At the time I saw it, Happy Go Lucky (the new Mike Leigh movie) had been running in my local arthouse cinema for well over a week, and the place was still packed out.
That’s good news if you’re me – as Happy Go Lucky is exactly the sort of movie I’d like to see a lot more of. Small scale, a very human story, some shimmering, elusive performances, strong roots in the real world – and the kind of bittersweet love for people, even the messed up ones, (especially the messed up ones) that works very well to counter the empty sugar highs and total violence that will no doubt dominate in the majority of the other big summer releases.
OK. So why didn’t it work?
Sally Hawkins was unfathomably good as Poppy, the strange child-woman who grows up just a little. In one immence perfomance she was annoyingly chirpy, insanely optimistic, surprisingly powerful, totally adorable, gratingly silly, empathetic and surprisingly brave.
Eddie Marsan gave her a good run for her money as the convoluted, deeply unhappy Scott, even though ‘Scott’ as a concept was just one step too self-consciously a ‘character’ for me. Alexis Zegerman is quietly, unflamboyantly wonderful as the best friend – and I was extremely happy to see Sinead Matthews on screen too.
Sinead was absolutely fantastic when she played the deranged nanny in my own Trial and Retribution. and I just wanted her to get more screen time in this one. She’s definitely one to watch.
OK. So really, why didn’t it (quite) work?
Well, I loved the subtlety, the delightful meanders, and the light touch throughout. Yet I never managed to submerge myself in the experience. The friend I went with was sobbing by the end, for reasons she wouldn’t – or couldn’t explain – yet I remained just one step from involved, continually more aware of the technique, and the story choices, than I would have hoped.
I think one reason for that could have been the lack of the usual writing process.
Mike Leigh is one of the last people you would expect to follow conventional ideas of movie structure. His creative process is famous – months of rehearsals and workshops with the actors to discover their characters, then the introduction of the characters to each other and the improvisations, then the final decisions about the story very shortly before fiming starts.
Sounds great, but I’ve always felt this tendency can lead to character heavy, slightly disconnected, even slightly random, scripts – and I felt this was true here.
There was a lot of material that floated on the edges of the story, almost disconnected from the central narrative drive. I can’t help wondering what the movie would have been like had the flamenco sequence, and the tramp sequence, and the visit to the sister in law sequence, among others, been woven more strongly into a more direct, *very* slightly more conventional narrative, where the emotional content of those sequences had been bound more directly to a narrative thrust that was leading us through the story instead of allowing us to drift.
Small things, in the end. Probably more my problem than the movie’s.
Happy Go Lucky is simple, poignant, and beautiful. When you need an antidote to CGI and multiple fantasy deaths I strongly recommend you track it down.
Check it out from Amazon with this affiliate link:
How To Write A Screenplay
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Hey Phil,
Okay, I’ll rent it soon.
Thanks for this. Looking for a nice surprise this summer.
Regards
Benjamin Ray
http://www.hollywoodtoronto.com
Hi Ben, see what you think – it’s not your usual type of thing, but you might like it if you’re in the mood for something different – and very British!
Hey Phil,
I will see it for sure.
In the 90’s Mike Leigh made two movies that had an impact on me. Reason — he dared to write an ending that shocked/disturbed me but also entertained me. Now that’s what you call a real filmmaker and a real screenwriter. Cinematic Gold.
Regards
Benjamin Ray
http://www.hollywoodtoronto.com
After reading your review Phil, I was really looking forward to seeing this film, but I absolutely hated it. With a vengeance. Poppy annoyed me so much, that by the end, I couldn’t stand the sound of her voice. And what exactly, was it all about? I’ve always been a fan of Mike Leigh’s work too. Can’t think why your friend was crying. Perhaps she hated it too – or had you eaten all the popcorn?
You’re right about Sinead Matthew Phil she carried that Trial and Retribution. What was your research about nannies that go wrong ? I was it just a case of the random nutters that pop up into the serving underclass ?
I wonder if you haven’t missed the deep filmatic referencing – Kubrik, Hitchcock (Scottie in Vertigo and Scot here both travel in their vehicles in circles and quadrangles almost aimlessly) and Lindsay Anderson. It would indicate that this is far more than it purports to be. Secondly, there’s a very strong parallel narrative which should be explored. The early scenes with the loss of the bicycle are reminiscent of the bike in Heaven can Wait and the hero(ine’s) entry into the underworld. The rejection of the Penrose’s “The Reality of the Universe” forewarns of the struggle of forces beyond rational explanation.
I see Mike Leigh coded the entire project almost like Da Vinci and the so-called code.
Phil, I enjoy your reviews. We can only ever offer our personal reactions, so thank you.
@ patmills: Don’t you think, really, a film should work on the surface first – to get bums on seats?
If academics want to analyze it further, they always find layers… that’s what academics do!