Showing posts with label leigh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label leigh. Show all posts

September 26, 2009

A Conversation with the Coens & a Look at Their First Decade (1984-1994)

Last night I had the once-in-a-lifetime luck to score a ticket to the 50th Regis Dialogue at the Walker Art Center, a 2 and 1/2 hour discussion between Elvis Mitchell and Joel and Ethan Coen. The conversation kicked off the second week of the Walker's current Coen Brothers retrospective, Joel & Ethan Coen: Raising Cain, and the the good news for those who couldn't get in last night is that the films of the Coens will still be shown in 35mm in the comfy Walker Cinema through October 17th. Click here for the remaining schedule, and note that the Burn After Reading screening is free. 

The brothers also attended the reception following the dialogue, but even as I was literally brushing shoulders with them I couldn't work up the nerve to ask them: in No Country for Old Men, where is Anton Chigurh at the Desert Sands? I did ask Elvis Mitchell but I think we were talking past each other. My question was about the night scene at the hotel where Chigurh is looking through the keyhole, not the day scene when Tommy Lee Jones first arrives and finds Josh Brolin. Elvis was convinced that Chigurh wasn't there, that it was an out of sequence scene. Well obviously, but that's not the scene I'm talking about. By the time I realized the misunderstanding, both Joel and Ethan had wandered away from us left the reception, leaving it a mystery forevermore. Wasting an easy 10 minutes standing right next to the Coens and not asking them a question, let alone that question, is something I'm going to be regretting for a long time. 

What would you have asked the Coens, given the opportunity? Everybody knows that they are among the most private personalities in Hollywood, and Elvis Mitchell deserves props for his attempt at getting them to open up about their childhood and influences. But the Coens are the Coens, and their inherent reluctance to talk makes interviewing them akin to pulling teeth; indeed, it looked like they'd rather have been at the dentist than on the stage. Pregnant pauses were filled by countless "yeah"s and "uh-huh"s, to the point that I was waiting for Mitchell to throw up his hands in defeat (he almost appeared ready to a couple times).

Despite all of this he was still able to squeeze out some interesting insights about their influences and childhood. Although it would have been nice to have a Minnesotan ask them about Minnesota, the truth is that a.) by now the Coens have been New Yorkers longer than they've been Minnesotans, so despite A Serious Man they're probably not as nostalgic for this place as most people think, and b.) Mitchell proved to be a brilliant analyst of their films, surprising even Joel and Ethan with his insights into their literary style and story patterns. Overall I still think it was a really interesting discussion, and I'd be lying if I said it wasn't one of my most memorable film experiences. (Here's a longer recap by Tad Simons.)

Now while I still can't claim to be anything close to an expert on their films (I still need to see Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers, and several others I've only seen once or twice), I'd like to remain true to my goal of writing something on each of their films before this retrospective ends. So here I'm offering some thoughts on the five films the brothers made in the first decade of their career. I hope to follow this with a second decade (1995-2005) and present day overview as well. Obviously I owe some thoughts to A Serious Man once I see that next weekend, since I've been howling about how good it will be for so long.


(Title screens via the Walker blog.)

Blood Simple (1984) 

As I mentioned last week, I saw Blood Simple for the first time only recently, but it made an immediate impression on my understanding of the rest of the Coen films, particularly No Country for Old Men. The desperate characters, the mind games, the desolate Texas landscape - in just one film they had already established a wholly unique style of storytelling (Ethan claimed the story was inspired by crimes of passion that were prevalent in Texas in the mid-80's). Everything is weaved together so seamlessly that you can't believe they were only in that this was their first feature (interesting trivia: Blood Simple premiered before its theatrical release at the Walker in 1984).

It's not nearly as polished as their other films, but of course they were working with a tiny budget and mostly amateur cast. It actually took me a while to recognize Frances McDormand as Frances McDormand, and I thought Dan Hedaya was enjoyably smug as well. All in all Blood Simple is just a flat-out solid debut, and the stylish scene transitions (the finger pointing, the bed falling) are worth rewinding and rewatching a few times.

November 6, 2008

REVIEW: Happy-Go-Lucky (A)

What's the difference between an optimist and a pessimist - besides "attitude"? Perspective developed through experience? Patterns of thinking learned early in life? Enjoying the rain instead of cursing it? Surely I don't know, but I'm always fascinated and, frankly, frustrated at how easily people toss the terms around.

