Skip to main content

Hey look… I’m really happy for the gig, but who… wrote this?

Inside Llewyn Davis
(2013)

(SPOILERS) The cat is the hat. At least, as far as Joel and Ethan Coen motifs are concerned. It seems nigh on impossible for the brothers to make a bad movie. Occasionally they disappoint slightly (The Ladykillers) but usually they invite praise so effusive, it’s embarrassing. Inside Llewyn Davis falls into the category of one of their smaller, more offbeat, and idiosyncratic pictures, although such lines are always blurry (they rarely make costly, commercially calculated fare), and it comes up as one of their very best. Of course, their very best number about two thirds of their output. Such reliability ensures their pictures feel like special gifts, to be savoured and cherished when they arrive every couple of years.


The brothers clearly enjoy immersing themselves in period trappings (tellingly, they’ve expressed zero interest in making a science fiction movie; apart from anything else, where would they locate their reference points?), and the milieu of Davis is a new one; 1961 New York and the vibrant Greenwich Village folk scene. They aren’t slaves to authenticity, however (a number of anachronistic details skew later, but fit the overall mood or themes); it’s the evocation of the time rather than rigorous details that they’re after. I don’t know my Dave van Ronk, but the Coens loosely based Llewyn Davis on his posthumously published autobiography The Mayor of McDougal Street. They go their own way, of course, and this is all a frame to explore another of their misbegotten heroes, for whom nothing quite seems to work and who, either through blinkeredness or bloody-mindedness, is his own worst enemy. Several of their previous creations come to mind; the spiralling into chaos of A Serious Man, the self-involved playwright of Barton Fink. And informing the mood is a wonderfully immersive soundtrack produced by T-Bone Burnett, who performed similar duties on their most musical earlier picture O Brother, Where Art Thou?


So there are certain familiar beats here, and recognisable character quirks, but there’s never the remotest feeling they’re repeating themselves. And, for a movie that follows its lead’s unfocussed path, Davis never comes across as if it’s blowing in the wind, in search of a narrative. I’m very glad the Coens put the cat(s) in, but that’s the only justification for their concern that there was too little plot. It’s a typically bemusing comment from them anyway and, given their amusingly unforthcoming way with interviews when pressed to unburden themselves of thematic devices or subtexts, it was probably not intended completely seriously (perhaps the need not to expose subtexts partly explains why science fiction wouldn’t appeal; it’s difficult to get way from overt readings in that genre).


Is Davis really a loser, or is he the victim of the cruelty of the Fates? The Coens won’t be drawn on such matters. It’s quite evident that, like the also titular Barton Fink, Llewyn looks down on much of the creative output his peer group, be it friends Jim (Justin Timberlake) and Jean (Carey Mulligan, though Jean isn’t so keen on Llewyn) or guileless soldier boy Troy Nelson (Stark Sands). Barton fetches up in Hollywood, where his attempts to reveal something beautiful fall on deaf ears. Barton is more hoisted by his own petard than Llewyn, perhaps, but both are equals at digging their own holes, unable to discern the dividing line between the purity of their art and entrenchedness of their egos. Davis is given more tangible pain (he has lost Mike, his former singing partner, to suicide) but is too self-involved too make good on the help others offer him. We see it with the Gorfeins (Ethan Phillips and Robin Bartlett), whose cat he loses, and Jean, whose stream of vitriol seems to confirm that only ill can come to Davis (but also must also surely conceal genuine feeling; its unclear if she sleeps with Max Casella’s Pappi to secure Davis a gig, but there’s a strong implication that’s the case).


Davis isn’t a bad guy; he means well, but he can only really express kindness for Ulysses the cat, for Ulysses surrogate, and show for empathy towards the cat he later broadsides. The Coens will no doubt claim that the cat is just a cat, but it’s Llewyn’s genuine care (at the expense of a conversation with Jean over terminating her pregnancy) that invites an appreciation of his finer qualities, only otherwise exposed when he is playing. It’s in the latter moments, rehearsing old standards or not, that we see the genuine feeling, giving the lie to his claim that it’s only for the money.


He’s a contradictory character; of course he is. And the Coens love to pile on their characters’ pain almost as much as Sam Raimi likes to beat on Bruce Campbell. But in this case there’s a roundedness that ascends beyond stylistic indulgence and cute jokes (and I do love their formal stretching, and would never claim to be disappointed by their apparent indifference to deep and meaningful explorations of life and existence; for one thing, when they broach such areas they can’t do it entirely straight-faced, and I think I’d be disappointed if they did). Davis is so affecting because he’s hopelessly wayward, lost unto himself. Disaster compounds disaster, to the point where he looks to have given up on his dream; he’s resigned to getting back to the Merchant Navy and making some money. But that also seems to elude him. Compounding the cosmic joke, the last scene finds Llewyn sharing the bill with someone about to make it big. While fame awaits Bob Dylan, Davis props himself up, rueful and broken, in the club’s back alley.


