Happy-Go-Lucky (Mike Leigh, 2008)

[Barmy]

I haven't read anything about this film until now, but unless Leigh is pulling our leg, he appears to be pro-Poppy. How people are helped by being kooky and zany is beyond me. She doesn't do a SINGLE thing to help other people during the whole film, other than say "things will be fine" from time to time. The one time she reaches out (to the bully) she needs to bring in an outsider to help. She defines uselessness. If everyone acted like her we would all be dead. Anyway, I'm sticking with my interpretation because at least it makes the film interesting (the woman I saw this with told me she was hoping the homeless guy would rape Poppy and throw her in a dumpster).

[LQ]

(the woman I saw this with told me she was hoping the homeless guy would rape Poppy and throw her in a dumpster).

nothing quicker to raise our own cynicism and anger than being confronted with someone else's happiness, I guess....

[domino harvey]

I don't know why Barmy thought that was funny or worth posting, but that's a pretty sickening comment no matter what side you take on the film's merits

[mfunk9786]

Barmy, are you by any chance a driving instructor?

[tavernier]

Barmy's date was Camille Paglia.

[lacritfan]

The scene that happens early on that made me think Poppy was just a clueless ditz was when she discovers someone has stolen her bicycle and she acts like someone took $5 she put down for a second, well that sucks, oh well it's only $5. The bicycle wasn't especially nice so maybe it wouldn't cost much to get another one but the cost isn't what would've pissed me off, it's the thought that someone stole from me that would have me seething and hoping they get hit by a car, as if the thief picked me out instead of the bike. And I guess that says more about me than her and why I eventually started appreciating and liking her. I guess that's the the whole point of Poppy. Zoe tells Poppy she should stop being so nice, which in light of her trying to understand the crazy homeless guy could mean stop thinking so much about other people and start thinking of yourself (which is also kind of what her younger sister was telling her). But it seems the world has too many people who think about themselves first so I'm grateful for Poppy's (no matter how annoying they can be).

[Foam]

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".

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.

No. Leigh has already done the lower/middle class family thing: see Life is Sweet. It seems to me the only person here who is making "real" vs "unreal" is you.

[Fiery Angel]

Good analysis.

[Foam]

Sarcasm noted; explanation appended.

[LavaLamp]

Recently saw Happy Go Lucky for the first time; I feel it's one of Leigh's lesser films - but, still worth seeing once.

I found Poppy to be slightly obnoxious in a too-chipper kind of way. I have run into people like that in life and typically find them more amusing than grating - depending on my own mood, of course.

The aformentioned scene when Poppy went & talked to that homeless guy was somewhat bizzare; she couldn't really help him (other than offering him some $, which he declined), and she was putting herself in danger by doing so. I found her extremely nieve & foolish to be interacting with this obviously unstable person.

Spoiler

However, the most disturbing & unexpected sequence in the film was when Brian (the driving instructor) went off on her towards the end. Quite shocking, though at the same time you could kind of see this coming. It was interesting that Poppy completely changed her demeanor in order to successfully calm him down...(Someone like Brian should definitely not be allowed to be a driving instructor....)

Brian obviously hadn't been around much, and was definitely misinterpreting her suggestive comments as flirtation instead of what they actually were, i.e. just Poppy being herself & trying to get a rise out of a straight-laced, serious person...Plus, his borderline stalking her (i.e., waiting near her building that day she came home, and running away like a little kid when he was spotted) was quite creepy.

All in all, I found HGL to be a slightly decent film that was saved from being forgettable by the Brian character....

[jojo]

It's rare that one film can make me think slightly less of a director, but after watching HGL and listening to the commentary, I think I've run into one.

In the commentary track, Leigh leaves no doubt about where his sympathies lie (Poppy) which wouldn't be quite so bad if he didn't judge everyone else around her as lacking in comparison. And that's where the film fumbles for me. For a film that purports to be humanist, it sure doesn't seem to give a crap about anyone else's point of view other than Poppy's

Spoiler

When Scott goes off on her at the end, Leigh brushes the character off as simply an overgrown child having a tantrum. But you listen to what Scott's saying and really think about it, you'd realize he has a point. He may have "misread" Poppy's intentions regarding the flirting part, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he's exactly right that Poppy has been ceaselessly antagonizing him to the point of driving him crazy. And when she tries to poke at him to try to "explore" his psychology when asking him about his childhood, it comes off more as condescending and patronizing rather than her being genuinely interested in "helping" him.

