Credit: Alison Rosa / CBS Films
The artist who becomes paralyzed with self-doubt when left adrift and alone by a creative partner is something of a subgenre among films about musicians. One example: Dean Martin played just such an immobilized composer way back in 1960 in Vincente Minnelli’s “Bells Are Ringing.” It took perky Judy Holliday to rouse him out of his stupor and self-pity.
"Inside Llewyn Davis,” Ethan and Joel Coen’s idiosyncratic take on the
material, is much less commercial or corny.
It is a visually striking mood piece about the blossoming folk culture
of the 1960s and about one man, the titular Llewyn Davis (a blank Oscar Issac),
who just can’t cut it.
Davis can't gain entrée into this somewhat cloistered word – either because
he doesn’t have the ambition or the great talent or because he cannot curb his aggressively self-directed and alienating ways. The Coens have created a film around an annoyingly
unlikable person who is also quite uninteresting. Davis is so thoughtless and in so many
different ways - and, frankly, so stupid - that it’s impossible to feel any sympathy with or empathy for
him, although I’m not sure if the Coens even want us to.
The character’s negativity seems to bring out the worst in the people
around him – Carey Mulligan as an ex reduced to hurling insults and expletives
at him; John Goodman as a decrepit hipster who sees through Davis, sizing him
up in no uncertain terms, and Ethan Phillips and Robin Bartlett as a patient academic couple finally driven to distraction by their narcissistic, addlepated
friend. (They are the owners of one of
three unlucky cats that have unfortunate encounters with Davis.)
In many ways, "Inside Llewyn Davis" is hugely reminiscent of Paul Mazursky's autobiographical film, "Next Stop Greenwich Village" in its mise en scène and the delineation of a young professional - in Mazursky's case, a struggling actor named Larry Lapinsky and played by the late Lenny Baker (that's him below) - who, like Davis, may be too scattered and unfocused to succeed. But the difference, as Pauline Kael opined in her review of "Next Stop, Greenwich Village," is that the Mazursky character has a "manic generosity that holds the film together."
In many ways, "Inside Llewyn Davis" is hugely reminiscent of Paul Mazursky's autobiographical film, "Next Stop Greenwich Village" in its mise en scène and the delineation of a young professional - in Mazursky's case, a struggling actor named Larry Lapinsky and played by the late Lenny Baker (that's him below) - who, like Davis, may be too scattered and unfocused to succeed. But the difference, as Pauline Kael opined in her review of "Next Stop, Greenwich Village," is that the Mazursky character has a "manic generosity that holds the film together."
"Inside Llewyn Davis" is inarguably evocative and hugely atmospheric, thanks largely to Bruno Delbonnel's brooding cinematography, but with Davis at its center, there's, well, simply no there there. And like its anti-hero, the movie challenges us to like it. It dares us."
Credit: 20th Century-Fox
This is a film that I really anticipated and, sitting through it, that I really wanted to like. But I just wasn't drawn in, mostly because I didn't care one bit about Llewyn or what happened to him. He's more than a narcissist, as you put it - he's a creep.
ReplyDeleteThe Coens took a big risk here because the idea of an unsympathetic lead character might play well on paper but not in performance. I think they pulled it off, admirably, although I wish there was at least one thing that I liked about Davis.
ReplyDeleteHi Passionate Moviegoer, I thought I'd add my 2 cents here. This is what I posted on my FB page: ............................. I saw INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS yesterday. I'd give it a B. I loved the recreation of the 60s styles and folk scene. It's delicious. And enjoyed the songs. Some of the best characters in the film are the minor ones that suggest their own movie. The hero LLEWYN is an artist in crisis, but often so sombre, he verges on being dull. The handsome actor never changes expression, never smiles or has a good day. I fault the writers more than the actor. I loved the subplot with the friend's wandering cat. The cat has more charisma than the lead character and probably makes more dramatic choices! I recommend this film, but it didn't blow me away like Fargo, Barton Fink, O Brother Where Art Thou, No Country for Old Men, or A Serious Man. But the Coen Bros. are possibly my favorite filmmakers ever.
