Skip to main content
Just watched 'Happy-Go-Lucky' with the family. It was my fault. I had some noble notion of giving Mike Leigh another go. Nobility... not worth it. There was no acclimating oneself to Sally Hawkins giggle. And if hers was a lesson in flirting, I'm not interested. Was the whole point to learn that happiness can only achieved when you embrace inanity? I know that film is an art form and straight narrative is not always necessary, but seriously. Something could have happened. Sometime. Ever. I appreciated the crescendo with the driving instructor, but it was not worth all it took to get there.

Comments

  1. Wonder Jens06 July, 2009 11:34

    I completely disagree with your evaluation of this movie.
    It was a character study.
    Yes, 'nothing' happens. Just like life.
    Would you rather have had something terrible happen to Sally so that she becomes her opposite? I would have hated to see the destruction of such a wonderful and rare creature. She may be annoying, but perhaps its only because the rest of us are jealous of her unrelenting joy of life.
    And stuff did happen, at the appropriate moments, but she didn't react to it the way one of us would, which would have given you the 'somthing' you were looking for. Instead her optimistic view of life and those around her sheltered her from danger.
    Inane? Yes. Did she embrace it? What other choice did she have? Is it a crime to love your life, your job, and your friends just as they are?
    I can see how you could seriously dislike this film. But only really if you deeply disliked the main character and truely wished her harm. For me, as annoying as it was at first, her constant joy was infectious and soon I found myself wanting to see how she would react to each situation. The most touching point was when she met her match, someone who understands her point of view and is equally capable of talking around the point they're trying to make. How lonely it must have been for her before meeting him, when even her closest friends and family don't understand her.
    As for something happening? I'm pretty sure that a huge point of making the film was to break that film convention and show some of the beauty of an inane life lived joyfully.
    You may not have liked it, but I loved it and thought it was brilliant.
    And if you don't want comments this long in the future, try not to be so completely degrading of the movie. Your post was begging for a fight it kinda implies that anyone who liked the movie is an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wonder Jens06 July, 2009 13:52

    um...yeah. sorry 'bout that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hello, I'm Emily Clare.06 July, 2009 14:22

    Haha, I love how Wonder Jens' comment post was longer than your blog post! Now I wanna watch the film just to see what the fuss is about. :-P

    ReplyDelete
  4. Unknown07 July, 2009 10:07

    I didn't mean for my opinion about the movie to offend you. I certainly wasn't trying to pick a fight. I clearly don't think you're an idiot. One of the reasons I gave the movie a go was because Mike Leigh is a favorite director of a very intelligent friend of mine. I know that the multitude of my opinions have at times isolated and excluded people. It's something I'm working on. Even so, this blog is subtitled 'interminable opinions' for a reason. Let us keep in mind the difference between an opinion and a conviction. How I feel about this movie has no bearing on how I feel about anyone who likes it. I hope all my friends feel free to loathe many things I love. It would be a boring world otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wonder Jens07 July, 2009 14:23

    Aw Molly, you know me. :)

    I wasn't necessarily offended you know
    I have to come to the defense. I can't help it.

    I love your opinions, and I love to get riled up about the most ridiculous things.

    Don't hate me. :(

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Can someone please explain why my Quicktime isn't working? Anyone with prophetic awareness of my little Atlas, none so old but recently behaving so?
8 comments
Read more
because you were all wondering what I'm writing my dissertation on, here's a brief synopsis of my 'research context': When James Macpherson published his Fragments of Ancient Poetry in 1760, he went to great lengths to make the Fragments appear to be authentic remains of an ancient, heroic oral tradition. His reasons for this were largely political, and as such, influenced the content of the epics themselves. As an attempt to establish a particularly Scottish identity, the poems were quite effective. However, to do so required both a simplification and a manipulation of traditional mythology. Stripped of anagogical significance, the Ossian epics more or less represented an Enlightenment version of history, tradition, and mythic heritage. The stories themselves were changed by their very purpose and in turn changed the manner of representing myth in future narratives. Moreover, the emphasis on the Ossian epics as authentic tales from the past, as ‘fragments,’ served...
6 comments
Read more
Kathryn, do NOT be jealous of me going to the opera. It was weird. They were wearing these bulky animal costumes and clonking boots which might have been okay except that their footsteps drowned out the sound of the orchestra (Oh look! A band!). The plot was supposed to be about the circle of life or something deep, but it really seemed to be more about animals getting it on. It was an opera, though, so plot really shouldn't matter as long as the music is good. It wasn't. I mean, it wasn't BAD - but most of the singing was monotonous, the orchestration was unremarkable, and I hope to heaven no one from the production reads this. It would be so disheartening! They were all skillful - I just wasn't interested in the piece itself. But then, I have only ever seen very classical sorts of pieces. The Marriage of Figaro. Samson and Delilah. And I was listening to Puccini before leaving the house! What do you do? But then again, I was distracted by my seating companion. Five so...
10 comments
Read more