What's more surprising to me is that Leigh wrote this and gave Scott a really convincing rant and case for being so pissed at her and yet the film still doesn't really give him a fair shake. Oh, he's just some grump who needs to lighten up already. When Scott says at the end, "I WAS happy." I thought it was at last a fair criticism of Poppy's antagonistic methods of "cheering people up" but I guess not.

I didn't mind Poppy as a character that much--granted, she would be considered more than a little irritating in the "real" world but I'd be willing to buy into her point of view if she wasn't shoving everyone else's face in it and you know, actually, truly, *listened* to people. The film halfheartedly attempts to show us she's a person of great empathy, but for me I guess that's where the film failed the most for me because I just wasn't convinced.

Brian obviously hadn't been around much, and was definitely misinterpreting her suggestive comments as flirtation instead of what they actually were, i.e. just Poppy being herself & trying to get a rise out of a straight-laced, serious person...Plus, his borderline stalking her (i.e., waiting near her building that day she came home, and running away like a little kid when he was spotted) was quite creepy.

All in all, I found HGL to be a slightly decent film that was saved from being forgettable by the Brian character....

Was his last name Brian? I think he was just known as Scott throughout most of the film.

[domino harvey]

The film being concerned with and supportive of Poppy is not a flaw in the film, it is the central conceit and the dramatic conflicts arise from those who cannot accept her character's happiness for what it is without trying to turn it into something negative. Same for a lot of viewers too, apparently.

[jojo]

The film being concerned with and supportive of Poppy is not a flaw in the film, it is the central conceit and the dramatic conflicts arise from those who cannot accept her character's happiness for what it is without trying to turn it into something negative. Same for a lot of viewers too, apparently.

But don't you think that's an arrogant point of view to have? I mean, for a film that's about accepting someone's optimism, it sure seems like a rather intolerant film overall. I mean just look at your last comment. Doesn't the message "I guess you can't accept someone's happiness without trying to turn something negative about it" seem like, in its own way, actually a NEGATIVE point of view to have? It's basically a "my way or the highway" approach. That doesn't seem like my idea of a happy world.

Again, I can dig Poppy's point of view if the film were more tolerant of everyone else's point of view. In fact, I don't even think my main problem is with Poppy at all. She is what she is and I can accept that. But why does the film have to stack every conflict in Poppy's favour? If the film had so much faith in Poppy's life philosophy, it wouldn't feel the need to nudge every argument or situation so that she comes out looking "right" all the time to the viewer. And at the end of the film, it even looks like it did that. I thought that Poppy was wandering around shook at the end of the film because she discerned that Scott may have had a point about her teasing and "bullying", which would have made it a nicely clever and ironic connection to the bully situation earlier in the film at the school. But Leigh tells us nope, Poppy is right, Scott is wrong and psychotic and everyone else just doesn't "get" Poppy. Maybe I never should have listened to the commentary track; the film seemed to work better when at least there was room for different readings.

[domino harvey]

The film is about Poppy and the only viewpoints that matter are those that comment on the central figure. This is so far from unusual that I don't understand the objection. The film does not posit that Poppy's lifestyle and approach is the only way to be. Rather, it states, continually and emphatically, that she is extremely functional, successful, and, yes, happy in her life, and thus it is the best way for Poppy to be. It has to be overstated because some people so strongly insist that something must be wrong with someone so chipper and poz that Leigh has to provide a ludicrously overstacked docket of evidence to the contrary. And yet it still comes, as this thread proves! You seem to want a different film with different aims and a different message.

[Soothsayer]

Rather, you seem to want everyone to think one specific way about a film. Film isn't objectivity.

How do you know that the only viewpoints that matter are Poppy's? Because the director said so? If you want to abide by that logic, fine. That doesn't mean that's objectively correct for anyone else.

[domino harvey]

Rather, you seem to want everyone to think one specific way about a film. Film isn't objectivity.

How do you know that the only viewpoints that matter are Poppy's? Because the director said so? If you want to abide by that logic, fine. That doesn't mean that's objectively correct for anyone else.

I have not read or heard one line about Leigh's take on the film outside of the anecdotes presented in this thread. I believe what I've said to be accurate because based on the evidence as presented in the film, it is accurate. Show me where the film criticizes Poppy? It doesn't, and then that becomes evidence of fault rather than the point of the presentation. It's ludicrous.

[Soothsayer]

I never implied the film needs to criticize anyone. I am not sure why you are trying to pass your own opinions so strongly as objective truth on this film.

