Happy-Go-Lucky (Mike Leigh, 2008)

[ianthemovie]

Interesting discussion. I like your observations, shrew, which do a good job attending to the complexity of this character and this film. I agree that it's not a simple or didactic endorsement of some sort of don't-worry-be-happy life philosophy but rather one that shows how being happy-go-lucky both works for Poppy and occasionally gets her into trouble/creates conflict with others.

While I would agree that the film is mostly on Poppy's side or at least sympathetic to her, one scene that seems to complicate our feelings about her is the one with the homeless man, in which we're shown how her happiness and outgoing nature lead her into potentially dangerous situations. Poppy seems to exercise bad judgment here, wandering into a dark, abandoned lot with a strange and seemingly mentally unstable man, all because of an impromptu desire to try and connect with him. Luckily she makes it out of this situation unharmed, but this seemed to me a scene in which Leigh is asking us to consider how being happy-go-lucky can perhaps be a liability. What does her attempt to reach out to this person say about her? Does this point to some level of desperation or loneliness in her? Is her attempt to "help" this man wholly altruistic? etc. (Forgive me if I'm mis-remembering the details here; I saw the movie twice when it came out in 2008 but haven't revisited it.)

It also seems to me that this film pairs well with Leigh's next film, Another Year, in which we're invited to see happy, Poppy-like characters (particularly the perpetually upbeat girlfriend of Jim Broadbent and Ruth Sheen's son, whose manner and personality struck me as very similar to Poppy's) through the eyes of the desperately sad and lonely Lesley Manville character (who I suppose could be seen as a variation on Scott). Another Year seems to turn the tables and gets us to sympathize with and understand the lonely people who find the Poppys of the world insufferable. It even seems to me possible to see Leigh as showing how the happiness of comfortably settled people like the Broadbent and Sheen characters (and perhaps Poppy, too, if we think about that film in the context of Another Year) can manifest itself as smugness or self-satisfaction at times.

In any case, Leigh never seems to me interested in making villains or object lessons out of any of his characters, all of whom are flawed but are treated humanely (IMO). He's more interested in throwing them into situations and watching them play off one another.

[jojo]

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

That would be more like Amelie. I wouldn't quite say Poppy goes that far. She's not a meddler and a manipulator in that sense, but she does like keeping the people around her off-kilter.

Shrew, we will have to disagree on Poppy not being invasive. I think she is. She doesn't know when to stop playing clownish shrink. She really should have dropped the questions about his childhood after he ignored her the first time. She drops it in THAT scene but comes right back to it in the next driving lesson. And I think boiling Scott's frustration down to just romantic feelings is selling the character short here. There are a lot of things about Poppy that irritates him and confuses him, but not all of it seems as simple as romantic frustration, although he does obviously grow attracted to her. But it's a lot more here than his feelings not being reciprocated--he's frustrated and confused because she's messing up his routine, his way of life. And he's curious about that, even though he's aware on some level that it's destructive to him--and of course, that scares him. In fact, I think if it were just romantic frustration, I'd be more disappointed in the film than I already am. Seems way too simplistic a reason for him to blow up at her at the end.

Scott may not have been "happy" but he was functional and comfortable with the routine in his life. I think when he said he was happy, he really meant that he was comfortable and at least content with the rigid and limited lifestyle he has created for himself. Why deny him what he's accomplished? It just seems a little unfair to constantly poke fun at him. He may have bee a little bit homophobic, paranoid and racist but you know what? A lot of people actually are. Probably more than a few of your neighbours or family members. It's not abnormal to BE those things, but Poppy and the film treats it like these things are symptoms of some deeper unhappiness within him when in fact they're probably things that he uses as a crutch to get him through life. What is wrong with that? He has a job, is deeply invested in his job, and tries to be a law abiding citizen. For some of us, that may not constitute a very fulfilling life, but for him it was enough. Obviously Poppy and Leigh disagree. And Poppy being a comforting listener? Doesn't she basically ignore everything he says and talk over him most of the time? Not once, not ONCE does she actually listen to him, until he blows up at the end. Of course by then it is too late.

