I had the chance to see “Wendy and Lucy” not long ago, and I thought it was something more. What Kelly Reichardt seemed to be getting at is how things add up. The life that Wendy is living is a life that few of us will ever encounter or understand. She, for whatever reason, is living hand to mouth. She is being forced to make concrete decisions about where her money will go, and how far it can go, and how those choices will change her situation. I viewed “Wendy and Lucy” as a sort of portraiture more than anything else. It’s a film of small scale, dealing with a very specific person type. It’s also much better than “Old Joy”, which seemed to me like the movie you described when speaking of “Wendy and Lucy”.
It’s clearly influenced by Italian Neorealism. Basically, I think it’s just about whether or not a person in certain socioeconomic circumstances can make her life better. She sort of fails at that (at least within the couple of days covered in the film), but realizes, if nothing else, she has an opportunity to make her dog’s life better, even if that’s going to make her own life a little worse,
Nathan,
You didn’t like Old Joy? Don’t take this the wrong way, but can I ask how old you are? I’m asking because I see it as a film about how disappointing it is that you change so much over the course of a couple of decades that people you were very close to at one time, eventually, you end up having nothing in common—I see it as very much a middle-aged person’s film.
Matt – Well, to answer your question, I’m nearing 30. So it could be that I missed something in “Old Joy” that I could pick up later. But I didn’t think it’s themes were that alien to me. There are people I used to attend high school and college with, and now find it difficult to relate to them due to changes that both parties have gone through. I don’t feel that I can articulate my reaction to “Old Joy” very well, because I don’t feel like anything happened at all.
Maybe I should say that I don’t believe that Reichardt’s spare style does not lend itself well (to me) in dealing with complex relationships. “Wendy and Lucy”, on the other hand, deals almost exclusively with one person – Wendy. While I understood what was happening in “Old Joy”, I didn’t feel that she was able to draw me into the lives of it’s characters very well.
(Qualifier) – When I saw “Old Joy” I had no idea what I was about to watch. I’d picked it out from my library because Yo La Tengo did the score. There’s a fair chance that I may have been in the wrong mood for seeing it, and I may try to see it again, because I loved “Wendy and Lucy”, and think it’s possible that I did really miss something.
I don’t think I understand what could be feigned artistry about Wendy and Lucy.
I haven’t seen the film since the theater last fall but I thought it was a wonderful little film. I can’t really comment on the comparison to Antonioni since I’ve only seen L’Avventura (and fucking hated it) but my recollection is that it’s not supposed to be a big comment on anything in particular. It seemed like more about a moment in time in one person’s life. Does that mean it’s not about anything? Of course not. Stuff happened: Wendy loses her dog, she tries to find it, she tries to get her car fixed, she meets people, etc. On a more thematic level, it’s about loss, it’s about choices we make, it’s about poverty/struggle, it’s about the nitty gritty that make up every day. It’s a very subtle film in that it’s meant to mean different things for different people and not necessarily hammer any one specific thing into the viewer.
I don’t agree with Nathan that this film shows a life few will ever experience or understand. While I hope most people don’t experience being so poor that they live meal to meal, I think most people can relate to Wendy’s situation in that she is forced to confront the consequences to the choices she has made. This isn’t to suggest she is to blame for being poor but she certainly chose to take this road trip in search of a better life in Alaska and what we are seeing is the struggle of her decisions. She could have stayed home and lived with her sister and done “the right thing” as many people do. But she chose something else for herself. Ultimately, I think that’s what the film meant to me – a representation of the choices people make day to day and what the results are. In the case of her dog, it is that relization at the end when Wendy knows that the choice that she has chosen for herself, the path that she thinks is the right for her, she finds is the not the right path for Lucy and it would be selfish for her to force Lucy to go on with her. In this regard, the film spoke a great deal to me and yet did it in a very subtle way.
Fredo,
I got the impression from the one call that she made to her sister and her brother-in-law that they are barely getting by themselves and that was part of what drove Wendy to try to make it to Alaska. Other than that you’re more or less right on.
How the hell do you feign artistry, period, short of plagiarism?
I think what Reichardt is doing is captivating, and I’ll make an effort to see whatever she does as soon as possible. Her films transport me to a part of life that I just don’t spend much time with – whether it’s dwelling on the difficulties of the kind of life Wendy lives or it’s the kind of tense, loaded, nostalgia loaded relationships that happens in Old Joy. And I think that’s valuable, much like the way Jesus’ Son (the stories, not the movie) is. There is something about her shots and the pace that coaxes the viewer into the film’s mood, getting you right into the guts of the story and the emotions. And I think that’s incredible.
Did anyone read A.O. Scott’s piece in the Times a few weeks back, discussing what he’s labeled “neo neo-realism”. It’s worth a read. Reichardt was one of the filmmakers he spoke of. Ramin Bahrani (Goodbye Solo) was the other. Lance Hammer (“Ballast”) is also mentioned, but briefly. It’s worth looking for and reading. It’s interesting reading Bahrani on how he approaches and crafts the quotidian in his films. More than Bahrani, I think Reichardt has the potential to make a film which blows the top off. I think she’s that good.
Also, it’s refreshing to find independent American filmmakers who aren’t channeling Cassavetes each time out of the gate.
I wouldn’t draw a line from Reichardt to Antonioni. Certainly not late period Antonioni. I can’t make an argument for her as a formalist. Yet. Maybe there’s something in “Il Grido” that resonates, but I’d have to look at it agin. It’s been along time.
