[Sandy]

Hi oldkid! We've been talking about your movie!

Brick

[Sam the Cinema Snob]

Wendy and Lucy (2008)

Wendy and Lucy is billed as a drama, which is what happens to lots of films where genre and type defy easy classification. There are no bold, riveting performances, no strong story arc, no clashing character conflicts, it’s a bare-bones story told in a simple style and that’s what makes it work so well.

Wendy (Michelle Williams) is traveling across the country with her dog Lucy (Lucy the Dog) to find work but a stop in one town becomes more than a one-night affair when things begin to spiral out of control for Wendy and Lucy.

From there, the film unfolds bit by bit, scene by scene as Wendy faces the simple problems of being without a home, without a working car and without much cash. It’s a frightening prospect and there are moments of dread that are all too familiar for someone who’s had to repair a car or face a fine they financially weren’t prepared for.

It’s the tiny moments like that which make Wendy and Lucy so effective, the fact that the conflict exists not in a traditionally dramatic faction, in bold gestures, but in these small, solemn moments of being out of grasp of basic needs and desires.

It’s about the feeling of not having a home and what life becomes like when you no longer have anyone to turn to. There are genuinely horrifying moment in this film that capture not only the physical hardships but the psychological ones as well, the sense of truly being alone.

And in that regard, the film captures the social anxiety of a class of people often overlooked and underseen, the people that drift along the edges, invisible people that you see every day on the street but think nothing about. Who they are, what their day looks like and where they are going is a complete mystery for most, but for a while Wendy and Lucy pulls back the veil and observes the unseen.

[Sandy]

I'm Not There



Because he has cultivated his own soul—which was rich to begin with... He reaches the unknown; and even if, crazed, he ends up by losing the understanding of his visions, at least he has seen them!  -- Arthur Rimbaud

Do I understand Bob Dylan more now, than before I watched the movie? Yes. Do I have much more information now, which shows me how little I really know about the man? Also yes. Are six characters and a non linear plot the best way to convey his personas? Most likely. Is Cate Blanchett preternaturally channeling Dylan's essence? Beyond a doubt.

All his music, all his exploration is poetically, enigmatic storytelling. Whether we get it or not, is a little beside the point. What does the music evoke within us? What stories are we willing to see and speak? Honestly, I think Dylan would much prefer we quit asking who he is and ask ourselves instead.

[oldkid]

I forgot that I have some comments and reviews to respond to, here.

I can not quite agree with the following:

One other think I note is that both Sorry and Hellzapoppin’ belong to the comedy ideal of “throw it all against the wall and some of it will stick.”   LIke Airplane.  I must love this kind of film.

Yes Hellzapoppin' and Airplane! are throw it all against the wall and some will stick, but Sorry to Bother You had more control and less throwing, a lot less. It did have some crazy stuff, but it was kept at a more nuanced level. Hellzapoppin' was often overlapping jokes, but in Sorry to Bother You Mr Riley gives the jokes time to be savoured, the overlapping did not occur.

I agree with you, so perhaps I need to nuance my statment to be one that communicates better.  Airplane! is a bunch of jokes, but the tone is carefully managed.  We know what's coming-- more jokes that are a slap in the face in quick succession.  Hellzapoppin' and Sorry are both uneven in terms of tone.  Hellzapoppin' is literally whatever works in whatever order-- it may not be comedy, or it may be the most insane comedy audiences of that time has ever seen, it may be tame or it may cross the line of decency, you just don't know.  Sorry is of that kind of enterainment, where the tone is up or down or sly or slap-me-across-the-face obvious, with two caveats.  First, it will make some kind of narrative sense, even as Airplane! had a direction is was headed down.  Second, every scene will retain the satiric mockery of our current (or potential) economic system.  But those are some pretty broad guidelines.  And I can say that, like Hellzapoppin', Sorry crosses the line of decency on occasion in a most surprising fashion.

I like being surprised.  And next time I watch these films, they will still have some suprises for me.

[oldkid]

Hi oldkid! We've been talking about your movie!

Brick

A lot of talk about the language and tone used.  But did you like it?  Is it deserving of the acclaim obtained by a certain podcast?  Did you have a good time?  Might you watch it again?

[oldkid]

Wendy and Lucy (2008)

Wendy and Lucy is billed as a drama, which is what happens to lots of films where genre and type defy easy classification. There are no bold, riveting performances, no strong story arc, no clashing character conflicts, it’s a bare-bones story told in a simple style and that’s what makes it work so well.

Wendy (Michelle Williams) is traveling across the country with her dog Lucy (Lucy the Dog) to find work but a stop in one town becomes more than a one-night affair when things begin to spiral out of control for Wendy and Lucy.

