Happy-Go-Lucky (Mike Leigh, 2008)

[Shrew]

I don't see a dichotomy between Poppy and everyone else. While her family in the suburbs is exaggearatedly dull, there are certainly other people presented that Leigh does not judge or condemn. The other teachers at Poppy's school for example, or Poppy's roommate, or Poppy's other sister, who's studying law in the film. She reminds me of the women in Career Girls, punkish students who will eventually become well-to-do, but not losing their souls.

I agree Poppy doesn't seem to act her age, but then neither does Scott, or even her suburban sister, even the salsa instructor. Poppy is much more functional than them. The film seems to say yes Poppy is immature, but so is everyone else, so why not act happy?

On a different note, I was thinking of this through the filter of The AV Club's Manic Pixie Dream Girl Archetype. There are plenty of movies that would take the opposite perspective of this film, following the adolescent Scott as he is "saved" by Poppy. By the end of Happy-Go-Lucky we get to see how twisted that approach really is.

[Antoine Doinel]

I don't see a dichotomy between Poppy and everyone else. While her family in the suburbs is exaggearatedly dull, there are certainly other people presented that Leigh does not judge or condemn. The other teachers at Poppy's school for example, or Poppy's roommate, or Poppy's other sister, who's studying law in the film. She reminds me of the women in Career Girls, punkish students who will eventually become well-to-do, but not losing their souls.

I agree Poppy doesn't seem to act her age, but then neither does Scott, or even her suburban sister, even the salsa instructor. Poppy is much more functional than them.

Leigh may not judge them, but he does go out of his way to point out their regrets. The schoolteacher that Poppy is friends with regrets having never traveled when she was younger; the flamenco teacher is an emotional mess, and Scott, is not so much immature as borderline psychopathic. And that Leigh goes out of his way to condemn the pregnant, younger sister stands out more to me than his non-treatment of the middle sister who is studying law (in fact, we don't spend all that much time with her). I think a far more interesting film, would've shown the pregnant sister and husband playing video games and being "Poppy-esque", while having also bought a house, gotten married etc.

[Shrew]

I think a far more interesting film, would've shown the pregnant sister and husband playing video games and being "Poppy-esque", while having also bought a house, gotten married etc.

But I think the point is they think they're better than Poppy when they are not. Again, everyone is immature, but only Poppy is cognizant of it. Her sister and her husband think that because they've bought a house and are having kids, they have become mature. But they've only got the signifiers, not the true form of it.

So the film's message is not: Moving to the suburbs and having kids makes you boring. Rather: Moving to the suburbs and having kids does not necessarrily make you mature.

[Antoine Doinel]

I think a far more interesting film, would've shown the pregnant sister and husband playing video games and being "Poppy-esque", while having also bought a house, gotten married etc.

But I think the point is they think they're better than Poppy when they are not. Again, everyone is immature, but only Poppy is cognizant of it.

I disagree that they think they are "better" than Poppy. They are genuinely concerned and want her to be happy, hence the questions about whether or not she's started a pension or if she is dating. They are proud of their home and life, but they are certainly not rubbing their faces in it. The problem with Leigh's film is that it doesn't bother to find a middle ground and my frustration with that entire sequence is that it's needlessly polarizes middle class and lower class "lifestyles" (in the most stereotypical way possible), making some kind of statement that Poppy's life is more "real". It's like Leigh completely missed the irony of Pulp's "Common People" that he uses very prominently in the early part of the film.

[domino harvey]

the bravery of choosing happiness.

What?

The film is about how some people are unable to accept Hawkins' happiness at face value-- and there are obviously members of the audience who likewise are incapable of accepting that someone can behave as she does and still be happy, so they condescend and assume she must be an object of pity. The driving instructor can't accept her behavior at face value, so he assumes she's flirting with him. Based on some reviews and reactions in this thread even, some members of the audience see Hawkins' act as hiding something else, but Leigh is very clear: She is able to behave as she does, function as she does, and still not be fooling herself. Anyone can be happy, but you have to elect to be so. Look at the uphill battle Hawkins' faces from those not already in her inner circle, such as the bookseller. It would be easier to get upset at an unfriendly person or your bike being stolen. But Hawkins elects to not let it get her down. And when the time comes to be justifiably upset at something such as being assaulted by her furious driving instructor, she is revealed to be mature enough to get herself safely out of the situation. That she doesn't dwell on that unpleasantness nor place herself back in the situation out of pity shows her great maturity. Choosing happiness isn't a sign of cowardice but bravery.

[Shrew]

Granted I am an American and know little about the British class system, but does Poppy really exhibit all the signs of a lower class life? Yeah she lives in an apartment, but she does have a stable job (is teaching lower class in Britain?). To me that's more a descendant of Bohemianism or Hipster Urbanism rather than a lower class life. I agree that Leigh's view of the suburbs is not particularly kind or subtle, but I don't think he's juxtaposing it with a specifically working or lower class life.

