Happy-Go-Lucky (Mike Leigh, 2008)

[Antoine Doinel]

Leigh's new film is debuting at the Berlin Film Festival. Here's an article about the film which seems to be a slight departure for Leigh.

Here's the trailer and a clip.

[chaddoli]

I'm so excited for the new Leigh film. It's cool he cast Sally Hawkins in the lead, after her fantastic supporting roles in his films, and her star-making turn in Cassandra's Dream that no one noticed.

[thirtyframesasecond]

I thought it was pretty uneven and not the great film that the British critics have so far suggested. Much like Poppy herself, the film seems sparky and spunky but becomes quite tiresome.

Too many aspects of it seem really contrived. There's a scene where one pupil of Poppy's starts bullying other kids. This allows Poppy to meet a social worker with whom she starts a relationship, but the whole bullying issue then gets forgotten about as if the whole thing was just a device for her to meet a guy. And then there's the satire of upwardly mobile types which has kind of been done to death by Leigh and just isn't very subtle - Poppy's pregnant sister lives with her husband in the Essex suburbs and has nothing to interest her beyond her garden and flat pack furniture; living the stereotype of a dull lower middle class existence then.

Much of the film genuinely is really funny and despite critics' general billing of this as a light hearted comedy, there's much darkness in the interaction she has with her angry and troubled driving instructor, Scott. Shame too much of the film is so contrived and lacking in subtlety.

[Kenji]

I've not seen it yet, but there have been a lot of articles in the British general press, pointing up the surprising new happy side of the (apparently) usually miserable Leigh. Of course Topsy Turvy wasn't exactly a gloomfest, and there's been humour in many of his relatively down to earth or grim films. I've had reservations about his use of caricatures and yes contrivances before; the mother-daughter reunion scene in Secrets and Lies irritated me, seemingly (for me incongruously) playing it for laughs and missing a sense of intensity

[colinr0380]

I haven't seen the film yet either but this film seems to have caused a Leigh backlash among the British critics, at least from the reviews I've read. The reviews seem to follow a one-two punch of 'the lead character is irritating' followed by 'I'm generally irritated by Mike Leigh's characters all talking with a similar voice' (similar to the Tarantino criticism of not being able to create varied characters instead making them all speak Tarantino-isms).

I'm going to wait to judge for myself but it seems that the bad reviews aren't necessarily directed at any flaws of this particular film, more just a general comment on their growing ennui with Mike Leigh films. It probably helped though that I didn't buy into the hype about his 'naturalistic' dialogue - it has always seemed 'mannered' to me, albeit in a way I find easier to take than in recent Tarantino.

From the clips and reviews so far it seems like this might have a lot in common with Naked, and not just it being the flip-side contrast between the depressive Johnny and relentlessly upbeat Poppy. Both of them seem to be living and defining their environment to some extent in order to protect themselves from the outside world, confrontation either through anger or humour (I'm reserving the right to be proved completely wrong about this once I see the film though!)

[tryavna]

I haven't seen the film yet either but this film seems to have caused a Leigh backlash among the British critics, at least from the reviews I've read.

[...]

I'm going to wait to judge for myself but it seems that the bad reviews aren't necessarily directed at any flaws of this particular film, more just a general comment on their growing ennui with Mike Leigh films.

Isn't that fairly typical, though? British film and music critics must have been the primary models for hipsters (not that I want to bring up that thread again) in that they can't seem to stand it when an artist who was edgy finds more mainstream success. Seems like there was a similar (though slightly less pronounced) backlash against Ken Loach with Wind That Shakes the Barley.

[colinr0380]

Seems like there was a similar (though slightly less pronounced) backlash against Ken Loach with Wind That Shakes the Barley.

True, but I suppose Leigh has been cushioned from that to a certain extent since the Oscar success of Secrets and Lies ("well, if the Americans like it...") while Loach's agitprop has been more of a consistently reliable target for certain people to get outraged by!

[Robin Davies]

Backlash? I read the Guardian and their critic seemed to like it.

And I've seen an ad for the movie which has 13 high star ratings and words of praise plastered over it.

[Kenji]

Of course even crappy films can usually manage to come up with some (if not loads of) publicity quotes, but the several reviews i read were positive too (including Jonathon Romney who's certainly no mug).

