Ken Loach is one of the most important British directors of his generation and the social magnitude of his body of work is indubitable. But I have to admit his first feature-film "Poor Cow" (he did make movies for TV before, and better ones) didn't elicit the enthusiastic response I expected, it's by no means a bad movie but there was a carence somewhere I couldn't really identify. Then I read the Wikipedia page and found that statement from Terence Stamp (the "he" referring to Loach).
"He really didn't write it; we didn't really have a script. That was one of the things that was interesting about it. It was just wholly improvised. He had the idea, he had the overall trajectory in his mind, but we didn't have a script."
The script, there it i. There's something in the way the dialogues and the story go that translates a deliberate choice to depict that slice of the life of a young girl named Joy played by Carol White- in a way that seems rather detached from the usual narrative requirements. This is called improvisation and Joy herself is a girl that seems to be guided by emotional impulses that do look like an existential improvisation. She meets a man, has a baby and everything she does is never totally prepared or premeditated, she goes in within the flow of events and tries to find areas of contentment whenever she can.
And yet there's that puzzling interference of lyricism that contrasts with the kind of raw realism such movies aim at. For a film that starts with a graphic birth scene, I didn't think much of these musical interludes and inter-titles that never exactly serve a purpose. It's just as if Loach was trying to channel Godard and Cassavetes while trying to remake John Schlesinger's "Darling" that starred Julie Christie in a similar role. Basically, this is is the tale of a young woman drfiting in the London of the 60s, not the swinging but the 'angry young men' one.
Anyway, Joy married Tom (John Bindon), a patronizing prick who goes to jail anyway after a robbery and we don't miss him much. She falls in love with his associate in crime Dave (Stamp) and after an idyllic episode, he gets sentenced for 12 years in prison after robbing an old lady. Then Joy becomes a barmaid, a model for seedy photographers, she collects boyfriends and enjoys her promiscuity not without regretting the lack of pillar in her life. The passing of time is shown through the growing of her little son Johnny. I'm enumerating all these events but somewhere my heart isn't in it, to the degree that I liked Joy enough to care a little for her, my empathy wasn't granted.
It's not much that what Joy gets through isn't interesting but it didn't seem to make a particular statement about anything, it's not feminist, albeit a bit misandrist, its realism doesn't provide anything new about England except for the beautiful use of color. The result is a rather insipid story with intermittent seasoning through a few closeups, panoramic shots on the Welsh hills and Donovan music to give the timely texture. There are also some great moments with Terence Stamp who manages to outshine Carol White who doesn't deliver the same passion and intensity than in her breakthrough role in "Cathy Come Home".
Speaking of the BBC play, that was a film that had a clear focus and where scenes of everyday life had a point: showing the struggles of a young couple caught in the midst of the housing crisis. The chemistry between the characters was far believable and that was a story you couldn't get your eyes off. But "Poor Coy" is a sort of reminiscence of the "angry young man" tropes of the early 60s with a story that depends on a girl who never knows what to do with her life and her absence of prospects leaves the viewer totally disarmed and incapable to even anticipate or expect anything. Following Joy is the kind of frustrating experiences Loach didn't anticipate maybe because Carol White was so sweet and beautiful.
But even in the film, she doesn't deliver the emotional slap of her role as Cathy, there's no passion, too many filler moments (and one particularly disturbing with children) and I agree with Ebert about the husband not being a very good actor to begin with. Speaking of Ebert, this had to be one of his most interesting reviews extremely lengthy given how lackluster the viewing was and I was surprised that in comparaison, his "Kes" review (a film he adored) is one half the length of "Poor Cow".
And by the way, "Poor Cow" is a rather poor choice of a title, using a slur doubled with a demeaning adjective doesn't fill your heart with great excitement and the French title works better "No Tears for Joy", which somewhat echoes both the trajectory of Joy and the fact that at the end, we don't really feel sorry for her, nor that we wish her the worst but I personally wished Loach could have a solid story to work on. The film was adapted from a novel by Neil Dunn, so there was a material to explore and improvisation is never as good as when you prepare something.