ReplyDeleteDwight- Thanks for sharing. Your observations are particualrly apt. I think you nailed this film - one that I admired, wanted to like but just didn't enjoy. -J
ReplyDeleteThanks, Joe. I also appreciated your review as well. We seem to have experienced the movie similarly. After a point, there is no there there. I was more fascinated by the mixed race couple that appears briefly at the party (the asian woman, caucasian man). Justin Timberlake's gawky, google-eyed singer appeared too brief and I felt a whole living, breathing character there. I agree Carey Mulligan didn't have much to work with. And the biggest hook to the title character was the death of his singing partner, which was barely explored. Why was that loss so impactful? There could have been some payoff there. I did love finding out why Llewyn got punched out in the alley. That was probably the strongest plot arc in the movie, next to 'What will happen to the darned cat?' I write novels myself and always enjoy analyzing movie structure.
ReplyDeleteThis review really reflected how I felt about this film. The depressing experiences of the lead character: his abject poverty, homelessness,lack of a coat in the dead of winter, and his lack of attachment to anyone related to him, left me cold as I left the theater. Oscar Isaac did bring the character to life, but I couldn't develop any sympathy for him and was relieved when the film ended.
ReplyDeleteThank you for saying it much more eloquently than I could. Much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteI grew up playing music in Greenwich Village and also knew Dave Van Ronk who this movie is based on. Llewin Davis has nothing in common with Dave Van Ronk except that they were both merchant seaman. But my biggest criticism with this movie is how it portrayed the Folk Scene in the Village. The village was a neighborhood in the 60's through the mid 80's where artists and singers came together to support one another and get together night after night to play music at clubs and in peoples apartments for the joy of trading songs . None of that was portrayed in the movie. The Gaslight was not the center of the folk scene in Greenwich Village, it was one of a dozen clubs Folk City being the most important. That is where Dylan had his first gig. The Coen brothers really made a movie about a very distasteful character that happened to play music, but New York in the 60's was nothing like they portrayed it to be.They could have made a great movie about the Folk Scene in New York but they blew it big time!
ReplyDeleteHaving left the theatre I remarked to my wife, in summing up ILD, that I had trouble feeling anything. It took some talent to turn what is at least partially a road movie, and a vibrant, varied culture and setting, into an airless, claustrophobic drain, such as the movie was for me. And I've seen every CB movie at least once.
ReplyDeleteI agree whole heartedly with your review. It's one of the Coen's best looking movies, but the story lacks soul, heart, excitement or originality.
ReplyDeletePTxS
Thank you PM, for calling it out. Drenched in atmosphere, folkies, Village / Washington Square, period cars...and a script that's barely worthy of an MTV video. It riffs briefly on LD's pain at losing his duo partner, his Hanging song which is all right, and his quest (evidently abandoned) for a possible unknown lovechild; Carey Mulligan is [as always] good but they never show why she's so pissed off. Apart from reinforcing the stereotype of musicians as self-absorbed a-holes, there's no revelation or denouement. Oh, snap: they do explain LD getting his face popped in the alley (I was totally on board with that by the end of the film, I should say). I was expecting a lot more, when Alain Resnais does this junket-to-nowhere stuff everyone SNARLS at him! Cheers!
ReplyDeleteI have nothing to add, because you totally nailed it. Thanks, based on the reviews I've seen, I thought I was the only one who didn't like it.
ReplyDeleteI was glad to be validated by some of these reviews. I saw this with a friend, and we both walked out disappointed in this insipid, plotless movie. (I agree that the cat is the best character in the film.) Whatever purpose the Coens conjured in their own mind for this movie was lost on us; they take the most vital and seminal time in music, a pivotal time when Dylan was about to stand the music world on its ear; and focus on the equivalent of the Ted Baxter of the folk world. I suppose the next movie will be about a Renaissance artist who can't draw a straight line.
ReplyDeleteThe Coen's brother usually focus on unlikeable characters, who are indeed charactertures- but at least many of their movies are riveting, mesmerizing, and unique. If this was meant to be a parody of the Coen Brothers film- it still wouldn't work.
They're riding on their name but have about as much talent as Llewyn, which is not much. Even the music was boring.
And from a native New Yorker, I would like to mention that for me they did NOTHING to really recreate the atmosphere of 60's New York. (See the old Sunshine Boys or original Odd Couple if you want to get a feel for olde New York - but then you'd have to be willing to watch a movie that is actually funny and has some heart.)