This is what I mean whe I say the film is actually quite judgemental towards the people around her. The last scenes of Scott and Poppy's sister end up with them walking away in a huff. They're unhappy, Poppy isn't. Sucks to be them. Okay, we get it, Mike.

As for the homeless man episode, I read the scene as more like Poppy-burnishing. She's interested in everyone no matter how low they are on the social totem pole, she wants to UNDERSTAND everyone--that's what the film is attempting to show us. But my main problem with this attempt at portraying her thus is that there are very few scenes where she's actually LISTENING to someone. She's so busy joking and talking that nobody else is able to get a word in. That's where the film's ongoing sympathy for her in every situation doesn't quite work. Instead of putting the camera in front of these people and just watching them objectively, I just felt like each scene was designed to push our sympathies for Poppy. So I disagree that the film isn't didactic AT ALL. If a film is obviously taking someone's side, it throws away any claim that it isn't even *a bit* didactic.

[warren oates]

Scott may not have been "happy" but he was functional and comfortable with the routine in his life. I think when he said he was happy, he really meant that he was comfortable and at least content with the rigid and limited lifestyle he has created for himself. Why deny him what he's accomplished? It just seems a little unfair to constantly poke fun at him. He may have bee a little bit homophobic, paranoid and racist but you know what? A lot of people actually are. Probably more than a few of your neighbours or family members. It's not abnormal to BE those things, but Poppy and the film treats it like these things are symptoms of some deeper unhappiness within him when in fact they're probably things that he uses as a crutch to get him through life. What is wrong with that? He has a job, is deeply invested in his job, and tries to be a law abiding citizen. For some of us, that may not constitute a very fulfilling life, but for him it was enough.

Coming soon to a theater near you from JoJo: Unhappy Go F**k Yourself, a film about the relative merits of denial, repression, self- and other hatred and settling in general.

[jojo]

Coming soon to a theater near you from JoJo: Unhappy Go F**k Yourself, a film about the relative merits of denial, repression, self- and other hatred and settling in general.

Don't you think, though, it's rather arrogant and condescending to get in everyone's face that you "feel" is depressed or in denial or self hating? If they want to talk then you listen, if they WANT help then you give them a hand, but it seems to me Poppy's thinking process is "Yo dude, you're a SQUARE--lighten up, here's a joke. And hey, were you bullied when you were a kid?"

And I don't know why every criticism of the film in this thread basically gets a response of "Why you dogging on happiness man?" Happiness is cool, if Poppy likes the way she's living and she's functional, more power to her. I just think the film should also allow the same fair shake to everyone else as it gives to her and I just don't get the sense that it does. THAT is my problem with the film, not Poppy herself.

[Michael Kerpan]

It may not be _uncommon_ for individuals to be a little homophobic, racist and paranoid -- but it is abnormal and it is (existentially speaking) almost certainly reflective of a significant degree of inner unhappiness. However, I will concede that an encounter with an indomitably cheerful person isn't likely to solve such an individual's rather profound problems.

[warren oates]

JoJo, now I feel like you haven't really read what posters like Shrew and others wrote above. There's just way more nuance to the film and to its appreciators here than "happiness/Poppy rocks!." In much the same way that Naked isn't just about a nihilistic d-bag but about one who's a profoundly wounded and wary idealist beneath his angry persona.

[jojo]

It may not be _uncommon_ for individuals to be a little homophobic, racist and paranoid -- but it is abnormal and it is (existentially speaking) almost certainly reflective of a significant degree of inner unhappiness. However, I will concede that an encounter with an indomitably cheerful person isn't likely to solve such an individual's rather profound problems.

I will say that I would not want to be *friends* with someone who is all of those things, but I have some family members who unfortunately are and I can attest that they still have lived a long, functional, socially fulfilling, and satisfactory life. Do I think these negative traits are symptoms of some deeper resentment or insecurity? Yes, for sure. But people are complex, they're not just defined by solely those traits and sometimes these rants against society lets them blow off steam in a way that gets them through the day. I'm sure some people here have had that lovably daft grandparent who goes on about how we used to be much better before all these X races moved into the neighbourhood, and then he or she will merrily move on to talking about a great apple pie he had on Saturday. A repellent attitude for sure but not necessarily symptomatic of some psychosis that would prevent one from having a satisfactory life.