[domino harvey]

Oh lord. I'm all for differing viewpoints and alternate readings of the film based on evidence from the film, but I'm not seeing them from the anti-Poppy side. What I'm seeing is conjecture passing as criticism. I can back up my position pretty easily using only the film as presented, and have.

[Shrew]

Well, keep in mind that Leigh is one of the most collaborative filmmakers around, working with his actors to create the script. Just cause he says something (in a really terrible, phoned-in commentary), doesn't make it the only way the film should be read. Authorial intent isn't the be all end all (particularly in a film like this where the "authorial" intent is pretty diffuse).

Also, I don't think Poppy ever tries to "force" her way of thinking on anyone, nor does the film. She's just trying to be happy herself, and responds to dour or over-serious people with light, friendly poking. She isn't trying to force them to be happy or lighten up. Scott's problem is that he perceives this as flirting and creates a narrative from it. He's basically a "nice guy" who starts thinking that Poppy is a Manic Pixie Dream Girl who's going to fix him, and he can't even admit he needs fixing.

Scott's complaints aren't totally invalid (in that Poppy doesn't fully realize how her friendly mocking might be perceived). But the overall tenor of his rant is definitely one of a hurt and confused man-child, full of blaming the victim (here Poppy) because he misinterpreted her actions. Doesn't he even complain about her dressing up for their rides as an example of her "teasing?" Him saying "I was happy" really can't be taken at face value.

In the end, I don't think this is a particularly didactic film trying to teach people how to live. It's just taking a "happy" character and imagining how this personality might interact with other people's. This ranges from benign (the bookstore clerk) to ineffective (the homeless man) to chafing-but-amenable (her suburban sister and in-law) to problematic (Scott). I don't think it's so much saying that Scott is wrong and should live like Poppy as much as its saying that Scott and Poppy just don't mix well (refuting all the MPDG saves some mopey schlub narratives).

[domino harvey]

Lovely post, Shrew (Wait, how long has the applause emoticon been gone? Well, if we still had it, you'd get one)

[jojo]

Scott's complaints aren't totally invalid (in that Poppy doesn't fully realize how her friendly mocking might be perceived). But the overall tenor of his rant is definitely one of a hurt and confused man-child, full of blaming the victim (here Poppy) because he misinterpreted her actions. Doesn't he even complain about her dressing up for their rides as an example of her "teasing?" Him saying "I was happy" really can't be taken at face value.

The thing is, Poppy turns up her act to 11 whenever she's around Scott. Whenever she's NOT around him, she's noticeably more dialed down for the most part. That means she's not just doing light, casually friendly poking, she's actively attempting to provoke a reaction out of him. There's also one scene in the later driving lessons where she actually puts the both of them in danger in order to sell a joke. At that point you'd have to conclude that she might be going a little too far in her "friendly" mocking.

Don't put it all on Scott misinterpreting her. There are several times where Poppy asks questions about Scott's past and childhood. At first he doesn't answer her. A sensitive person would have left him alone at that point. There's friendliness, yes, and there's invading someone's private space. She was clearly doing the latter. Worse, she was treating him like she was treating one of her pupils. Scott may be immature but treating him like a child clearly made things begin spiralling out of control. She kept prodding him about his past and various other jokey tactics to antagonize him. It was at this point it became less casual and more invasive, I found.

[domino harvey]

Oh, I think it's a fair reading to say Poppy's optimism is annoying or that it even leads to juvenile impulses. I just don't think this makes her a figure of scorn or derision within the film's narrative, since these flaws help to humanize what could be a cartoonish figure otherwise. When I say the film is pro-Poppy, I mean it supports Poppy being Poppy and shows there's no adverse effect and indeed many positive effects on her life thanks to her positivity. I don't necessarily mean the film wants or cares if we "like" her as a person, as in "I wish I had a friend like that," or "Boy, I'd love to date her," or even "I want to be her"-- the argument of the film is that she is well-liked (circle of friends), successful (good at her job), and functional (capable of being in a romantic relationship and capable of getting out of a bad situation) thanks to/despite/in addition to her cheerful nature, regardless of those who can't get aboard her train. The film is dismissive of those who insist Poppy must not be all the things she appears to be, and that the film affirms she is as she appears has wide-ranging implications on how we see others and how others see us.

