Melanie and I saw “Inside Llewyn Davis” last night and I loved it; loved it, loved it, loved it. Did I make it clear how much I loved it?
In many ways it fits my picture of Greenwich Village in the early 60s, a time and place I would love to have been old enough to experience, even if here it’s gloomier than it apparently really was. A reaction to the film by someone who was part of that crowd said what’s in the movie is almost unrecognizable from the glorious, fun, exciting, colorful, joyful time she remembers. But that’s OK. This isn’t a documentary, it’s a fictional movie set in that time and place with its own themes and moods.
I love the actor playing Llewyn Davis, Oscar Isaac. He’s a gifted musician (he does his own singing and playing) and has an engaging screen presence. I also love how curmudgeonly his character is. Fortunately this isn’t one of those obscurity-to-fame movies. It’s about a talented musician trying to get a career going at the epicenter of the most talented musicians of his genre. The fact that he only does covers is a subtle but telling detail, it’s something that limits any musician looking to make it big. Maybe in 1961 (the time of the movie) it was more common to be an interpreter of other people’s music, but Llewyn Davis isn’t a Frank Sinatra or a Tony Bennett. He sings well, but he’s not a “singer.” Does he do covers because that’s easier? Because it’s what other people on the scene do? CAN he write? We don’t know for sure, but you get the impression he either isn’t ambitious enough to think that big, or simply lacks the songwriting chops. True, some folk musicians did covers and had decent careers, but even then the standouts were those who wrote too, like Pete Seeger and, just starting to get his early recognition at this time, Bob Dylan. You can't help wondering if the landscape is about to shift away from Davis and leave him behind.
The movie is visually dark which creates an evocative mood, but I wondered if the projector in the theater was set too low (Regal Union Square 14 on Broadway just below 14th). We were in a smaller room, I’m guessing because the movie is probably near the end of its run, and maybe less care was taken with the presentation? But I could easily believe the dimness was deliberate. If so, I guess I found it a bit too dark.
Some of the things I love about the movie might have more to do with my interests than with the merits of the movie. When I was a teenager reading about my favorite musicians from the 60s (this was in the 70s), I learned Jim Morrison would live from couch to couch before The Doors formed and got big. To me, a shy kid without a lot of friends, that seemed like such a glamorous, adventurous way to live, never knowing where the next night would lead you, but always somehow finding a place to crash. “Inside Llewyn Davis” does a great job of showing you what that kind of existence might really be like, the frustration and fear of not knowing where you’ll find shelter (the movie takes place over a harsh winter), and the reservations of those who must give you their couch once again without knowing how long you’ll stay. It’s the deflating side of the vagabond life, probably the truer side. Davis is even less likable because he leeches so constantly and freely. He has no recourse, being a poor starving artist, but you hold him responsible because his lifestyle results from the career choice he’s made, and you’re not sure it was the right choice.
I love how Davis takes the romanticism out of even the musician’s approach to music. He’s asked to play something at a dinner party and is told how wonderful it must be, being able to create music at will. But he gets angry and says it’s just the way he makes his living, it’s just a job; he doesn’t seem to find anything special or glamorous in it. Obviously not all musicians feel that way, but it’s oddly refreshing to hear that point of view, one which I’m sure is shared by more musicians than would care to admit it. Where does the creative drive come from when your art is reduced to a job to make money to stay alive?
I love the largely plot-less story. It’s not non-linear, but it doesn’t have a traditional structure of three acts with a dramatic closing climax. Well, maybe it does, but in an unconventional way. The movie is a kind of circular journey that ends where it starts. Things happen along the way, but this isn’t a story that rushes forward to a big dramatic conclusion. Instead it's almost like the journey in a Greek myth. There's even a cat named Ulysses. (The Coen Brothers have said this movie is the direct successor to their "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou.") The mythical structure, ironically, makes it feel more real, truer to life. The movie has a different kind of excitement. I was hanging on every scene, every shot, just loving everything about it, rapt in a way few movies make me. It has a kind of inner excitement, the excitement of something rising above the mundane and approaching truth.
The rest of the characters and cast are equally impressive. John Goodman has an atypical part, a bit small (the part, not John Goodman) but very memorable. With great hair. F. Murray Abraham plays a club owner and talent scout who wants to form a folk trio with a girl and two guys, he just hasn’t found the girl and the two guys yet. He thinks Llewyn Davis might fit if he trimmed his beard into a goatee. Davis turns down the job. We’re not surprised, he doesn’t play well with others, and he’d make a lousy Peter Yarrow or Paul Stookey.
One nice surprise is Justin Timberlake. I’ve followed his movie career and so far I like his acting. He hasn’t shown much of a range yet, but he always seems relaxed (not the easiest thing for an actor) and is usually engaging. He plays a somewhat bland role here but he does it well. Carey Mulligan is also very good in this. I didn’t recognize her (though I knew I’d seen her before) until I looked the credits up later. She seems to have a nice chameleon quality that lets her disappear into different roles.
Seeing Greenwich Village in the winter of 1961 is great. The movie does an impressive job using what seems to be today’s Village and finding sections that could have existed in 1961. I don’t know if digital effects were used to cover over any modern-day storefronts; if so, the result is convincing. There aren’t a lot of wide shots of the streets, but what you see looks right. So do the interiors, and the costuming, and the hairstyles. All the movie really, it captures the era nicely from what I know of it.
This is a special one, surprisingly so. My hopes were high going into it and I enjoyed it even more than I expected to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Llewyn_Davis
No comments:
Post a Comment