Inside Llewyn Davis

                                                                          

When it comes to American cinema there is no one more exceptionally qualified than the Coen Brothers. Nobody has built such a strong body of work that depicts America for all its idiosyncrasies, both its strengths and its faults. Ever since day one, through ‘Blood Simple’, ‘Raising Arizona’, ‘Fargo’ ‘No Country for Old Men’, ‘Burn After Reading’, the list goes on, the Coen Brothers have covered every square inch of such a vast country, from New York to Brainerd. Their films and characters are as varied and at times crazy as the land itself, their cinematic language can range from laugh out loud comedy to devastating heartfelt drama often in the same movie, often in the same scene. The Coen Brothers are American masters, true visionaries of modern cinema, and producing hit after hit, free of the studio system to create whatever wild, lurid, stark story they wish, on their terms, always.

Then we come to ‘Inside Llewyn Davis’ the brothers first film in four years, that takes a stab at the folkloric mythology of the Greenwich Village folk scene in the early 1960s. When most people think of this time period they think of Bob Dylan, they think of vibrant colourful characters, a time of change and frenzied attitudes, changing with the wind, people for the first time ever feeling liberated and truly alive, change happening all around the world, with Greenwich Village at its centre, folk music itself the proverbial beating heart. However the tone of the brother’s Greenwich Village is a truly sombre one, a state of purgatory wistfully dismal and arid, baron of life and joy, depressed and aching with the sadness of all our lives. This is after all 1961 not 1963, and that makes all the difference, for as change is yet to come, as Dylan and The Beatles have not yet invaded the airwaves and set curiosity throughout the young minds of the American youth, leaving the sentiment that change is inevitable and that ‘I’ have a monumental part to play, therefore 1961 is purgatory for all, waiting aching hoping for something, anything but this.

Like most Coen Brothers films ‘Llewyn Davis’ is a film of stark simplicities, simple brush strokes, saying more with body language than words, thriving off of the emotion of its players rather than their words. ‘Llewyn Davis’ does not seek to depict its period setting matter-of-factly; it does not really seek to tell a story at all. It captures a sentiment of a time and place, the atmosphere of New York in 1961, the spirit of all those who were suffering and struggling amidst the long cold winters, hoping for change in their own sad lives, when subconsciously unbeknownst to all, aching for a more significant change, one that would shake of the post war blues that still anchored every ones hearts so low, and levitate us into more optimistic and prosperous times. All that would come, and in the not too distant future, but for now, purgatory lives on.

The story of ‘Llewyn Davis’ is a simple one; a week in the life of a struggling musician. That is it, and it never gets much more complicated. The film is almost a dreamscape, a depiction of a sentiment, of a man’s soul told through visual metaphor and stark composition. Llewyn, a man who has clearly struggled his whole life, full of passion and creativity, ambitious and desperate, searching and longing for all that he desires, is a poor soul who can simply never catch a break. From the death of his old partner, a tragedy that still hangs heavy on his shoulders, to the news that his friend Jean is pregnant and wants an abortion, made worse by the fact that his old girlfriend didn’t really have an abortion so now he is a father, the proposed responsibility he must now adhere, out there somewhere in America. Personified by a stray cat, Llewyn is the embodiment of that feline survivor, at odds with its unforgiving environment but making do with its lot, getting by at best. When in Chicago, advised by Mr Grossman, a talent agent, to reteam with his old partner, Llewyn acknowledges that as good advice, maybe he would be better off joining him on the other side.

The Coen Brothers are capable of conjuring so many different emotions all at once, like conductors they make you laugh when they call for it, they make you cry in one swift motion, they are capable of bringing forth all the manor of emotions that we as human beings experience on a daily basis. ‘Inside Llewyn Davis’ is such an incredible film as it does exactly that with so little words and actions, it depicts true loneliness and sadness, the reality of struggling against all odds and the relativity of human suffering. Winter 1961 in New York was a hard time for everyone in need of hope and inspiration, the Coen Brothers sought not to tell a story of the spirit of change and revolution that swept America in the 1960s, rejuvenating the people and bringing forth change that would affect the world forever, they sought instead to depict the spirit of America just before that, it’s always darkest before the dawn and ‘Inside Llewyn Davis’ delivers melancholic beauty of the darkest shade, when we are but ready to give up, unknowing that change is just around the corner.   

Out of Step With the World

To decide to live a different way from the majority is only ever going to afford you criticism. Quite simply, the masses will ridicule that which they do not understand or is different, as it does not correlate with the mass. Such prejudice is the flack I proudly cop in choosing to live my life as a vegetarian and as part of the straight edge lifestyle. The majority do not like it if you make decisions for yourself, if you decide to actively disengage with the status quo, that won’t be understood and met with compassion and reason, it will be aggressively dismissed with ignorance, as any action outside the majority threatens that stability. The masses will vilify that which lies outside its dogmas, even if what is outside remains more positive and beneficial for all. Ignorance does not work this way.