[jojo]

JoJo, now I feel like you haven't really read what posters like Shrew and others wrote above. There's just way more nuance to the film and to its appreciators here than "happiness/Poppy rocks!." In much the same way that Naked isn't just about a nihilistic d-bag but about one who's a profoundly wounded and wary idealist beneath his angry persona.

I was responding more to your post. You boiled my posts down to "Unhappy: and why it has its merits" when I basically stressed that my problem wasn't even with the "happy" aspect of the film at all. My main problem, as I've said in numerous posts, is that the film doesn't seem to give everyone else the same fair shake that it gives to Poppy, not that it's "upping" Poppy. Yes, Shrew and everyone made their cases in contrary to what I'm reading out of the film. I hear it. I just don't see it the same way, that's all. As I said, while I feel like it's didactic to a degree and sympathetic to her, I'm not bothered by that so much as it doesn't seem to give everyone else a fair shake.

[Shrew]

You're creating a false equivalency though. Warren's response is pointing out that Scott is not really functional. He has an incredible amount of anger, he's in denial. He is, even before Poppy, clearly not in a good place. Scott isn't so much a problem because he's a casual bigot. He's paranoid and angry and thinks he's being oppressed by same insane conspiracy. These are crutches of denial that are holding up dangerous repressed anger. He isn't blowing off steam so much as creating a self-contained cycle of rage. He's far more like a potential school shooter than your racist granddad.

I don't think the film is unsympathetic toward Scott. If it were, he would have done something unforgivable like murder Poppy. Or the final talk would end with him admitting that yes he has problems and he is going to get help. Instead, Poppy decides that she must actively distance herself from Scott because she recognizes that any continued relationship will be terribly unhealthy. And when he insists that he's "a good driving instructor" and Poppy quietly agrees, I don't think it's ironic. It doesn't take that away from him. He's just also a very damaged man.

Again, I think this film is about how various other people will deal with Poppy's personality. I don't think it makes her out to be some comforting angel or a model for mankind. I don't think it stacks the cards in her favor. Certain personalities react negatively to Poppy, but the point is that it's not really either of their faults. They just don't fit together well, and cause problems for each other.

[jojo]

You're creating a false equivalency though. Warren's response is pointing out that Scott is not really functional. He has an incredible amount of anger, he's in denial. He is, even before Poppy, clearly not in a good place. Scott isn't so much a problem because he's a casual bigot. He's paranoid and angry and thinks he's being oppressed by same insane conspiracy. These are crutches of denial that are holding up dangerous repressed anger. He isn't blowing off steam so much as creating a self-contained cycle of rage. He's far more like a potential school shooter than your racist granddad.

Okay, you will have to tell me what you define as functional.

To me, a functional person is someone who is self sufficient (he has a job), has at least one thing he is emotionally invested in (being a good driving instructor) and is law abiding (he is, for the most part). And you don't know that he's a potential school shooter--he may be, but you are only going by your own biases here about what constitutes a potential maniac. Ask yourself this--would Scott have totally went off if it were anyone else he was teaching? Grumpy people who rant about modern society all the time aren't exactly rare. Doesn't mean they're potential maniacs.

[Shrew]

Sorry, school shooter is maybe a bit heavy, but Scott's behavior clearly echoes a lot of stuff in this whole MRA/anti-government/conspiracy conversation that's been floating about in the US as of late. Scott just seems to clearly be at a point where his rage is barely constrained, and it's not sustainable. He's either eventually going to lose his job for blowing up at someone, or get into a fight, or something worse. He cares about his job and prides himself on it, but clearly that isn't enough to keep him happy, and the further he goes on like this, the closer he's going to get to losing the one thing he enjoys. Ultimately, I think he's made his life too singularly focused to be properly functional and fulfilled. He's not a bad person, but he's overcompensating on one aspect (job) to make up for deficits in other areas of his life.