Yeah, some interesting viewpoints here. I have been trying to read everyone’s posts carefully. And absorb their ideas, most of which contradict what just about all of the critics are saying about the film. I'm wondering if this is a case of the filmmakers, who are beloved, being reviewed rather than the movie itself. I can understand that. It happens a lot in criticism. Blind loyalty. But I just read a quote in which the critic called Oscar Issac "magnetic" in the movie. He's anything but. It's going to take some time and further study on my part to get a firm grip on this movie, but I'm fairly certain that Issac, as you write, is a blank in it.
ReplyDeleteThe Coens are utterly individual, indifferent to any social pressures or conformity and seemingly unconcerned if they hit ("O, Brother Where Art Thou?" or miss ("irreconcilable Differences"). Davis, for me, is both, a series of hits and misses. I agree with you about its ambiance. That's definitely a hit. But in a way, it's the flaws that make it ultimately fascinating. Bottom line: I liked it. But I don't plan to see it again.
ReplyDeleteMy ideas about its title character are about half of my problem with “Inside Llewyn Davis." Issac may be boring in the film, but at least we don't get the strident emotionalism that usually comes with pics about musicians and artists. I coudn't pinpoint what nags me about the film and then a friend mentioned that, for her, the explicitly, forcefully Freudian quality of the film - Llewyn's nearly unspoken feelings about his missing partner - is brought up, dropped and never fully explored, something which might have brought more meaning to the project.
ReplyDeleteI saw the movie without reading any reviews. I did look to see who was in the cast. But I figured that the Coen Brothers would be great, as usual. I have to say that most of these comments have indeed expressed my view of the movie. And I agree with all who said the cat was the best character in the film and finding out why he was punched out at the beginning of the movie was good. Unclear to me why the prof and his wife took him back in after the way he treated them.
ReplyDeleteI anticipated seeing another stellar Coen Brothers film. Sometime into it, I wondered, where is this going? What's interesting about Llewyn Davis? What's going on inside Llewyn Davis? His character is dismal and bland, with no redeeming fascination or empathy. Some bit characters however, were small snippets of absolutely perfectly rendered characters -The silent driver on the road trip to Chicago (remenicent of Fargo). John Goodman! The club guy in Chicago; And Llewyn's father, without a word, was consumate. But best of all was the cat! Her expression and interest when the guy in the car finally started to say something was amazing. When Llewn left her in the car, the movie no longer had any redeeming value. That was awful. And then when he hit another cat with the car, and knew it was injured but drove off; that was when you finally knew this person doesn't care about anything except for who will put him up on a couch. Not only was it not a very good movie, but anyone who has a cat that looks exactly like my cat, and the ones in the movie, will hate it.
ReplyDeleteWow. We didn't see the same movie. I know a lot of musicians. I saw a lot of them and myself in Llewyn Davis, not that I was thrilled at each moment of recognition. You get a lot of chances to see the shitty things people do to each other in any Coen Brothers movie - they are obsessed with bullying and haplessness, self-delusion and myopia. Their work is like a cavalcade of social failure, even fluff like Intolerable Cruelty and Burn After Reading, caricature the pitfalls of trying to live in the world with others, where no one can agree on basic values. So many of the characters in ILD feel threatened by other characters, andusually with good reason. Characters seethe with resentment of the good fortune of others in a competitive environment that can boast dance marathon level failure rates. All in a world where people like to think singing is a joyous expression of the soul. You can feel Llewyn's alienation at the lack of understanding for his position. I could.
ReplyDeleteI would bet dollars to donuts these two things, and that I would is a credit to the economy of the screenplay: that the father's silence is cosmic justice for the verbal abuse he heaped on his loved ones, and that Llewyn is beginning to understand that he not only missed his partner's growing despair, but he probably hastened his partner's capitulation with his verbal abuse.
ReplyDeleteI would have to argue that Llewyn Davis is a completely sympathetic character, and I am rather shocked by what seems to be a consensus that he is unlikable. I think he does deserve fame and that his music is better than the milktoast crap his contemporaries are putting out. Do you think it's selfish of him to pursue the one dream he has? I thought his performances were absolutely stunning! And he is always trying to do the right thing. The only reason he forgoes the royalties on that idiotic song "Please Mr. Kennedy" is so he can pay for the abortion of his lying, manipulative ex lover. All I know is I was rooting for him the whole time and was very disappointed by the ending. I think the Coens should have shown him some love.