When I was young I came into awareness of alternative music scenes and was drawn to the hardcore punk scene predominantly. Not only here did I find progressive music that rejected the rules and traditions of rock ‘n’ roll, I found progressive attitudes that sought to meet the progressive ideologies that punk rock claimed but did not meet. The straight edge movement emerged from the hardcore punk scene as a means of progression. By acknowledging an affinity with the sentiment of punk, in rejecting the so-called rules and expectations of society, with an inherent lack of respect and willingness to play ball, the straight edge movement therefore strengthened that sentiment.

As there is nothing more commonplace and expected in society as drug use. Drug use is and has always been seen as a mandatory means of recreation, seen as a right of passage, and never questioned, despite the evident detriment that all drugs have on all aspects of our health, drug use is always prescribed to in the name of ‘fitting in’ and the fear of not. Claiming straight edge, rejecting the use of alcohol, drugs and smoking is the most punk rock thing you can do to reject social norms, raise your proverbial middle finger and say ‘fuck you, I ain’t playing ball!’

In modern society it isn’t cool to honour ones health. It is cooler to subscribe to a drip fed sentiment of living for today and being recklessly hedonistic even when that hedonism is the sole factor in people’s ill health, fitness, morale, confidence, self belief, motivation and quality of lifestyles. People would rather belong to a mass sentiment that doesn’t exclude them than take control of their own lives and health and be in control of their own aspirations and dreams. The majority of young people today do not even have aspirations, or a sense of self, all they know is work all week, party all weekend, a bullshit lifestyle that has been marketed to them from the powers that be in order to benefit an ugly system as human lives are proven disposable day in day out. But nothing will ever change this because the lifestyle that has been shoved down our throats, the hedonism, is far too exciting to turn down; therein lays the greatest crime.

I am straight edge for myself. Because it makes me feel really good every morning I wake up. I believe in sobriety and mindfulness. I know that with a clear mind, good heart and a positive mental attitude I can achieve anything. Not being sober can only compromise me as a human being, allowing me to give in to our base primal urges and never achieve my true potential as an individual. As an incredibly passionate and ambitious individual I have my sights set high. There are so many things I want to accomplish in life and all of them will certainly not be obtained if I subscribe to the ‘culture’ that has been marketed to us. They do not want us to escape, to dream, to achieve that which is beyond the parameters of the mundane. They want us drugged up, morale down by our feet without even the ability to get out of bed in the morning, because that means we stay docile, we stay inactive, we stay in the system, cute little labourers, just as replaceable as the next guy, with a 75 year life expectancy and fuck all to show for it.

If you do not think with your own mind, someone else will use it for you. There are never options in life; we are just handed down dogmatic expectations to which we all must adhere. This is right, that is wrong. If what you have is right then I’m fine being wrong. I am more than happy to stand outside the masses, out of step with the world in the name or evolution and progression, striving for some semblance of greatness, remaining faithful that we are all capable of much more than just working and getting smashed. 

One life. One chance. Be the best you can be.

Masculinity in American Cinema

Men have always been objectified in American cinema. Just like women, men have been limited in the roles they get to play and have always been reduced to either the ‘supportive loving family man’ or ‘the hero’ both steeped in patriarchy. There are very few cases in American cinema whereby the male protagonist doesn’t fall into these conservative stereotypes of what a man should be. The WASP values of the 40s and 50s are still as present in modern cinema perhaps more than ever before. As we progress into the 21^st century cinema and art is being compromised by staunch conservatism, censorship and political correctness that true individual characters are almost impossible to find. The complexity of what it is to be a man is never explored, it always black or white, good or bad. This type of archetypal characterisation was very prevalent in the cinema of the 40s and 50s whether you were John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart or Humphrey Bogart; you represented the ideals of America, and more importantly the ideals of White-Middleclass-Christian America.

All of this changed in the 60s along with everything else. The civil rights movement and the radical changes in social perception and legislation allowed black people, women, gay people etc. not only to have more rights, but also to be depicted more fairly and authentically in cinema. The revolutions that occurred throughout the 60s echoed throughout its cinema and some of the greatest films of all time were made within the decade. The days of such strict conservatism were behind us and the haze code was no longer in place. Actors like James Dean, Marlon Brando, Paul Newman and Steve McQueen had radicalized the art form and allowed a whole new breed of male star to flourish and define the American man in cinema. The actors and films of the 60s were some of the most revolutionary, after the influence of the ‘New Wave’ this allowed American film making the freedom to tackle subject matter that otherwise would have been too controversial.