From there, the film unfolds bit by bit, scene by scene as Wendy faces the simple problems of being without a home, without a working car and without much cash. It’s a frightening prospect and there are moments of dread that are all too familiar for someone who’s had to repair a car or face a fine they financially weren’t prepared for.

It’s the tiny moments like that which make Wendy and Lucy so effective, the fact that the conflict exists not in a traditionally dramatic faction, in bold gestures, but in these small, solemn moments of being out of grasp of basic needs and desires.

It’s about the feeling of not having a home and what life becomes like when you no longer have anyone to turn to. There are genuinely horrifying moment in this film that capture not only the physical hardships but the psychological ones as well, the sense of truly being alone.

And in that regard, the film captures the social anxiety of a class of people often overlooked and underseen, the people that drift along the edges, invisible people that you see every day on the street but think nothing about. Who they are, what their day looks like and where they are going is a complete mystery for most, but for a while Wendy and Lucy pulls back the veil and observes the unseen.

I showed this film to a homeless man with a dog who was living in my house in the same area where this movie was filmed.  He wept so hard and declared it one of the worst movies ever.  Then he turned on me and demanded why would I recommend this film.  I suppose it is really meant to reveal something to those who have never experienced it.  It heightens the drama too much for those who live in this fear daily.

[oldkid]

I'm Not There



Because he has cultivated his own soul—which was rich to begin with... He reaches the unknown; and even if, crazed, he ends up by losing the understanding of his visions, at least he has seen them!  -- Arthur Rimbaud

Do I understand Bob Dylan more now, than before I watched the movie? Yes. Do I have much more information now, which shows me how little I really know about the man? Also yes. Are six characters and a non linear plot the best way to convey his personas? Most likely. Is Cate Blanchett preternaturally channeling Dylan's essence? Beyond a doubt.

All his music, all his exploration is poetically, enigmatic storytelling. Whether we get it or not, is a little beside the point. What does the music evoke within us? What stories are we willing to see and speak? Honestly, I think Dylan would much prefer we quit asking who he is and ask ourselves instead.

But I wonder how we can get any real "truth" about Dylan from this film?  It seems to be all metaphor, all illusions, all shadows which cannot really be clearly grasped. I think it is so ambibious it couldn't possibly work, but it really does.  I wonder if this film is not as much speaking about Dylan specifically so much as human nature in general.

[MartinTeller]

I showed this film to a homeless man with a dog who was living in my house in the same area where this movie was filmed.  He wept so hard and declared it one of the worst movies ever.  Then he turned on me and demanded why would I recommend this film.  I suppose it is really meant to reveal something to those who have never experienced it.  It heightens the drama too much for those who live in this fear daily.

I recently rewatched it (because of the Blu-Ray release). Although it remains one of my favorites, afterwards I thought, "Why did you do that to yourself?"

[Bondo]

Ninotchka

I had to play a quick game of "who was I watching this for again?" My efforts were delayed in that my library was only just ordering copies of it.

The early going sets the film up as a rather cheeky comedy, and the inspiration of Billy Wilder in the script seems unmistakable, though I don't know Lubitsch well enough to distinguish contributions. The three Russian trade representatives are definitely the peak of the broader comedy, with Sig Ruman making me think of Jim Broadbent. And when the film cuts to Duchess Swana, I figured her for the lead character, because she certainly seemed the type for a film of the era to center on (and not having ever seen Garbo in anything I wouldn't know otherwise). But then into the chaos comes Greta Garbo as Ninotchka in a rather different role as the ideal Soviet, suppressing her individualism in the way her comrades do not and cannot. Her interchanges with the Count are amusing, but as the film leaned into the romance, it lost a little steam for me.

I don't know if this film was officially intended as anti-Red propaganda or not, but it certainly seems to serve that function. I mean, yes, the Soviet regime was bad, but it still displays a cultural superiority...a man saving a capable woman from her situation through his presumption of knowing the better ways of things. I mean, this was a society with great art and scientific achievement. They put a man in space before us. I don't know why they need to be looking to Paris for really basic infrastructure issues.

I enjoyed it, but am not sure I can provide a coherent reason for the parts I liked, because saying I wish it had stayed more breezy would suggest even more of the fish out of water stuff that plays on the social critique I was less enamored of.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

I mean, this was a society with great art and scientific achievement. They put a man in space before us. I don't know why they need to be looking to Paris for really basic infrastructure issues.

The movie is from 1939, pre-WWII, pre- a lot of things that would later define the Soviet Union for both good and ill. It's not a pro-Soviet film, but it's not anti-red propaganda either. In context I think it it's more about making fun of the rigidity and extremism of the early Stalin years more than actual political ideology.