ReplyDeleteyesyesyes. Thank you for SEEING a film others simply watched.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Others simply look. You see. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the film fails the most during the long, dull car-ride to Chicago with John Goodman. This is not John Goodman's fault, but the Coen brothers' misdirection. That sequence goes on way too long, adds very little, and in my judgment, sinks the entire film with it, right down the drain. Also, it was totally unbelievable that the cop would suddenly speed the driver away and leave Llewen and Roland just sitting there.
ReplyDeleteI did enjoy the near-final scene, however, when the "you-know-who" character takes the Gaslight stage.
MJ- I agree. I found Llewyn to be a likable jerk. We all know those types, even if they're not necessarily likable to us, they are liked by others. It is obvious that Llewyn isn't universally hated by all the characters in this movie, and naturally isn't a universally hated character to every filmgoer who sees this. I think it's very silly to say that he has absolutely no redeemable qualities, and it's even more ridiculous to say that the centerpiece character of a movie has to be someone that makes good decisions and shines with charisma. In reading most of the reviews on this page, I feel that many of you missed the point entirely, and that is not to say that I got the point either. The difference is that I wasn't necessarily look for one.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read all the comments here, so I may or may be repeating what someone else has said, but my overall feeling is that the Coens are essentially trying to challenge us to empathize. Of course the ultimate challenge is to empathize with an essentially unlikable character – or at least one for whom you mostly feel ambivalence – which I agree wholeheartedly that Llewyn is. It's arguably true that most people are more like Llewyn Davis than they are most movie (or fictional) protagonists, and I think maybe the Coens really do want the audience to at least try to get "inside" Llewyn Davis, to begin to understand and make some nominal sense of him. It may or may not ultimately be worth it, and I also struggled to do so, but I find the idea of the challenge intriguing, to the point where I knocked off a star because I didn't really care about Llewyn, and then added it back on for precisely the same reason. I'll back up this argument by the presence of the tabby cats – which I'm thinking were a somewhat ironic (it is the Coen Brothers, after all) commentary on the "Save the Cat" screenplay book series. Llewyn, if you remember, both does and does not save the cat! Btw, the larger problem I had with the movie was the slightly uneven tone: it wasn't full-out Coen quirkiness all of the time, but instead was sort of spiked with it. I sort of thought they should have gone more one way or the other.
ReplyDeleteThe first Coen brothers movie I actively dislike. You absolutely nailed the problems (and the few bright spots) of the film, Joe.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I've ever seen a Coen film only once during its original release. I seriously debated leaving this one at a single viewing, but finally decided I wanted to be sure that I hadn't misapprehended the film the first time. But I liked it even less the second time around.
Yes, the main character is unlikable, but that is not usually a deal-breaker for me. There's something really drab and empty about this film about drabness and emptiness.
By the way, am I mistaken, or does the title of the film appear onscreen only when the album cover of "Inside Llewyn Davis" is shown? I kept my eyes peeled on my second viewing, and if the title appears at either the beginning or end, I missed it.
ReplyDeleteJF: Frankly, I hadn't noticed, but it seems like something that the Coens would do. If you're right, you're very observant - perhaps the only person to have noticed.
ReplyDeleteI have seen every Coen Brothers' film, starting with Blood Simple. I have either loved and/or deeply appreciated each one - until their latest. I am very disappointed. I wanted to like it, but there is nothing there to love or appreciate. I am keeping an open mind. Perhaps the last words of the film point to a "Groundhog Day" progression of moral evolution for the lead character. Either the Coens are so far above me that I can't grasp what they are trying to say, or there is nothing there to grasp. I will let my subconscious work on it for a while and get back to you if I have some sort of epiphany. In the meantime, I remain disappointed. The best part of this movie was that I was given a chance to support two of the greatest movie makers in history by buying a $7 ticket. A small price to pay for the hours of pleasure their movies have brought to me.