Throughout the 60s and 70s American film became more counter-cultural, post Vietnam films like ‘Taxi Driver’ and ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest’ were free to express the true nature of masculinity. Travis Bickle and Randall McMurphy depicted the true face of not only America but the inner struggle of manhood. The rage that swells within all of us, how life is just the attempt to suppress that rage and anger to meet societies demands of what is healthy and proper. Both Bickle and McMurphy are the product of America. The product of post war, post 60s, post Vietnam America. Malignant and removed like an appendix, these types of men are the everyman on every street corner, that are the building blocks and foundations of America, but as they do not fit into the ideals of WASP values America, they are ignored. ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest’ is truly one of the greatest films of all time, the novel by Ken Kesey just like the film, ingeniously depicts how the true madness of a man can only come from institutionalization, emasculation via the institution. The institution being America, the giant steel dildo that is butt-fucking us all.

The avant-garde film making depicted in ‘Taxi Driver and ‘Cuckoos Nest’ couldn’t last. The radicalism and freedom that the 60s brought with it always had to end and crash at some point down the line. The dream was over. The 60s and 70s gave us the best American cinema of all time. The golden age of Hollywood directors emerged in the 70s, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg, and George Lucas et al. The filmmakers that defined a generation are still to this day irreplaceable.

The reaction to such liberalism came in the late 70s and certainly as we progressed into the 1980s. Right wing, middle class, conservative America was back at the heart of American film and has ever since. In the modern day, in the 21^st century, post 9/11, in the age of the internet, social networking and political correctness insanity, the creative freedom of commercial studio system led American film has never been more saturated with such garbage that great cinema now stands out even more. Truly great cinematic art is at its finest in the 21^st century, it has just become harder to get great films made in the face of such belligerent, corporate led studio systems.

Films such as ‘There Will Be Blood, ‘Shame’ and ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ continue to push the boundaries and explore the themes of masculinity that has always been ignored in Hollywood. ‘There Will Be Blood’ is one of the greatest cinematic works of all time, its unflinching depiction of what torment and struggle it is to carry the burden of being a man. To live a life repressed, full of rage and hate and confusion and never knowing why. It is a character study of masculinity, shaped by environment and cultural identity. This type of subject matter is far more common today, films are to a large extent, free to tackle whatever subject matter they feel like, but it still remains that the far right conservatism and evangelical principles that built Hollywood are still just as rife if not more than ever before in the studio system.

The Perks

On paper ‘The Perks of Being a Wallflower’ doesn’t seem like that revolutionary a film. It ticks off every cliché in the high school coming-of-age genre, weird introverted kid, really likes poetry and ‘The Smiths’ meets free spirit girl, but wait she’s not all that she seems. It is the same old story we’ve all seen and read a million times before. But it isn’t. ‘Perks’ is a film of stark simplicity and subtle beauty that runs through its every scene. Adapted from the novel by the novelist, Steven Chbosky brings his own writings to life in such ingenious effortlessness for a first time director.

One of the main ‘perks’ of the picture is its cast, relative newcomers Logan Lerman and Ezra Miller deliver stunning performances of incredible complexity, the character of Charlie is a multifaceted one, one that grows more and more complicated as the film progresses, initially he seems very simple and uninteresting, as if he has nothing to offer the new exciting world of interesting characters he becomes enveloped in. However the dynamic of the film is the total opposite, the characters that Charlie meets are not nearly as interesting as him. His loves and passions are more genuine than theirs; his lack of sexual experience is redundant in comparison to the weight of true emotional burden that he has suffered through childhood abuse, in contrast the so-called ‘experienced’ Sam.

Sam, played by Emma Watson, desperate to shed herself from the long locks of Hermione Granger, quite literally, is such a beautiful character to witness. A girl of such professed experience and free spirit, yet played immaculately in all her insecurities and fragilities, she is the perfect fit for Charlie, as they are both as naïve and inexperienced of true love as each other, and their friendship develops into a relationship of real truth that neither of them have yet found.

The strength of ‘Perks’ it is emotional depth, delivered in such simple brush strokes, it hits you hard and stays with you longer than you might think. The innocence and sweetness of a boy like Charlie is so seldom found in modern film making and literature for that matter, he is so earnest and of good heart without being a hero or a martyr, he is truly lonely and unhappy but not complaining about it, he is brave in his sadness and tries hard to soldier through life. The fact that Charlie doesn’t know the true extent of his tortured past, gives weight to such revelations when we the audience discover them. He is pure love and innocence corrupted and therefore damaged. But he is not ruined, he is not unfixable, which is where the beauty of the film lies.

No matter what you’re past or circumstance, there’s always hope of changing them, that things will get better. You cannot choose your family, but you can choose your friends. The friendship between Charlie, Sam and Patrick is so genuine and uncontrived that you feel as assured as Charlie that this is real, and you care for all of them. You care for Patrick and hope he figures it all out, you even hope he makes it work with Brad. You care if Sam gets into College, you even feel for Mary-Elizabeth when she is heart broken. The fact is that the people that Charlie has surrounded himself with outside his family are all great people who have his best interests and care for him, reinforced by his paternal relationship with his English teacher played by Paul Rudd.

