be perfect and nor should it's circumstances be preordained to the extent that they align precisely how we'd like them to align, in a purely entertaining and exciting manner.

I couldn't wait for the two to meet and was sorely disappointed by their meeting. In saying that, I remember being surprised and being filled with a feeling of "If only they were both at their best: There would be firework!" but alas they weren't, as is often the case in real life. Ultimately, it was more surprising that they DIDN'T have a showdown and was a truly spectacular demonstration of life and how easily it catches us off-guard or under-prepared even when we were the man for the job, the better candidate, a worthy adversary."

"I enjoyed their poorly timed encounter as I felt that it was real, I believed it."

"Or am I perhaps under-analyzing their meeting?"

Very interesting post. I hitherto hadn't interpreted their meeting in the way you described above, but, the more I think about the ideas you've presented here, I agree with almost all of them; it's like I have always subconciously and intuitively thought that what you described is what the scene of Johnny and Sebastian's encounter represents, but previously had just never thought it out loudly or connected the dots properly to formulate the same opinion as yours. Intriguing stuff.

Incidentally, can you expand on what you meant when you said you felt the director "misdirected" the scene? Is "misdirection" a technical term/jargon in film-making? Would I be correct in assuming that you basically meant he deliberately and purposely shot the scene illogically?