As for the second question, I think it is clear that Scott has anger issues beyond Poppy. She gets to him more for a variety of reasons, yes, but he's set off by other things too. Again, I feel that while Poppy is partially responsible for exacerbating Scott, most of his final explosion is him projecting all kinds of his own insecurities and issues onto her. Those don't come from Poppy. Ultimately, she just inflamed what was clearly already there.

I just don't feel that Scott is supposed to represent some alternative viewpoint to Poppy that needs to be validated as an acceptable way of living. He's simply a damaged character who deals poorly with Poppy's personality (and again, she indeed deals poorly with his--they don't work together). I think you can make a legitimate complaint that Leigh brushes off the sister in the suburbs, but even there it's the sister who's unhappy that Poppy won't adopt her own lifestyle, not Poppy trying to make her sister change hers. But you do have other personalities that certainly aren't negatively portrayed--Poppy's beloved flatmate for example is a much more pragmatic, sarcastic presence, and they work fine together.

We're at the point where I feel I need to throw out the dreaded hypothetical: How would you change the film to be more inclusive/sympathetic of other people? In what way could the final conversation change to make Scott more sympathetic in your eyes? It seems like you'd rather replace Scott with a completely different character with less emotional issues.

[jojo]

If the film truly wanted to contrast Poppy with a truly damaged, angry character, then they could have made more pains to show that his attitude was affecting his quality of life. Now, "quality of life" is an incredibly subjective thing--if we start judging people's quality of life based on their personality, then we're no better than Poppy's sister with her patronizing tone about Poppy still acting "immature", etc,. And I feel like that's what the film is doing to Scott to a certain degree. But as I said, I define quality of life based on what I listed before--self sufficiency, emotional investment in something, and being a law abiding citizen. Poppy clearly aces that definition--but so does Scott. The fact that the film seems to suggest that while Poppy's eccentricities don't affect her quality of life but Scott's does...seems pretty unconvincing to me. If he were shown to have no interest in his job, or couldn't do it properly, and spent more time making racist, misanthropic and homophobic statements than teaching--and he doesn't, mind you--then I could be convinced that he was a man in need of dire help.

If, as you said, that the film is simply trying to show that not every person works well with Poppy, that's fine, I'd be fine with that. But the fact that so many people here seem to "think" that Scott has "serious issues" as you said seems to suggest that the film prefers to see that his life is lacking in some way. I mean, you yourself have called him "damaged" numerous times already in this thread, which seems to suggest that you THINK that's what the film is showing you. And my problem is that if you look strictly at the facts, there doesn't seem to be enough to evidence to really paint him in such negative terms. Is he a flawed person? Sure. A little childish? Sure. But I just don't think the film is constructed in such a way as to really listen to him. When he does his rant at the end, it comes out looking like a childish tantrum which unfortunately seems to take precedence over what he's actually saying, and he makes some very good points about how they've interacted up to that point. It also doesn't help that Poppy's episode with the little kid seems to be juxtaposed with her interactions with Scott in some way, basically reducing him down to childish terms.

I think he's already reasonably sympathetic on paper, so my problem is really not so much with the script as the arrangement of these scenes, and which facets of him are emphasized on camera and which are not. When it comes down to it, he's a guy who just wants to do his job as well as possible and then go home and relax, but can't because Poppy is being a disruptive presence. It's just that it seems like the film minimizes his good points by emphasizing the bad--his rants, his tantrums, the stalking--so that he comes out looking like some crazy unstable dude at the end, but again he was PUSHED to that point. And I feel like Leigh, while acknowledging that Poppy sometimes goes too far in her teasing, minimizes this point about her so that Scott comes out looking worse at the end than Poppy, even though she was the antagonist in the first place.

I agree that Poppy's roommate is well treated, but bear in mind she doesn't really come into conflict with her. It's the characters that come into conflict with Poppy that seem to be reduced down to some degree.

[Shrew]

I suppose we're at an impasse. I think where we really differ in our definition of "functional/quality of life" is in emotional investment. For me, having only one singular object of emotional investment is a sign of problems with mental well-being (not necessarily mania/insanity, but depression), but it seems like you consider that enough. I do think that the film/Leigh also would consider Scott's life emotionally deficient, and I don't think that's a problem, because to me his life clearly is. But again, he also isn't unsympathetic.