‘The Perks of Being a Wallflower’ is a rare film, for all its clichés it is one of the few films that truly articulates with flourishing authenticity the sheer confusion of teenage life, the malady that plays within all of us, the sadness in all our lives, the pain that never leaves us and effects every decision we make, it is like a beautiful song or poem in its gracefulness, which is why music plays such an important role in the film. The songs on the soundtrack are not selected at random; they are the songs that save us, the songs that keep our heads above the water. ‘Asleep’ by ‘The Smiths’ and ‘Heroes’ by ‘David Bowie’ are more than songs for Charlie and Sam, they are salvation, articulation of their own fears and desires and consolidation that in their own pains there is hope that tomorrow offers new life, new friends, new opportunities and hope for all of us.

The Wolves

‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ sees Leonardo Dicaprio and Martin Scorsese collaborate for the fifth time. A partnership that clearly works, both are masters of their craft and at the absolute pinnacles of their career, anything they put their names on now turns to gold and it is in such high reverence that the public hold their name, future historians will look at their collaborations in the same league as Lennon and McCartney. Of all of the Leo/Marty collaborations, Wolf is clearly their finest. It is the most ‘Scorsese’ of all five pictures, it feels like a proper Scorsese film, and for Leo it may just be the finest performance of his career, which is incredible as he has never given a bad performance.

‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ fits in perfectly alongside its cinematic relatives ‘Goodfellas’ and ‘Casino’, built within the same framework, sharing the same vernacular and message, to what extent is it ok to be a criminal? Wolf is a crime film just as much as ‘Goodfellas’, if not more. Jordan Belfort is perhaps a smarter, more charming criminal therefore all the more effective. The template of ‘Goodfellas’ is used to soaring effect, that classic Marty style is all over the picture. Finally a movie that feels like real cinema, every frame screams iconography of modern American film-making, a modern classic of modern times, which is a very rare thing these days. The extent to which ‘Wolf’ is linked to ‘Goodfellas’ is monumental, it feels like its counterpart, the distinction between work (crime) and family life, the highs the lows, tracing all of this excess and debauchery from its most humble naive beginnings and culminating in such pandemonium only Scorsese could pull it off with such gallows hilarity. Even Leo’s dark hair and piercing blue eyes scream Ray Liotta.

Why are there distinct similarities between ‘Wolf’ and ‘Goodfellas’? Why are such parallels being drawn? Comparing criminal activity in the mob to the white collar crime on Wall Street? Or is it that both of these films aren’t about crime at all, but a critique on the American dream, and the extent to which society will allow you to behave atrociously and irreverently to attain it. At what cost? Jordan Bellfort was a criminal, through and through. He was ripping people off and making millions of dollars in doing so, but he was living the dream, big house, nice cars, beautiful wife, 170 foot yacht, who is seriously going to hate this guy over envying him? This is where the film succeeds, the reason we like these despicable characters is that it is a despicability that we are all willing to ignore, and such irreverence we would all most likely replicate given the opportunity. The same reason we love Henry Hill in ‘Goodfellas’ despite his despicable actions, because the American dream is worth attaining no matter what the cost. No matter who you have to step over in doing so, the dream is worth it.

The only criticisms that have been made about ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ time and time again are those that it is too much. It is too explicit, too sexual, and too outrageous. Thus we come onto the subject of the ever growing conservative threat of film censorship, which in recent years has become more of a threat to creating real art than it was in the days of the ‘Haze Code’. As we progress further into post 9/11 political correctness, such Orwellian surveillance of what is right and wrong in all art forms has sought to threaten our very right to express ourselves. Criticising a film such as ‘Wolf’ for displaying explicit behaviour is so concerning, not only for Film itself but for our cultural understanding and appreciation of art, and what that word actually means. As culture continues to be liquefied by reality TV, Social networking, Celebrity and the internet, it is offensive that real artists, a true auteur such as Scorsese must justify himself and his artistic decisions to a halfwit frenzied population who know nothing about the art they’re criticizing or its significance to our cultural history.

‘Wolf of Wall Street’ is a landmark film in American film-making, as we progress into the murky waters of tomorrow, we do not know what lays ahead for the future of film. Film has never been more appreciated by the masses, the demand for cinema has never been stronger, the industry has never had such a high level of talent from all over the world at its disposal. Veterans such as Scorsese are still making some of the greatest work of their careers, and new comers are proving that the future is bright for cinematic art. However, the truth is that it is becoming harder and harder to make great pictures in the face of an ever degrading culture. The desire for film has never been more prevalent yet the understanding of our own culture and its history is beginning to dissipate as art continues to be compromised by ignorance.