Still, this is only a debut, according to Loach, it was rather difficult to transition from the TV format to the big screen, to handle cast and crew who come from both universes, to switch from the easily held 16mm camera to the heavier 35mm... and the result is that hybrid between cinema-verite and lyrical filming... but besides these technicalities, Loach learned (and the hard way) that you can't make meaningful films if the characters don't give a proper meaning to their lives, which Joy lacked too.
"He really didn't write it; we didn't really have a script. That was one of the things that was interesting about it. It was just wholly improvised. He had the idea, he had the overall trajectory in his mind, but we didn't have a script."
The script, there it i. There's something in the way the dialogues and the story go that translates a deliberate choice to depict that slice of the life of a young girl named Joy played by Carol White- in a way that seems rather detached from the usual narrative requirements. This is called improvisation and Joy herself is a girl that seems to be guided by emotional impulses that do look like an existential improvisation. She meets a man, has a baby and everything she does is never totally prepared or premeditated, she goes in within the flow of events and tries to find areas of contentment whenever she can.
And yet there's that puzzling interference of lyricism that contrasts with the kind of raw realism such movies aim at. For a film that starts with a graphic birth scene, I didn't think much of these musical interludes and inter-titles that never exactly serve a purpose. It's just as if Loach was trying to channel Godard and Cassavetes while trying to remake John Schlesinger's "Darling" that starred Julie Christie in a similar role. Basically, this is is the tale of a young woman drfiting in the London of the 60s, not the swinging but the 'angry young men' one.
Anyway, Joy married Tom (John Bindon), a patronizing prick who goes to jail anyway after a robbery and we don't miss him much. She falls in love with his associate in crime Dave (Stamp) and after an idyllic episode, he gets sentenced for 12 years in prison after robbing an old lady. Then Joy becomes a barmaid, a model for seedy photographers, she collects boyfriends and enjoys her promiscuity not without regretting the lack of pillar in her life. The passing of time is shown through the growing of her little son Johnny. I'm enumerating all these events but somewhere my heart isn't in it, to the degree that I liked Joy enough to care a little for her, my empathy wasn't granted.
It's not much that what Joy gets through isn't interesting but it didn't seem to make a particular statement about anything, it's not feminist, albeit a bit misandrist, its realism doesn't provide anything new about England except for the beautiful use of color. The result is a rather insipid story with intermittent seasoning through a few closeups, panoramic shots on the Welsh hills and Donovan music to give the timely texture. There are also some great moments with Terence Stamp who manages to outshine Carol White who doesn't deliver the same passion and intensity than in her breakthrough role in "Cathy Come Home".
Speaking of the BBC play, that was a film that had a clear focus and where scenes of everyday life had a point: showing the struggles of a young couple caught in the midst of the housing crisis. The chemistry between the characters was far believable and that was a story you couldn't get your eyes off. But "Poor Coy" is a sort of reminiscence of the "angry young man" tropes of the early 60s with a story that depends on a girl who never knows what to do with her life and her absence of prospects leaves the viewer totally disarmed and incapable to even anticipate or expect anything. Following Joy is the kind of frustrating experiences Loach didn't anticipate maybe because Carol White was so sweet and beautiful.
But even in the film, she doesn't deliver the emotional slap of her role as Cathy, there's no passion, too many filler moments (and one particularly disturbing with children) and I agree with Ebert about the husband not being a very good actor to begin with. Speaking of Ebert, this had to be one of his most interesting reviews extremely lengthy given how lackluster the viewing was and I was surprised that in comparaison, his "Kes" review (a film he adored) is one half the length of "Poor Cow".
And by the way, "Poor Cow" is a rather poor choice of a title, using a slur doubled with a demeaning adjective doesn't fill your heart with great excitement and the French title works better "No Tears for Joy", which somewhat echoes both the trajectory of Joy and the fact that at the end, we don't really feel sorry for her, nor that we wish her the worst but I personally wished Loach could have a solid story to work on. The film was adapted from a novel by Neil Dunn, so there was a material to explore and improvisation is never as good as when you prepare something.
Still, this is only a debut, according to Loach, it was rather difficult to transition from the TV format to the big screen, to handle cast and crew who come from both universes, to switch from the easily held 16mm camera to the heavier 35mm... and the result is that hybrid between cinema-verite and lyrical filming... but besides these technicalities, Loach learned (and the hard way) that you can't make meaningful films if the characters don't give a proper meaning to their lives, which Joy lacked too.