The Coens ask us to accompany Davis in his inexorable, almost stoical downfall. It’s not a tragedy so much as an inevitability, of which Davis seems balefully resigned. He engages in the occasional temperamental outburst (at the club, leading to a beating) but he’s also the observer of his slow disintegration. Jean isn’t so far wrong, amid the invective, when she accuses him of willing himself to fail. But Isaac makes Davis likable, even at his worst when heckling a poor performer in a fit of pique. Although the Coens allow the lead to be buffeted as much as their average protagonist, there’s a sense of affection here too; they aren’t just mischief-making with him from a lofty remove.


It’s not made clear how much of Davis’ disposition results from the death of his partner Mike (who even managed to jump off the wrong bridge in his bid to escape from the world). The reason for his ex not telling him she was keeping the child is not expanded upon (nor is the time frame relating to this and Mike’s death), but it suggests Davis’ traits are not recent ones. He was no ray of sunshine even before his loss.  But his loss clearly doesn’t help; his outburst at the Gorfeins is directly related to Mikey, and Jean may have slept with the bar owner out of pity for his going-nowhere solo arse.


Davis is heartfelt in his apologies, but the morbid content of his songs suggests an inability to escape his prison. Jean’s contention that everything he touches turns to shit even seems true of cats (his father actually does shit himself when Davis plays for him). Maybe he doesn’t want to succeed without his partner; but we’re never really privy to how much he valued their artistic collaboration. Only in his final show; the last performance we see features one of “their” songs, and that the performance is so heartfelt is surely crucial.


The twisted reflection of Davis’ artistic pose (he is a talented interpreter but not a creator of songs) is found in John Goodman’s vituperative jazz musician Roland Turner; he shows a level of disdain that makes Davis mocking acts or Jim’s flagrantly commercial instincts look meek and mild. Turner has only bile, spewing forth, expressing himself more than just words as, overdosing, he topples forward onto the floor of a men’s room like a huge floundering fish. The precise nature of Turner’s relationship with Garett Hedlund’s taciturn Beat poet (who is on the road) is left to the imagination, but this isn’t a world where everyone else is happier than the unlucky protagonist. They’re just more compromised and less itinerant.


The supporting cast are uniformly excellent. Even Timberlake, who was the only bum note in The Social Network. Ethan Phillips, best known as the ultra-irritating Neelix in Star Trek Voyager makes his Coens debut, but seems like ideal actor fodder for them. Max Cassella, Hedlund and Adam Driver (hilarious in his contribution to Please Mr Kennedy) are great, Mulligan as perfect as ever and it’s always a joy to see Abraham and Goodman.


T Bone Burnett’s musical choices are as persuasive as those in O Brother. And Isaac’s performances are tremendous (the climactic Fare the Well, especially). Most of the songs are reworked traditional pieces (as Llewyn says, "If it was never new, and it never gets old, then it’s a folk song") but there’s an original comic highlight in Please Mr Kennedy that, if South Park can get an Oscar nom, really should have been recognised (it’s notable too how Davis, for all his tortured posturing, really enjoys jamming to such a flaky tune). Bruno Delbonnel’s cinematography is gorgeous; the faded poster suggests something verging on the monochrome, but there's more to this than just the muted browns of times past. His is a vivid palate, albeit a wintery one, as you’d expect from the frequent colleague of Jean Pierre Jeunet and Tim Burton. The close-ups of Davis singing are as striking as the blizzards he drives through. The freeway has the sort of subtle menace last seen in Blood Simple. It’s a testament to Delbonnel that Roger Deakins isn’t missed.


And the cat. It’s best just to enjoy the Coens’ peccadillos, as attempts to root out the layers beneath are doomed. One might pick the obvious and note that Llewyn’s journey goes nowhere while Ulysses makes it home against incredible odds and to a rapturous welcome from his family (The Incredible Journey poster, two years too early, is a nice touch that I’m sure the tickled brothers couldn’t resist). They may have enjoyed working with cats as little as Oscar Isaac, but no one lets it show. The kitties irresistible and adorable, from Ulysses’ bewildered gaze out of a subway train window, as stations rush by, to the poor wounded moggy dragging itself into roadside shrub to expire after the distraught Llewyn has hit him.


Does Llewyn make it aboard the ship? Who knows; what is essential is that he is getting out just as Dylan is about to make it big. The moment where Davis attempts to secrete his box of unsold records under a table, only to find Al Cody’s box of unsold records already there might suggest that Davis isn’t making the wrong choice; it isn’t just his temperament that is stalling greater recognition.


I doubt the Coens care too much that Inside Llewyn Davis only received a sliver of Oscar attention. They’re probably wryly amused whatever happens, as that’s their thing. Noms did nothing for A Serious Man’s fortunes, although the shut out this time seems almost arbitrary. I’d like to say this is their best film in years, but that would only make it their best film since A Serious Man, and before that No Country For Old Men. Certainly though, in Inside Llewyn Davis they have created one of their greatest lead characters and a picture that can be embraced as much for it’s superb (and funny, and tragic) use of music as their trademark mordant wit and melancholic foreboding. Shit happens to Llewyn Davis, but the universe is unforthcoming as to exactly why; grief, self-indulgence, haplessness? Or all of those things. Such inscrutability is the Coen brothers all over.


*****

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.