[colinr0380]

Backlash? I read the Guardian and their critic seemed to like it.

There were a couple of average reviews from the Times and Telegraph.

Maybe backlash is too harsh but even while the Guardian reviewer likes the Poppy character he seems to make a point of commenting on the dialogue: "Mike Leigh's trademarked cartoony dialogue, as ever lending a neo-Dickensian compression and intensity to the proceedings, is an acquired taste and I have gladly acquired it, though some haven't." (It seems like it has grown on Bradshaw in the couple of months since seeing it in Berlin as he's upped his rating a star - perhaps that might be a good testament to the film though!). Xan Brooks in the Guardian's 17th April podcast gives a positive review but also raises ideas of Leigh's films being more caricature than naturalism - as I say I think that is a good thing but it just seems interesting to note that reviews seem to be taking time out to mention it with regard to this film.

I quite like this review by Derek Malcolm though.

[MichaelB]

Isn't that fairly typical, though? British film and music critics must have been the primary models for hipsters (not that I want to bring up that thread again) in that they can't seem to stand it when an artist who was edgy finds more mainstream success.

I'm not disagreeing with you on principle, but I really don't think that's at play in this particular instance. For starters, Leigh had his biggest mainstream success in 1977 (when BBC1 showed Abigail's Party), which is why even people who normally couldn't give two hoots about contemporary British arthouse cinema will not only recognise Mike Leigh's name but will be broadly familiar with his style.

And there have been Leigh backlashes on a regular basis ever since: High Hopes was attacked for caricaturing its minor characters. Naked was attacked for its nihilism and apparent misogyny. Career Girls was attacked for being fluffy and insubstantial. All or Nothing was attacked for exploring overly familiar territory. Conversely, Topsy-Turvy generated some of Leigh's best-ever reviews - and that film is arguably his most mainstream-friendly to date.

So any negative reaction to Happy-Go-Lucky is part of a very familiar pattern, and certainly doesn't suggest a collective changing of opinion regarding his work.

Seems like there was a similar (though slightly less pronounced) backlash against Ken Loach with Wind That Shakes the Barley.

The attacks on that film seemed to me to be largely political (in other words, a return to Hidden Agenda territory), and The Wind the Shakes The Barley isn't noticeably more audience-friendly than the rest of Loach's recent work. Except in Ireland, of course, where it was an unqualified smash hit - but then again, that's hardly surprising!

[tryavna]

I'm not disagreeing with you on principle, but I really don't think that's at play in this particular instance.

I was being a bit too flippant in my original post. Of course, you're correct on both counts (the Leigh criticism being part of a larger pattern and the Loach criticism being tied to politics). I guess the news in Kenji's and Colin's posts hit a particular nerve with me: I get extremely annoyed at the self-defeating tendencies of much mainstream British film criticism.

[MichaelB]

I thought it was pretty uneven and not the great film that the British critics have so far suggested. Much like Poppy herself, the film seems sparky and spunky but becomes quite tiresome.

I first looked at my watch expecting it to be two-thirds finished and found that it wasn't even half-way done yet. And that was roughly the point when the film seemed to fissure into a series of individually well-staged but ultimately unconnected scenes.

Too many aspects of it seem really contrived. There's a scene where one pupil of Poppy's starts bullying other kids. This allows Poppy to meet a social worker with whom she starts a relationship, but the whole bullying issue then gets forgotten about as if the whole thing was just a device for her to meet a guy.

Well, to be fair, the bullying subplot isn't outlined in that much detail to begin with - and presumably it ceased to be Poppy's concern once the social worker had been called in?

And then there's the satire of upwardly mobile types which has kind of been done to death by Leigh and just isn't very subtle - Poppy's pregnant sister lives with her husband in the Essex suburbs and has nothing to interest her beyond her garden and flat pack furniture; living the stereotype of a dull lower middle class existence then.

I actually thought this worked surprisingly well given its familiarity, largely because it was condensed into a couple of brief and contiguous scenes. And the husband was priceless.

Much of the film genuinely is really funny and despite critics' general billing of this as a light hearted comedy, there's much darkness in the interaction she has with her angry and troubled driving instructor, Scott. Shame too much of the film is so contrived and lacking in subtlety.