Does that make me a pessimist? I've been labeled as much by different people at different times in my life, and I've brushed it off with some ease, often calling forth every pessimist's favorite defense: "I'm a realist." Whatever that means.

Either way, I know what (or rather, who) I'm not: Poppy Cross, the subject and saint of Mike Leigh's Happy-Go-Lucky, which aside from perhaps pointing to Leigh's need for cathartic release after 2005's Vera Drake, also serves as one of the most uplifting and confounding films of the year. Those with a better handle on Leigh's filmography than me (I saw it as part of the Walker's recent Mike Leigh retrospective) have noted that it maintains Leigh's commitment to character while at the same time completely separates itself from his typically dire, dour stories. Seems reasonable, but all I know for sure is that it's been a while since I've related to so many characters in the same film.

There's Zoe (Alexis Zegerman), Poppy's loyal roommate of a decade who shares her glass three-quarters-full outlook on life but doesn't show it with nearly as much giddiness, likely because she's much better than Poppy at picking up on the nuances of other people's emotions. There's Tim (Samuel Roukin), Poppy's latecoming love interest who appears to be too caught up in the newness of love to understand Poppy's true emotional state; it's all joking and laughing and kissy flirting, but does he realize there may not be much beyond that? There's Helen (Caroline Martin), Poppy's older, pregnant sister, who chastises Poppy for her carefree lifestyle while at the same admitting that she's unhappy with her own marriage and life. There's Scott (Eddie Marsan), Poppy's woeful driving instructor, whose outlook on life is pessimistic at best and homicidal at worst.

And then, finally, there's Poppy (Sally Hawkins), an effusive sprite who believes her mission in life is to change the world one giggly grin at a time - she's the life of the party and the sun that breaks through the gray London sky. Although this bright disposition works wonders in her job as a kindergarten teacher (at times she seems like one of the students), it hampers her relationships with adults in her daily life, namely those I just mentioned but also her other friends, colleagues, and even strangers. Moreover, it's clear that she is unable to access some of her own emotions: joining a friend at a flamenco class, Poppy nervously laughs and stomps about, oblivious to the pain and passion that's supposed to be driving her movements. Sally Hawkins runs wild in this performance, and the early Oscar buzz she's received is deserving, perhaps only because of the amount of energy she is able to consistently channel through Poppy.

Speaking of which - while there are aspects of Poppy's character that seem true to life, she continuously toes the line of caricature (giggling upon discovering her bike stolen: "I didn't even get to say goodbye"), which threatens to prevent us from taking much of Happy-Go-Lucky seriously, or at least makes it difficult for us to understand Poppy's emotional potential. It's not that Mike Leigh doesn't have a handle on the emotions he's illustrating - not at all, just that some of the transitions are so jarring you find yourself rubbing your sore facial muscles as you leave the theater. Laughing, cringing, frowning, smiling, smirking, worrying - it's hard to know how we're supposed to be feeling and why (i.e., the scene with a homeless man and most of the interactions with Scott). If I had to direct any criticism in any area, it might be toward this emotional rollercoaster ride.

But at the same time, maybe that's the genius of Happy-Go-Lucky: Leigh allows us to connect with so many different characters at so many different times. Sometimes I felt like Scott, manically irritated by Poppy's inability to have any kind of serious conversation; sometimes I felt like Zoe, appreciative of the positive influence Poppy has on people's lives; and sometimes I felt like Poppy, confused as to why everyone is so uptight and unable to experience the joyful moments in life. All of these feelings were valid, and none of them felt forced upon me.

Poppy Cross, stuck on smiling...

As most "realists" would tell you, people like Poppy are due for a rude awakening. It's fitting that she has a small one in Happy-Go-Lucky, and it's refreshing when the resolution is both positive and realistic.
I don't feel any more like Poppy now than I did when I saw it nearly a month ago, but I've since caught myself occasionally reflecting on my attitude in a particular situation. While there is terrific acting (especially by Marsan), brilliantly funny dialogue, and effortlessly relatable characters, it may be for that reason alone - that self-reflecting significance, that Happy-Go-Lucky should be considered a must-see.

Grade:
Writing - 10
Acting - 10
Production - 9
Emotional Impact - 8
Music - 5
Social Significance - 5

Total: 47/50= 94% = A
Related Posts with Thumbnails