2x
@Matt – that sounds about right. I couldn’t remember what that phone conversation with her sister was about – whether they were estranged or the sister was pleading with her to come home or if the sister was also poor or whatever. But I’ll take your word for it.
Regardless of the circumstances back home, Wendy made a choice and there’s not much else going on in her life other than these small choices she makes. The pacing reminds me of some of Gus Van Sant’s early films (or non-studio films I should say) and I totally see the comparision to Ballast – which was another phenomenal film from 2008. In both films, it’s less about plot and more about time, space, emotion, and characters living in this space.
sensational:
you feign artistry by trying to craft art and turning out pretentious shit instead
Jesus christ, next I’m going hear someone come out and defend “Baghead” as the most groundbreaking film of the decade.
Ha! No, Baghead was pretty awful.
I guess with movies like Wendy and Lucy, you either love it or hate it. There are plenty of films that are sort of like this that I just don’t get (Man Push Cart comes to mind, as well as George Washington) but conversely, there are some movies that I enjoy (Wendy and Lucy, Ballast, Shotgun Stories).
Is pretentious shit not art, though?
I mean, we’re on a site called “The Auteurs”—
It may be art, but that doesn’t mean it’s important
While I found nothing path breaking about it, it did not seem feigned as such. It is another independent movie with strictly OK aesthetics.It is telling the story of a vagabond (albeit her aim is to get to Alaska) with no money and when depicting such a story i think there will be a faint amount of pretentious situations forced in to make the viewer empathize with the lead character.
Fredo,
As I recall, the brother-in-law answers and seems genuinely concerned about her, she’s on the verge of asking for some sort of help and then the sister says something like why is she calling, they’ve done everything for her they can . . . so she stops short of asking for help.
Fredo, I’d give George Washington another try. It’s light years ahead of this film in every aspect.
Sweedishbeaches – I did finally give George Washington a second chance recently, after first seeing it years ago. While it warmed up to me a little bit on the second viewing, I still just can’t get into that film. I love all of David Gordon Green’s films but for some reason George Washington just doesn’t do it for me. I don’t know why.
Fredo – I understand that, in a broad sense, “Wendy and Lucy” deals with the choices we all make. But, in the neo-realistic context of the film, it is specifically about someone living hand to mouth. The fact that Reichardt gives us so little background information on Wendy only reenforces this in my mind. I wouldn’t speculate much on why or how Wendy is in her present situation, and I don’t think Reichardt wants us to. It seems to me that her goal, both structurally and stylistically, is to get us to observe. This is why I think that the life depicted here is one that few of us will experience or truly understand. How many of us have ever had to truly wonder about where we will get their next meal? Maybe a few, but not many. How many of us are ever forced to sleep in the woods somewhere, because our only shelter (a car) is in the shop? How many of us are stealing dog food from grocery stores out of desperation?
Neo-realism, and "Neo-neo realism, as A.O. Scott is calling it, works on both broad and specific levels. That, I think, is the beauty of neo-realism. It is often specifically about the poor, but it’s themes and ideas are undeniably universal.
Anyone else think of THE BICYCLE THIEVE watching this? I felt watching it that it was part of a kind of American neorealism trend that, though W+L is not lumped in with them, the “mumblecore” folks might also comfortably fit with…at least more appropriately than the name of their current “movement” offers.
Anyways, Jazz mentioned in another thread that W+L was “not gritty enough to work on that level of realism it’s striving for imo” and I totally understand where that reaction would come and actually was probably pretty similarly taken aback or underwhelmed upon my initial viewing of the movie, but I would later come to feel that in fact the aesthetic of the film’s particular realism is just incredibly subtle, not as exploitative as a realist movie that would artificially emphasize the grit level to gain realist cred. Or it could just be hard to get particularly gritty in the diffuse light of the Pacific Northwest.
A. O. Scott called it, along with Ramin Bahrani, Fleck and Boden, Lance Hammer, and some others. “neo-neorealism.”
I think that’s neo-neo-neorealism to be exact.
Does that make Meek’s Cutoff historical neo-neo-neorealism?
What did you make of Meek’s Cutoff, Matt?
I think Bahrani’s films are better than Wendy and Lucy. so once again i disagree with Mr.Peabody :-)
“I think Bahrani’s films are better than Wendy and Lucy. so once again i disagree with Mr.Peabody :-)”
And me.
I hated Man Push Cart.
I preferred the look of the film and found the character and his situation far more interesting.
each to their own.
Cole Garner Hill
I’m on of the former opinion. While I’m a huge fan of the films “Wendy and Lucy” seemed to be trying to imitate or somehow comment on (see: Antonioni’s entire body of work), by the end I just couldn’t figure out what the hell I’d watched. I’m not asking for concrete plot resolution, an uplifting story or a message shoved down my throat. After an hour and a half I still had the sensation that I’d just purposefully spent time to watch nothing happen. At least in an Antonioni film when nothing happens, it’s a symptom of something bigger or the cinematic projection of an inner mood, emotion or outlook of the characters. Or it’s drawing attention to capturing a locale or because its drawing attention to the shots themselves. But I didn’t that was the purpose of anything in “Wendy and Lucy”. It wasn’t a bad film necessarily, but there just didn’t seem to be anything to it. Am I missing something?