ReplyDeleteIs it me, or does NO ONE get the point that this was all a DREAM??? Why is the movie called "Inside Llewyn Davis"? It's because we're INSIDE his head. In his mind. His DREAM! Life could never be so bad for one person, except in a dream! All one's insecurities, fears, doubts express themselves in one's dreams That's why all of the characters were caricatures meant to emphacize Llewyn's failings. "Troy" was the perfect singer Llewyn was not. Llewyn was afraid that he got his friend's wife pregnant, and he was also afraid that the woman for whom he paid for an abortion never got it! And the hallways? Really? Has anyone ever seen a hallway that comes to a point? Or one that is so narrow that two people cannot pass? Haven't you had a dream where nothing really makes sense, but you still just accept it until you wake up and realize how weird it was? Just like a dream, when Llewyn tries to start another profession, he is thwarted not once but twice! And the John Goodman character? No one could be that rude/crude/mean/outlandish. He poked at all of Llewyn's faults like no one could, even insulting Llewyn's Welsh ancestry. And the cat? What are the odds that Llewyn would hit the cat with the car on his way back from Chicago?? Unbelievable, as was the fact that the car's owner never woke up even though Llewyn came to a screeching stop on the highway. CLEARLY, that could only happen in a dream. Finally, the box of of records that the other singer had that looked JUST LIKE Llewyn's box, down to the record cover, and the female folk singer at the end who looked JUST LIKE the professor's wife. IT WAS NOT A COINCIDENCE! This was the Coen Brothers' last clue that this was a dream!! (Oh, and the "Green-Fong" discussion? It would never happen in real life. Only in a dream.) Near the very end of the film, we think we realize that we've been watching a flashback, which would have been logical IF the following morning had been different than the beginning of the movie...but it wasn't EXCEPT that he kept the cat from escaping. WHEW! Sorry about that, but I honestly don't think any of this happened. IT WAS ONLY A DREAM. The title of the film is our first clue! INSIDE Llewyn Davis.
ReplyDeletePaul- The film's title is explained - it comes from the title of Llewyn Davis' one and only album. Neverthless, your theory that it's all a dream is a provocative one. But regardless of whether it's a dream or not, the character is repellent and the film surrounding him unpleasant. -J
ReplyDeleteJoe, don't you get it? The main character is not as bad as the movie portrays him. It's his own dream, and he's as awful a character as he thinks he is. Also, please explain a folk album called "Inside Llewyn Davis." Does it make any sense? No. Like everything else in the movie, it makes no sense. It's part of his dream. I'm glad you find my theory "intriguing," but I challenge you to disprove it. The Coen Brothers are laughing at all of you critics who have taken the movie at face value without questioning why they would make a movie about such a horrible character. It's a DREAM!
ReplyDeleteI like Joe's interpretation about the dream, but I'm not sure if I agree 100%. A key point is to reflect on why the opening scene repeats...I thought maybe Goodman's character put a curse on him during the car ride when he mentions black magic, because it's Goodman's character who gets left in the car and who also makes note of Davis's misanthropic nature. Is trapped in some repetitive limbo? The cat's name is Ulysses so one needs a knowledge of mythology to look for parallels. Regardless, I think the film is a scathing critique of the music business. The club owner asks him play something from his record "Inside Llewyn Davis" and is disappointed by the music because there is nothing inside of him-maybe he misses his partner, or is it he's just a jerk who can play a few songs like a million other people. The key is the music should provide a glimpse into his soul, but it doesn't. His "girlfriend" basically prostitutes herself to the club owner showing she is as corrupt as Davis, despite her self-righteousness. We're left wondering what these singers stand for and if they and their messages can be trusted or are they just out for stardom, money and ego gratification. The point is we're supposed to be repelled by the title character but question the nature of his depressing journey, relationships and motivation for being a singer. He records the novelty tune because he needs the money, selling out his artistic integrity to pay for you know what...is their anything more depressing? There's another musician who talks about changing his name-much like Dylan did- to create an image and to sell music. His manager knows he is a dime a dozen. We see the other guy has a box of unsold records. They should both just give up, they will never be the legend that Dylan became. Does the film possibly question Dylan's stature and approaching fame? To be a success you have to sell your music-does that equate to selling out? It seems to for the characters in the movie. Except for the jazzman Goodman who seems to have Davis pegged and seems to be putting him to the test during their trip- Davis fails and thereafter is cursed. As a musician with a day job, I looked at it from the musician's perspective-I've sat in offices with booking agents- so this is my incomplete take. Hope I didn't give too much away-this is my first post.
ReplyDeleteI've seen hallways in NYC like that...
ReplyDeleteHi everyone.
ReplyDeleteSaw this film tonight. After reading lots of reviews about the character of llewyn Davis not being likeable, I thought I'd see what all the fuss was about. I have to say that I empathised so much with his character and I personally thought Oscar Issac gave a brilliant performance. I just came out of the cinema absolutely bewildered by the plot. Nothing seemed to make sense and I found it slightly dull. But fabulous performances from the actors and the music was amazing. I think you have to see this as more a piece of art than a film.