The Brighton Odeon audience last night laughed more or less continuously throughout, and it was a perfect environment for the film. But I agree with you that it's darker than the advance billing would have it, though I don't think it's quite as contrived as you're making out (or rather: what happens to Poppy is entirely plausible given that she's a single 30-year-old Londoner - I've met plenty of Poppies in real life!). My only real problem with it is that nearly two hours is too long to sustain what is essentially a pretty episodic narrative with only the scenes with Eddie having much dramatic impetus.

So for me it was a come-down after Topsy Turvy and Vera Drake (I haven't seen All or Nothing yet, though it's been sitting on my PVR for months), but it was still a pretty good night out.

[spaniel]

Was doing a search re: Happy-go-lucky and came across this forum. I have already got into a fair amount of heated discussion regarding this film which seems to divide opinion much more dramatically than the generally positive reviews seem to indicate. I wonder whether this is due to a desire to get behind Leigh on the part of UK critics, as he's an example of that rare species, The Great British Auteur. Then again, they liked it in Berlin. I saw the film with an appreciative audience and two seething companions, one of whom wrote an enjoyably comprehensive demolition job on the film here.

[Antoine Doinel]

North American trailer.

[Cde.]

A trailer as ineffectual and obnoxious as the film it promotes.

Poppy is a supremely unlikable character. Her 'happiness' is truly a masked arrogance, like that of a naughty schoolboy disrupting class, never ready to take anyone else (or the prospect that they may have wisdom to provide) seriously. Her happiness truly is based around the misery of others. Everyone is prime material for mockery, and she is completely insensitive (at the very least inattentive) to the emotional states of others. Towards the end, I thought for a little while that this film was taking a much more sophisticated approach than I had initially thought; the gradual breaking down of the driving instructor seemed to be Leigh's way of examining how harmful how harmful this false happiness can be, but by the end of the film he wants all our sympathies with Poppy rather than with the nutter Satanist conspiracy theorist who couldn't lighten up and have a bit' o' fun wif Poppeh. Leigh never challenges Poppy's outlook because she never has to confront normal people. Everyone in this film apart from Poppy and her friends, from the worst salesman in the world in the opening scene to the (as thirtyframesasecond rightly points out) contrived stock middle class stock-types they visit, are so miserable and unpleasant so as to paint Poppy as a shining beacon of goodness in contrast. I was a little bit insulted by the idea Leigh seems to be pushing that it's such a tragedy that types like Poppy are dragged down by the woes of the world and we should all learn a little bit about life from her. She doesn't strike me as a flesh and blood happy, funny person but a cartoon character, and quite possibly mentally ill. She's clearly living in a different universe to that of the rest of the characters, let alone our own.

[rs98762001]

It's a beautiful and deeply human film. The standard (and tedious) criticisms of Leigh's work are even less applicable than usual in this case: there's not a single character in this film to whom he condescends or paints as a stereotype.

[Murdoch]

My reaction to the film was initially similar to Cde, but as the film progressed I found myself empathizing with Poppy. I saw her perception of life as one who truly loves life and the people she talks to, but remains in a state of refusal toward adulthood. I saw Scott as representing the trouble and sorrow that adulthood can bring and the relationship between them as this convergence of childhood and adulthood.

Spoiler

Scott's love for, or rather infatuation with, Poppy sprang from his own misery toward life and longing to see life as she saw it. She reacted with almost mockery toward him until he finally erupted when she wouldn't let him drive, which caused Poppy to awaken from this state of looking upon Scott as someone to study in his mannerisms and rage and she looked at him as someone unable to salvage because of the prolonged misery he has lived in. I remember Scott saying how he was happy teaching Poppy to drive, but the whole time he taught her he yelled at her and became angry, and this deeply saddened me because you could see how Scott wanted to connect with Poppy but his disagreeable personality made this an impossibility.
Also, I found the scene with the homeless man to be the best scene of the film, and that the homeless man was representative of Poppy's rejection of growing up since here was this lonesome man babbling in this abandoned place, and to me here were showcased all of Poppy's fears of growing up: that you become isolated from those you love and the only one who understands you is yourself. The bum wanders and seems disoriented until he looks at Poppy and there is this look of, I don't know, understanding? I found the scene to be somewhat profound and it was at that point that I was fully invested in what was happening and started to care for Poppy, despite her tendency to be self-involved.