[jojo]

Oh, I think it's a fair reading to say Poppy's optimism is annoying or that it even leads to juvenile impulses. I just don't think this makes her a figure of scorn or derision within the film's narrative, since these flaws help to humanize what could be a cartoonish figure otherwise. When I say the film is pro-Poppy, I mean it supports Poppy being Poppy and shows there's no adverse effect and indeed many positive effects on her life thanks to her positivity. I don't necessarily mean the film wants or cares if we "like" her as a person, as in "I wish I had a friend like that," or "Boy, I'd love to date her," or even "I want to be her"-- the argument of the film is that she is well-liked (circle of friends), successful (good at her job), and functional (capable of being in a romantic relationship and capable of getting out of a bad situation) thanks to/despite/in addition to her cheerful nature, regardless of those who can't get aboard her train. The film is dismissive of those who insist Poppy must not be all the things she appears to be, and that the film affirms she is as she appears has wide-ranging implications on how we see others and how others see us.

Yes, I can get behind the idea of asking us to take Poppy at face value and I agree that she doesn't need to be hiding any inner demons to be what she is. I'm just not sure that the film doesn't contradict the overall thrust of its message of tolerance at times by having Poppy ultimately be on the "right" side of every conflict that occurs within the film. She is a functional person, yes. She's happy with who she is, yes. But that doesn't mean she can't make mistakes. That doesn't mean she's not occasionally judgemental or antagonistic or insensitive. And I still can't shake the fact that the film continually attempts to sway our sympathies her way, so I think that, even if the film doesn't necessarily "care" whether we like her or not, it is at least very interested in making the case that Poppy's life philosophy is "right" far more than she is "wrong".

But I agree with Shrew in one major respect--the film is a lot more interesting if we don't take the director's comments as the be-all and end-all of the film's messages and themes.

[Michael Kerpan]

Not seen the film -- but the comments make me think that Poppy might be a descendant (of sorts) of Jane Austen's Emma...

[Shrew]

I'd say no, Michael. Poppy's not manipulating anyone or trying to force anyone to change how they live (or who they marry). However, I'll admit that a bunch of the film's critics see it that way, but I just don't get that at all.

To jojo. I rewatched a couple of these scenes (with the commentary on/off), and here are some responses.

1) I listened to the commentary several years ago, but hit the audio button and just watched the movie after 20 mins. It's an objectively awful commentary. Half of it is silence, and the other half is mostly Leigh describing what's on screen. This was obviously done in one take, without notes or any outside prodding, probably on a contractually obligated Friday morning session. I've listened to the Naked track, which benefits from other voices, but Leigh also sounds much more prepared there. Haven't done the Topsy-Turvy one, but surely it's better than this. Anyway, I'd say this track is not a good way to judge Leigh's talents, or even his general ability to talk about his own films.

2) That said, Leigh does actually agree that Poppy goes too far with her "hands-off" joke, then adds that Scott's response is also too far. Later, in the climactic scene, he explains it as something like "Poppy is tough. Poppy is sympathetic. Poppy is an experienced teacher. We know that, we've seen her deal with kids. And what is Scott? He's an overgrown kid." There's no mention of anyone being wrong/right here. He's more just explaining how Poppy is able to take control of the situation from a very angry Scott. Just because Leigh refers to him as a kid doesn't totally discount what he says, because honestly how is Scott's paranoid ranting about race and Poppy flashing him and accusing Poppy of only being out to seduce him not childish?

3) I'll agree that Poppy goes overboard with Scott. She does make mistakes. But the film admits this (and as I've argued above, so does Leigh). However, Scott's reaction and final meltdown is not her fault. There are times that she pushes too far, but she's not trying to force Scott to have fun so much as she is having fun at his expense (and yes, that's a somewhat negative character trait). Even then, it's not the mocking of Enraha or his homophobia or even the wheel gag that pushes him over the edge--it's the fact his repressed romantic feelings for her aren't and can't be returned.

The problem with Scott is that he is very obviously not happy, nor WAS he happy, despite his claim. I don't think Poppy is overly prying. She talks to him like she would anyone, throwing out friendly questions and changing the subject when it gets too sensitive (she asks about his parents in casual conversation, but stops when she realizes its an unhappy topic). She only follows up after Scott throws out a naked, angry rant about conspiracy. There's an incredible amount of anger in him. Poppy's instinct is the same she would have to anyone, to just offer the possibility of a comforting listener. The problem then becomes that Scott conflates this basic human concern with his own romantic feelings (I think its clear that he likes the idea that someone would show concern by asking about his past, even if he can't admit that).

Poppy walking away from this is a brilliant touch, as it recognizes that Scott's problems go far beyond anything she can do, and that further involvement would actually just inflame him further. What he needs is a a therapist, not a girlfriend. Here Poppy (and Leigh) is admitting that being happy isn't a simple flip of the switch.