Perhaps Poppy's sister does not believe she is "better", but she is putting herself on a moral high ground enabling her to criticize Poppy. Her advice may grow out of caring, but in order to give the advice she has to believe that Poppy is not as happy as she is, that Poppy's condition is not as good as hers. She's foolish not because she embrace the suburban life, but because she thinks it's the standard everyone should attain to.

[Antoine Doinel]

the bravery of choosing happiness.

What?

It would be easier to get upset at an unfriendly person or your bike being stolen. But Hawkins elects to not let it get her down-- that's not cowardice, that's bravery.

But what you're suggesting boils to down to is: ignorance is bliss. It's not a bold philosophical move so much pretty casual way to avoid confrontation or dealing with your emotions. Do you notice that Poppy never, ever answers questions about herself or talks about herself for the entire movie, but lets everyone dump their problems on her? While I understand it's supposed to be some kind of martyr-like noble thing, I think there is a very strong case to be made that Poppy is hiding some dark feelings. Also, what was the deal with the encounter with the homeless man. Even for my gf who really liked the film, that sequence was jarring at best.

Moreover, for me, and for most rational people, the lessons with the instructor would never have gone past the first lesson. Poppy's "bravery" comes off as being very dangerously naive.

[domino harvey]

Moreover, for me, and for most rational people, the lessons with the instructor would never have gone past the first lesson. Poppy's "bravery" comes off as being very dangerously naive.

She is a bit naive but once the situation becomes genuinely dangerous, she cleanly removes herself from it. She doesn't allow herself to ever be genuinely in harm's way. Sure she gives people more rope than most others would, but she doesn't stick around when they start forming the noose.

As for happiness equaling ignorance, I disagree. Clearly the entire film is a two hour tract in favor of happiness, but I guess there is this urge to find something wrong with her behavior simply due to how alien it is from the actions of most other people. She clearly experiences the gamut of emotions in the film, yet remains positive and outgoing. Why must she be sullen or moody like everyone else to be more widely accepted? Or even simpler, why must she be like everyone else and not herself?

[Antoine Doinel]

She clearly experiences the gamut of emotions in the film, yet remains positive and outgoing. Why must she be sullen or moody like everyone else to be more widely accepted? Or even simpler, why must she be like everyone else and not herself?

I agree, and to Leigh's credit, Poppy does get a full range of emotions. My problem is that the dichotomy set up in the film presents an argument that if you don't choose be happy like Poppy, you're simply unhappy and like "everyone else". It creates an "us and them" argument where one doesn't exist. As I've written earlier, there is no middle ground presented here, and when someone like her sister who has moved forward in life is presented, it's inconceivable that she too, could be truly happy. I think a far better film would've presented everyone in the film, warts and all, Poppy-esque or not, and dug deeper to find out what it is that makes them happy (or not).

[Greg Shantz]

She is able to behave as she does, function as she does, and still not be fooling herself.

If she is a woman, she is by definition fooling herself.

Choosing happiness isn't a sign of cowardice but bravery.

Maybe it makes sense in the context of the film, but taken on it's own this statement is brazenly false.

[Antoine Doinel]

She is able to behave as she does, function as she does, and still not be fooling herself.

If she is a woman, she is by definition fooling herself.

[domino harvey]

Choosing happiness isn't a sign of cowardice but bravery.

Maybe it makes sense in the context of the film, but taken on it's own this statement is brazenly false.

How so?

[rs98762001]

And that Leigh goes out of his way to condemn the pregnant, younger sister stands out more to me than his non-treatment of the middle sister who is studying law (in fact, we don't spend all that much time with her).

Leigh doesn't condemn anyone in Happy Go Lucky. And what exactly does "non-treatment" mean? He 'treats' the middle sister just fine; despite her comparative lack of screen time, she still comes across as a rich and real character with hints of a much broader life than what we get to see in the film.

[Greg Shantz]

Choosing happiness isn't a sign of cowardice but bravery.

Maybe it makes sense in the context of the film, but taken on it's own this statement is brazenly false.

How so?

Well, for me, bravery is tied closely to Truth: the reasoning to get to Truth, the sacrificing of oneself to Truth and the speaking of Truth. These all require bravery. It may be brave to make a choice, in-and-of-itself, but the choice of happiness? Billions of egotists choose happiness every day, and a fat lot of good it does. I can't say that choosing happiness is in any way brave.

Coming back to aesthetics, I haven't seen the film. The last Leigh I saw was Vera Drake, which I thought was a good portrait of an amoral woman, though not particularly aesthetically appealing. I'm a Camperite.