I think the "point" of the plot with Poppy and Scott is show conflict between an outwardly mature but emotionally stunted person and outwardly immature but emotionally fulfilled person. It is not a conflict between an emotionally withdrawn person (Scott goes far beyond that) and a emotionally confident one. Which is why I brought up the hypothetical, because the latter conflict sounds like what you think the film is presenting, and I don't think it is at all. The closest the film gets to that sort of conflict is Poppy's interaction with the bookstore clerk in the beginning, which I think is pretty non-judgmental toward both of them (hell, it even leans toward making Poppy seem more annoying than she will be in the rest of the film).

[swo17]

I haven't seen the film recently enough to be able to comment meaningfully, though I will just say that if Scott really is a school shooter at heart, I should think we'd be grateful that that particular character trait is being repressed!

[jojo]

I suppose we're at an impasse. I think where we really differ in our definition of "functional/quality of life" is in emotional investment. For me, having only one singular object of emotional investment is a sign of problems with mental well-being (not necessarily mania/insanity, but depression), but it seems like you consider that enough. I do think that the film/Leigh also would consider Scott's life emotionally deficient, and I don't think that's a problem, because to me his life clearly is. But again, he also isn't unsympathetic.

I think the "point" of the plot with Poppy and Scott is show conflict between an outwardly mature but emotionally stunted person and outwardly immature but emotionally fulfilled person. It is not a conflict between an emotionally withdrawn person (Scott goes far beyond that) and a emotionally confident one. Which is why I brought up the hypothetical, because the latter conflict sounds like what you think the film is presenting, and I don't think it is at all. The closest the film gets to that sort of conflict is Poppy's interaction with the bookstore clerk in the beginning, which I think is pretty non-judgmental toward both of them (hell, it even leans toward making Poppy seem more annoying than she will be in the rest of the film).

Right, you don't think the film is judging the two, you think it is presenting it as is. And I don't see the film the same way. My problem seems to be more like the film is presenting the case that Poppy, with all her eccentricities, is in fact a perfectly capable and fulfilled person--which I AGREE with--but feels like it needs to present that the other people who may question her way of living as being less fulfilled in comparison while living their more "conventional" lifestyles. It asks us not to judge her quality of life based on all her quirks and whatnot. Fine. But I feel like the film doesn't give the same degree of rope to everyone else in the film. So yes, we do see things differently here in regards to how the film presents things.

I'm not blind to the idea that you're probably right about Scott. He probably doesn't have as emotionally fulfilling a life as he *should* have. He may well be someone who's depressed, or due for a meltdown, I don't know--we only ever see him during the driving scenes so that's all we can go by. And I've seen cases like him and you may well be right...but I feel it's arrogant to play amateur shrink with people. And I felt on some level Poppy WAS doing that, and the film wanted to unpeel the layers of the onion that is Scott as the story progressed. But I just found it a little unfair that the film seemed to need to push him to the point where he has to REVEAL himself to be not as "mentally together" after all. It seemed...forced in a way. If Poppy didn't prod him every time she saw him, she would have finished the lessons, they would have shook hands at the end and he would have gone on with his life like usual. Of course, that wouldn't make for great drama so they kind of needed to manufacture some sort of conflict, but I feel like in manufacturing that drama, the consistency of the film's message about not judging Poppy seems to run counter to how the film treats Scott, or her sister, or the other people who come into conflict with her in some way.

We're probably pretty much repeating ourselves at this point of the discussion, so yeah, there's not much further we can go from here.

[FrauBlucher]

After reading through much of this thread, I rented the film from Netflix and watched last night. Probably not the best way to go into a film after reading pages and pages of opionion on said film. It's interesting that charactors that lead such routine lives can create a wealth interpretations. I liked the film and found it to be typical of the observational approach of a Leigh film. Poppy made me think of another Leigh character, Johnny from Naked, and how much she is like him (for her "playfully" pushing buttons) and yet how different (being innately happy and caring for those around her), as if she is his alter ego.

For me Shrew said it best....

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).