All that felt good to get down, and I think that the relationships created an interesting character study. Anyway, I'm not sure if I made any sense since I tend to ramble, but these films where there is an intense look at individuals allow me to dig deeper than a lot of other films that focus on story over character.

[Cde.]

I was far too harsh on this film in that post.

The final scenes with

Spoiler

Scott's breakdown

moved me quite a bit. I still think a lot of the film was very reductive and has a strained populism about it, but by the conclusion I began to look past this, and there's still a lot to admire.

[domino harvey]

Wow, between this and Cassandra's Dream, Hawkins has certainly arrived in a big way this year. I'm fascinated by the varying responses to her character though. To my eyes she's clearly captured that brand of naive adult who never matured (How perfect that she's an elementary school teacher). And like a talkative child, she never quite seems to understand her effect on other people. I think that's what makes the ending so jarring, as she's confronted with the unintended results of her behavior. She's certainly not the villain, and the driving instructor's anger at her is understandable but still unreasonable-- it's a little scary to see his argument taken up by some viewers as an accurate indictment of her character.

[Antoine Doinel]

Saw this tonight and I really don't understand the raves this film is getting. To me it played with all the insight of "Don't Worry Be Happy". My major problem with the film is that it paints the "adult" versus "child" dilemma in stark black and white, instead of the shades of gray it really is. I know a lot of people Poppy's age who are both are in a state of suspended adolescence but still are able to carry responsibilities of "adults". Leigh's approach is just too far simplistic to be believable.

And for whatever it's worth, there were a lot of walkouts at the screening I was at.

[kaujot]

And for whatever it's worth, there were a lot of walkouts at the screening I was at.

Did Barmy pass you on his way out?

[domino harvey]

Saw this tonight and I really don't understand the raves this film is getting. To me it played with all the insight of "Don't Worry Be Happy". My major problem with the film is that it paints the "adult" versus "child" dilemma in stark black and white, instead of the shades of gray it really is. I know a lot of people Poppy's age who are both are in a state of suspended adolescence but still are able to carry responsibilities of "adults". Leigh's approach is just too far simplistic to be believable.

I'm afraid I can't follow your argument, as Hawkins is completely functional. In fact, the film dares to say that she can be good at her job, be capable of having an adult relationship, handle a crisis in an adult manner, and still keep her personality. This isn't like the Office where people awkwardly look away once presented with Steve Carrell's unawareness and his behavior masks some great patheticism. Some accept her and others don't, but she's not an object of pity. I find nothing simplistic in the bravery of choosing happiness.

[Greg Shantz]

the bravery of choosing happiness.

What?

[Antoine Doinel]

Saw this tonight and I really don't understand the raves this film is getting. To me it played with all the insight of "Don't Worry Be Happy". My major problem with the film is that it paints the "adult" versus "child" dilemma in stark black and white, instead of the shades of gray it really is. I know a lot of people Poppy's age who are both are in a state of suspended adolescence but still are able to carry responsibilities of "adults". Leigh's approach is just too far simplistic to be believable.

I'm afraid I can't follow your argument, as Hawkins is completely functional. In fact, the film dares to say that she can be good at her job, be capable of having an adult relationship, handle a crisis in an adult manner, and still keep her personality. This isn't like the Office where people awkwardly look away once presented with Steve Carrell's unawareness and his behavior masks some great patheticism. Some accept her and others don't, but she's not an object of pity. I find nothing simplistic in the bravery of choosing happiness.

I don't think Poppy isn't functional, but I don't think there is anything particularly "brave" in her lifestyle either. There is something a bit pathetic about a woman who has lived with the same roommate for ten years and hasn't ventured beyond that person. The 20s are a tremendous period of growth/maturity and I frankly don't sympathize with someone who chooses to cling to a decade old version of herself. Would Poppy be as sympathetic if Mike Leigh had chosen to make her 40 years old instead of 30?

And as I mentioned before, the framing of her character against the world - ie. if you're not like a Poppy you're a deadened dullard in the suburbs - is far too formulaic. You can have it both ways - your adolescent impulses while moving upwardly, but Leigh seems to argue that moving up a class makes one emotionally dead. The film borders on being a horrid "celebration" of the "simplicities" of the lower classes. Leigh doesn't go down that path, but he comes dangerously close.