[domino harvey]

Maybe the problem is in me having this debate with someone who hasn't even seen the movie, but the happiness of Hawkins' character is The Truth-- she's not fooling herself, she's just happy because she chooses to be. You can choose to be happy or sad or pensive or whatever in the morning, no matter the circumstances. It is possible to turn a negative into a positive, but it takes hard work and there's obviously resistance from some factions of the outside world. Opting to do the hard thing when the easy way out would be to submit to the pressures of the world rather than meet them head on with positivity, I can't see how that takes anything less than bravery. Your pessimistic assertion that happiness and "truth" (Whatever that even means) are somehow incapable of coexisting makes no sense.

[Barmy]

Are there really any pro-Poppy people? For me, Poppy is presented as a symbol of white Western capitalism at its worst. She is able to feign empathy when necessary, but ultimately everything is all about her. She does not have a single interaction with a person of colour during the entire film. In the schoolyard fight episode, the vanilla white kid (significantly, the beater rather than the victim) is the one who gets attention--with another vanilla white man brought in to help. She is blissfully unaware of suffering and poverty. She lives in a fabulous flat on the cheap. She has drained the life out of her zombiesque flatmate. She is a teacher--telling her multicultural classroom what to think but, tellingly, teaching them meaningless information about birds. Would anyone want Poppy as a close friend? No. Ultimately, of course, white capitalism has control of the lifeboats in this world.

[Antoine Doinel]

She does not have a single interaction with a person of colour during the entire film.

Not true. She does have an extended conversation with a West Indian schoolteacher.

[Barmy]

That W.I. pops up and is tossed away like a used tissue. She is the least significant character in the film. Poppy talks at her for 2 minutes--it can hardly be called interaction.

[jorencain]

Review of the film and interview with Mike Leigh on the Filmspotting podcast.

[rs98762001]

Are there really any pro-Poppy people? For me, Poppy is presented as a symbol of white Western capitalism at its worst.

This is how you see her, or this is how you see Leigh seeing her? Either way I think you're miles off, but I'm interested to know which it is (or both), and whether you thus feel that Leigh's depiction of her character is successful in its intent?

[LQ]

interesting A.V. Clubinterview with Mike Leigh..I don't know if I agree totally with his views on her character, but I can say wholeheartedly that I am "pro-Poppy". I practically skipped out of the theatre, her happiness was so infectious!

[Antoine Doinel]

From an interview with Mike Leigh:

Hour: So this is thought to be a happy movie because nothing awful happens.

Leigh: I'm not going to introduce a deus ex machina that comes from outside and changes everything - like a car crash or something. This is about the way we live our lives, the way ordinary people without privileges just get on with things, or don't, as the case may be. It's an anti-miserablist film, we are destroying ourselves and each other and the planet, and there's much to be gloomy about, but there are people out there getting on with it.

Does no one else find that troubling? That Mike Leigh is using "ordinary people" to show how to just "get on with things"? It's like his own Magical Brit.

[LQ]

Does no one else find that troubling? That Mike Leigh is using "ordinary people" to show how to just "get on with things"? It's like his own Magical Brit.

Wait..what about that is so troubling to you, Antoine? This may sound pat, but I found it somewhat inspirational. And pardon my ignorance, but I don't think I understand what you mean by "it's like his own Magical Brit"

[Antoine Doinel]

I find it troubling because it borders on class tourism. "Look at these everyday people who manage to get on with their lives despite all the problems in the world." Well, they get on with their lives because they have to. Moreover, instead of using a single mother or an ordinary lower/middle class family who would have real struggles, Leigh uses a single, unattached woman with a solid job. Yeah, I would imagine it's very easy to be happy and get on with it when you're able to stay out all night, you live with your best friend and you have summers off.

As for the Magical Brit, I was using it as a play on Magical Negro.

[LQ]

I find it troubling because it borders on class tourism. "Look at these everyday people who manage to get on with their lives despite all the problems in the world." Well, they get on with their lives because they have to. Moreover, instead of using a single mother or an ordinary lower/middle class family who would have real struggles, Leigh uses a single, unattached woman with a solid job. Yeah, I would imagine it's very easy to be happy and get on with it when you're able to stay out all night, you live with your best friend and you have summers off.

Well I guess I see your point, but then again we all have troubles, eh? Leigh's portrayed plenty of people with "real" hardships in other films (I think of All or Nothing, which was the last Leigh film I saw) and I applaud him for showing us a pretty fair range of people, plainly and humanely. Just because Poppy isn't a single mother, or a some kind of homeless amputee, does her life and her outlook not matter? There are countless movies about people that have shit luck and try to put on a happy face (or not) but there are precious few movies about people like Poppy who appreciate what they've got and make the decision to be happy about it. Some people I know have a real decent life: good enough job, nice friends, but they still aren't happy. I feel that's why Poppy was so inspirational, because why shouldn't someone with a decent, average life be happy?

As for the Magical Brit, I was using it as a play on Magical Negro.

aha...