Film Review: ‘Happy-Go-Lucky’ by Mike Leigh
A 2008 British comedy-drama film written and directed by Greta Gerwig’s favourite filmmaker.
Mike Leigh, Wikimedia Commons
Given the recent emergence of Greta Gerwig as a major director, I looked back at an Oscar-nominated movie of the director she has described as her favourite filmmaker: Mike Leigh’s “Happy-Go-Lucky.”
“Happy-Go-Lucky” is a film in which the main character Poppy (Sally Hawkins), is happy-go-lucky. The film often feels on the nose and this is the epitome of that tendency.
It is based in the noughties and filmed in north London, making little attempt to conceal filming locations or street signs. Poppy lives in Finsbury Park, visits the market, goes out at Koko in Camden and uses the boats in Regent’s Park.
The film is primarily about Poppy’s relationship with her driving instructor Scott, played by Eddie Marsan. Scott is very serious: superficially the opposite of the happy-go-lucky Poppy. With him there is never a light or positive moment; things are only more or less terrible.
He rants about the importance of driving properly and thus the importance of vigilance when doing so. Such rants allow him to introduce more general concerns for society: the problem with multiculturalism and young people having no respect. Although Scott has extreme views on these topics, these issues were often discussed a decade ago and it is striking how dated these concerns look now. Whilst the specifics have changed, the motivations have not. Scott goes as far as advocating conspiracy theories and none of this is taken seriously by Poppy.
It is remarkable that Poppy gets through the film without being more annoying. She is consistently inane, but some combination of the script and Hawkins’ award-winning performance allows her to deliver the character with more than enough charm and humour. She is very funny.
Despite not taking Scott’s topics seriously, Poppy is clearly interested in and concerned for other people. She simply feels that these topics are distractions; talking about them will not help and engaging with them might make things worse.
When potentially helpful conversations can or do arise, Poppy is engaged and lucid whilst remaining witty and jovial. When she has to talk to a boy in the class she teaches about his anger, or when Scott’s breakdown allows for a conversation about his own rage, she is engaged.
Poppy does not accept the importance of the boy’s or Scott’s preoccupations, nor those of her sister. Is the boy really angry at the classmates he abuses? Is Scott really angry at society? A link between these questionably directed rages is made through a surprisingly unsubtle pairing of two scenes; when a social worker and Poppy discover that the boy’s anger stems from the abuse he is suffering at home, we cut to a scene where Scott hints that he was bullied at school. It is all wrapped up extremely quickly and without much suggested nuance.
This is, then, a straightforward story of sublimation - of misdirected energy. It stems, though, from characters being wronged. Poppy’s sister may be harsh with her, but she is compellingly accused of being “insecure about [her] own life.” That so much energy and time could be spent on such exhaustingly elaborate and malign confections is an appalling albeit well-covered notion. The trauma people can suffer and transmit to others is as concerning now as it was then.
Early recognition, or diagnosis, of the true cause of one’s feelings is apparently key to mitigating this sublimation. The boy’s problem is realised early and there is frequent mention of the belief that “he’ll be fine.” In contrast, Scott has suffered for a long time and has spent so long building an alternative narrative for explaining such suffering to himself that he might find a truer narrative less convincing and too miserable in its revelations to accept.
Besides, when we are older we are supposed to be wiser; it is more difficult to accept that we were wrong, that we are vulnerable. This is especially problematic for a character like Scott, whose demeanour is so proud, pompous and self-righteous, being someone who claims to be less ignorant than others. He blames his misery on Poppy: “I was happy before.” We suspect that he may have been coping better before, that his dodgy, self-aggrandising narrative held up better. Whether realising the flaws in his story will be better for himself or the world is unclear. Regardless, heartbreakingly, in the crisis he “just [wants] to go home.”
Even if one is tempted to accuse the narrative of lacking nuance or depth - of being facile - the characters and dialogue feel realistic and entertaining: Leigh’s dialogue being an aspect Gerwig has particularly praised. Viewers, like me, may only have seen Sally Hawkins play a mute character in “The Shape of Water”: seeing her play the frantically provocative Poppy is an enjoyable contrast.
“Happy-Go-Lucky” is therefore a film about sublimation, its effects, and how it can be dealt with: the exploration of these ideas can be quite on the nose and basic. Sally Hawkins though, is brilliant, and her delivery of Leigh’s script goes some way to explaining the reverence for Leigh’s films such as these.